The Instigator
bookwyrm
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JohnW
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 25333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

bookwyrm

Pro

This debate is not for the validity of the Bible or the existence of God, instead it's about if these viewpoints have any place in American politics. Politicians continually let their faith drive their policies, whether it's on abortion, education, our any of the plethora of other political topics that we face today. It even controls who gets nominated and elected sometimes. It is my position that politics and religion should be completely separate. It is how this country was designed. We live in a secular society. It will be up to my opponent to show why they feel it is alright for a politician to let their religion drive their policies. First round is for acceptance, arguments start in R2.
JohnW

Con

I agree with your premise (this is a secular country and there should be a staunch separation between church and state, etc.), but disagree with the conclusion you've drawn from it. I will argue that it is not only "alright" for politicians to discuss their faith, but it is their responsibility to do so. Furthermore, to address your penultimate sentence, because we task our leaders with using their best judgement in leading our society, I will argue that we should look upon politicians who ignore their own viewpoints in policymaking with suspicion—leadership requires judgement, and if we ask our leaders to ignore their personal views for any reason, we are essentially crippling their ability to judge, and, therefore, lead.
Debate Round No. 1
bookwyrm

Pro

I never said that a politician couldn't "discuss" their religion, just that it shouldn't influence their policies. As to what you said about "If we ask our leaders to ignore ignore their personal views for any reason, we are essentially crippling their ability to judge, and therefore, to lead.", I firmly disagree with this statement. I feel it is their duty to ignore their personal views in favor of what is best for the country. For example, take Mike Huckabee and his war on public education. It's perfectly fine for him to not believe in evolution, but taking it out of school in favor of creationism is not what's best for the country as a whole. Besides that, if a politician has certain religious viewpoints about abortion, why should they be able to force those viewpoints on the rest of us through legislation? Take a hypothetical situation. Assume we have a Hindu president. Should he our she be allowed to outlaw the consumption of beef? Or a Jewish president do the same with pork? Of course not, because the rest of us might not have qualms about such meat. It all comes down to the fact that in a country as diverse as this one, any specific legislation based on a religious belief is unfair to citizens who don't share that belief.
JohnW

Con

I understand your argument, and in many ways appreciate it, but I think you're overlooking a few key factors. I wholeheartedly agree with your appraisal of Mike Huckabee; as an atheist and scientist, I am infuriated when I hear about religious lunatics like him trying to wage war on scientific study. However, I respect his policymaking—I just disagree with the premises on which they're based.

Let me begin with one your statements:
"I feel it is [politicians'] duty to ignore their personal views in favor of what is best for the country."

Unfortunately, some things aren't so black-and-white. We don't always know what's best for our country—we all have opinions, but it's hard to convert these into indisputable facts. As an atheist who has spent the majority of his life studying physical sciences, I, of course, firmly believe that evolution should be taught in schools and that "creationism" is a threat to the next generation's ability to grasp even the simplest concepts of biology. As you well know, however, Mike Huckabee would respectfully disagree with my point of view.

Should Huckabee be elected to the presidency in 2016, one could safely assume that he was voted into office because the majority of voters identified with the beliefs and ideas expressed in his campaign. Therefore, he should have every right to make policies accordingly—including a war on public education, a ban on homosexual marriage, and a federal Chick-Fil-A holiday.

Would these policies be best for our country? Of course not. You and I would likely scream in outrage. But we live in a democracy, in which people are allowed to live under the rules created for and by themselves.

Judgement is all about viewpoint. Of course, there are objective truths and falsehoods, but unfortunately that doesn't guarantee that all people will recognize them. If all policymaking came down only to what is right and wrong for our country, we wouldn't have a democracy—we'd have a dictatorship run by a supercomputer capable of quantitatively determining the best course for our nation. Instead, we have a democracy, which is run by imperfect humans who make mistakes and irrational judgements. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got. We elect leaders into office when we identify with them; when we see that their IDEAS for what is best for our country are similar to ours. If Mike Huckabee runs on a platform of turning our country into a christian-right propaganda machine, and the electorate agrees with his message, then they are essentially signaling to him that they trust his judgement on policy matters based on the personal views he has expressed.

If we shouldn't elect candidates into office based on their personal beliefs, what should our votes be based on? In such a world, it wouldn't matter whether we were voting for Democrats or Republicans; we could just throw any old puppet into office and have them create policies based on the results of the latest public opinion polls. This is a representative democracy; we elect people who have personal views that accurately represent our own. I would vote for Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins to represent me; one of my best friends would likely literally try to vote for Jesus as a write-in candidate. As you said, we live in a very diverse country—this makes it impossible for all of our views to be represented. Therefore, voters have to compromise. President Obama's opinions aren't identical to mine. Until very recently, his official opinion on gay marriage was that his faith told him it was an "abomination." He's not a perfect representative for me. But I accept our differences, and I will gladly vote for him in November because he is a better representative than Mitt Romney would be.
Debate Round No. 2
bookwyrm

Pro

bookwyrm forfeited this round.
JohnW

Con

Although my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll decline to use this opportunity to introduce any new points to the debate—I don't think it would be quite fair to make him play "catch-up" by moving to a new subject before he can respond to the current one. I'll simply summarize my arguments and give him one more chance in the fourth round to respond to them.

While we do have a secular constitution (and, therefore, a secular government), our constitution does not require religious beliefs to be restricted—in fact, some might argue that it requires the opposite.

When choosing our leaders, we base this decision on their beliefs and proposed actions; that is, we generally try to pick a candidate whose views best represent our own. Therefore, if a president is elected who runs on a platform of strict religious conservatism, we could rightly interpret his or her election as a general acceptance of the personal views expressed in the campaign. Because his or her views have been accepted by the electorate, we could therefore conclude that, in a democratic system, the leader should free to allow these views to inform his or her decisions.
Debate Round No. 3
bookwyrm

Pro

First off, I want to apologize for missing the last round. I have been busy lately. I would also like to thank my opponent for being so gracious about it. That being said, on with the show!! My opponent's argument was predicated on the fact that since we live in a democratic society, public opinion rules the day. Therefore, if the people elect a representative that espouses extremist religious views, then that's simply how it is. I do respect his point of view, and would even agree with him, were it not for our constitution. The fact is, the constitution takes precedence over even our democratic system. Con said that the constitution doesn't require religious beliefs to be restricted, but this is only true in the private sector. In government, the opposite is true. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". (1) Take abortion for example. If the government has a scientifically viable reason to criminalize abortion, then they are perfectly free to do so, however, if their only reason for doing so is from a viewpoint of religious obligation, then that would be respecting an establishment of religion. Right, wrong, democratic or not, the constitution stands. If you want an example of why it would be very bad to mix the two, you don't have to look any farther than Louisiana. The education voucher system they recently implemented uses government funds to send children to religious schools that teach things like dinosaurs and man coexisted, the Loch Ness monster is not only real, but disproves evolution, and that gays should have no more rights than pedophiles. (2) Any more need to be said?(1) Bill of Rights(2) http://m.motherjones.com...
JohnW

Con

I completely accept and agree with my opponent's explanation of the role of the constitution in our society. My point of disagreement lies in his quotation of this document.

As my opponent said, the first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The sentence, however does not end there. The framers of our constitution continued, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that, while congress is NOT allowed to declare an official state religion, financially support a particular religious organization, or require religious indoctrination in schools, etc., congress also shall NOT restrict religious beliefs or actions of citizens (so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others') (1).

Therefore, citizens of our country who choose to step in to leadership roles, who are elected into office by popular vote, are NOT required to suppress their religious views the moment they walk into the legislature—rather, the constitution requires that they are allowed to exercise these beliefs in the public domain if they so choose, so long as it does not result in "establishment" of their religion or any policies that may endorse particular religions over others. I'll use both of your examples to explain the difference:

Criminalization of abortion is not "establishment of religion." A particular religion (or even religion as a whole) isn't being "established," or even endorsed by such a policy—Christianity has no religious texts explicitly relating to abortion, nor do any other Abrahamic faiths. Whether the movement is religiously inspired is irrelevant; say, for instance, a certain politician is an adherent to a religion that mandates keyensian economics. Fiscal policy is, in and of itself, nearly as secular is you can get—therefore, such a candidate shouldn't be banned from supporting a liberal fiscal policy simply because it is associated with his religion. This is clearly an oddball hypothetical, but I use it only to demonstrate my point: The restriction requires policy itself to be secular—not the beliefs from which the policy is inspired.

Obviously, the Louisiana case is a grossly unconstitutional situation, because public money is used to financially support the beliefs of a particular religion. This is not merely a policy inspired by religion; it's simply a religious policy.

So, in conclusion, to address the motion of this debate:

Politicians don't need to keep their religious VIEWS out of their policies; they need to keep their religion out of them. On paper, this seems like a very subtle distinction, but it becomes much more clear when discussed in real-world terms, such as we have.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and thank all the readers for their attention. It's been odd for me to argue this side of the debate; as an atheist, I tend to be viciously against politicians who overtly flaunt their religion—however, I stand firmly convinced that, as much as I disagree with those people, they should (and do) have the right to express their beliefs and shouldn't be expected to suppress them when the time comes to make the decisions we've trusted them to make for us.

Sources:
(1) - http://law2.umkc.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
"I never asked for BOP" - BOP is what debates are judged on.
Posted by bookwyrm 5 years ago
bookwyrm
I never asked for BOP. I simply asked that Con said why they think it's alright. Burden of opinion, if you will. Besides, I didn't feel like waiting for someone else to start it.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Why doesn't the person with the burden of proof get to start the debate? How can pro start their case, without knowing what con is proving? This structure confuzzles me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.