The Instigator
Putt-Putt
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should We Allow Religion To Create Public Laws?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Weiler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 38396
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Putt-Putt

Con

First round acceptance
second round arguments
third round rebuttals
fourth round arguments and rebuttals
Weiler

Pro

I accept and look forward to a spirited respectful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Putt-Putt

Con

I appreciate the Pro for accepting the topic, and will start off my argument with the main topic of separation of church form state.

America was founded based on the beliefs that church should not control the state. The pilgrims, who separated from England due to the suppression of religion are thanked for the founding of this great country, and we almost turn their beliefs around, and allow religion to control many aspects of our every day life.

Many governmental choices, such as the ban on gay rights, a topic more recent, all the way back to slave ownership. Both of these laws were backed by the premise of "The Bible Says It Is/Isn't Okay." If we are going to make laws based on religion, we should follow that premise wholeheartedly, and not pick and chose which laws to make and which to ignore.

Allowing religion to control our government will only do to allow many unsatisfactory laws to pass congress. With the ideas of separation of church from state, we should follow them, and allow our citizens to vote on laws based on beliefs and opinions instead of taking them straight out of the Bible, or other religious texts.

I again thank my opponent for accepting the topic, and look forward to his response.
Weiler

Pro

My opponent first argues that the pilgrims separated from England and founded this country on the basis of a separation of Church from State and that we have "almost turn their beliefs around".

The Pilgrims separated themselves from England by distance only, and remained loyal subjects of that nation and it's monarch. Also they believed they were following the will of God in such a venture. One can be thoroughly convinced of this simply be reading the Mayflower Compact:

"IN the Name of God, Amen. We whose Names are under-written, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Soveraign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defendor of the Faith &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Countrey, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, Covenant and Combine our selves together into a Civil Body Politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Soveraign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty fourth, Anno Dom. 1620."

Furthermore their legislation reflected their religion clearly and imposed it on all citizens. [1][2]

It is interesting to note that the pilgrims considered ALL of the following to be Capital (Death Penalty) Offenses [1][2]:

Idolatry
Blasphemy
Worship of any God other than the God of the Bible
Sodomy (homosexual intercourse)

My opponent goes on to argue "Allowing religion to control our government will only do to allow many unsatisfactory laws to pass congress. With the ideas of separation of church from state, we should follow them, and allow our citizens to vote on laws based on beliefs and opinions instead of taking them straight out of the Bible, or other religious texts."

Unsatisfactory to whom? We live in a representative republic. The people elect their lawmakers. A law that is unpopular enough would soon be repealed after a subsequent election. Allowing citizens to vote base on beliefs and opinions actually defeats your argument since we live in a society that is majority religious.[3]

Sources

1. The Laws and Liberties of New Hampshire (http://oll.libertyfund.org...)
2. The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (http://oll.libertyfund.org...)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Putt-Putt

Con

I thank the Con for his swift and compiled response.

I will take this round to further back my previous arguments.

The nation was founded upon separation of church and state as previously stated. I would like to point out that Con in the above argument, has not provided evidence to support the argument of disproving this.

I would also like to point out to the voters that the above argument was based on the times of pilgrimage. Con also states that we live in a society that is highly religious, but he provides no evidence to support the amount of religious practices on a daily basis. Christianity is the largest religion in the country, with a 74% of population "following" the religion. But how many would actually practice those beliefs on a daily basis?

We have a 20.8 % of population who is unaffiliated with other religions, and 4 % of that are followers of other religious groups. Making laws completely based on one religion is unconstitutional, as the first amendment of the Constitution states "Freedom of religion, press, expression."

Allowing this freedom of religion would need to be shared equally. We have no laws made by Hindu beliefs, Buddhist beliefs, or other world religions. If the country is to make laws based on Christianity, we need to make laws based on all world religions, otherwise this is noted unconstitutional.

I appreciate the time taken by Con for this argument.

http://religions.pewforum.org...

http://www.usconstitution.net...
Weiler

Pro

I argued from the time of pilgrimage because this is the argument my opponent opened with:

"America was founded based on the beliefs that church should not control the state. The pilgrims, who separated from England due to the suppression of religion are thanked for the founding of this great country, and we almost turn their beliefs around, and allow religion to control many aspects of our every day life."

I believe my rebuttal was completely on point in regards to my opponent's opening.

My opponent, however has failed to show any legal separation of church and state other than that the federal congress may not establish one.

Our laws have consistently been based on the general morals of the populace, which in turn is informed by their deeply held religious beliefs. When my opponent stated the statistics on religious affiliation, he only proved my point that the populace is reflected in our law.

When my opponent says "Con also states that we live in a society that is highly religious, but he provides no evidence to support the amount of religious practices on a daily basis", he is rebutting an argument I did not make. I did not contend that the large majority of the populace actually participates in the rituals of their current religion, but that they held the beliefs and morals espoused by such.
Debate Round No. 3
Putt-Putt

Con

Putt-Putt forfeited this round.
Weiler

Pro

*sigh*. I hate FFs.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Religious Fundamentalists are the least Rational, thus the least Intelligent people on the Planet.
The more fundamentalist a Theist is, the more Irrational (faith based) decisions they tend to make.
This is extremely bad for any Nation.
Thus Religious Fundamentalists should never lead, nor make rules for any Nation, to allow this is inviting certain disaster. History has proven this with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini who not only created problems for his faith (made Islam appear intolerant and idiotic) but made his Nation (Iran) appear equally idiotic.

Only highly Rational people should lead Nations and make Laws/Rules.
Highly Rational people are usually the Least Religious or Secular Individuals.
Thus, allowing Religions to make rules for any society is completely Ludicrous.
Bound to create division, intolerance and even Social conflicts/war.
History is full of evidence for this.
It's the reason that the US founding fathers chose Secularism in the first place.
They looked at the history of Europe and knew the problems Religious leadership created.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Volcanoes13 3 years ago
Volcanoes13
Putt-PuttWeilerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used history and more convincing arguments