Should legislation be made based on religious morality?
Debate Rounds (3)
Note: If what is said in religion coincides with what is stated in the Constitution, then that is obviously permissible.
Of course we can't have laws that grant favoritism to a particular religious sect over others, but I think we were set up as a society that permits legislation being passed based on an lawmaker's moral compass which can be given to them from religion.
A person's morals, whether they come from religion or through reason, influence the actions of the person. I don't think a person can quickly or easily divorce themselves from their morality to make legislation simply because their moral source is from religion rather than reason. I'm not arguing that religious law should be the basis for secular laws. Nor am I arguing that religious commandments should be enforced with federal/state/local legislation. I am arguing that there is legislation on which a person's set of morals decides how they vote and there is no way to get around that.
If a lawmaker is a secular-humanist, then the legislation they vote for/against is done so based on their non-religious source of morality. If a lawmaker's source of morality is religion, then the legislation they vote for/against is done so based on religious morality. I don't think a person, religious or not, is capable of divorcing themselves from their moral convictions. Obviously this can be done on legislation that doesn't have strong moral convictions, like whether to rename a particular highway. Let's take the issue of torture for example. When voting on legislation to permit the use of torture, I don't think you could get people to not look at the issue without their perspective on the issue being tainted by their particular moral outlook. Hot-button issues like that are going to have people vote according to their morality, and it would be wrong to forbid only the religious lawmakers from basing their decision on their morality simply because their moral source differs from others.
Morals guide a person's actions and will influence how they vote on legislation, so a lawmaker's religious morality should be allowed to help form legislation just as an atheist lawmaker's morality via reason should be allowed to help them vote on legislation.
The question being addressed in this debate is this; should legislation be made based on religious morality? To answer this question we must remind ourselves what it is to make legislation. Legislation is made by writing bills, and by voting on the bills. Pro and I have already agreed that voting on bills (the final step in making legislation) often requires guidance from each voting official's moral code, and more often than not that moral code has religion as its source. To put this another way a lawmaker's vote on to make legislation would be based off their morality, religious or otherwise. Pro and I have also agreed that it is difficult, if not impossible, for one to divorce oneself from one's own moral code. Therefore it seems to me a settle issue when it comes to utilizing religious morality to make legislation via the voting process.
The first part, drafting legislation, is yet to be agreed upon. If one can vote using one's morality, then what mechanism is there within the individual to allow them to abandon their morality when it comes to drafting bills. Drafting legislation is a duty of legislators that feel something new is needed, something needs to change, or something needs reform. Legislators have their country's best interests in mind when drafting legislation. Is it even possible for legislators to separate themselves from the guidance of their morality when drafting what they feel is supposed to lead their country in the best direction? If we both agree they can use their morality to vote legislation into law, then we must also allow legislators to use their morality when they are drafting the legislation which is to be voted on.
Legislation is made by writing bills and voting them into laws. When lawmakers are guided in authorship by their moral code, or when they vote to make legislation law they are basing their decision to make that legislation on their morality. Lawmakers may get their morality form different sources, including religion and reason, and their morality (no matter the source) is an integral part in the basis and formation of legislation. Part of what keeps a lawmaker basing legislation on the best interest of the nation is their own moral obligation to serve their constituency to their best ability. If we force lawmakers to abandon their morals, whether based on religion or reason, it would have devastating consequences on public policy. In short, we currently allow legislators to base legislation on their morality and it is in the best interest of the country to allow them to continue to do so, no matter is the source is religious or rational.
Thanks for the debate, it has been wonderful.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never responded to Con's argument regarding homosexuality and de facto establishment of religion, which was a strong point; this is why I give Con points for arguments. I almost did not however, because he contradicted himself in his final round, agreeing that lawmakers shouldn't have to divorce morality from their legislation, and then promptly going on to make the aforementioned point. This would be a problem, but Pro failed to point this out, so I am comfortable in awarding Con arguments. Pro receives points for S&G because of his superior formatting in terms of paragraphing and idea structure. Con repeated the same idea with different words a couple times, and generally left everything in one big, ugly chunk.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.