The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

should a country make its laws based on religion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 61948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




I believe that man made laws should be made based on religion


I accept, looking forward to your arguments and welcome to the site.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you.

I believe that a country should make its laws on basis from religion provided that these laws are just and helps in

protecting and preserving the community.

People have always been in search of freedom, made laws that over the years that is neither fair nor strong.

over the years religion has been (in many eyes) the source that guides people in life.

for example: (referring to Islamic laws since I am a Muslim)

1) the death penalty: in many countries this penalty is forbidden because it is seen as to cruel as a punishment, but is it

not fair that when some one murders another that he deserves the same deed, then the benefits, A) the community has

removed a person that has caused great distress, B) a strong punishment has been given as an example to others who

would do the deed.

2) Usury (lending money with of the intention of getting it back more than it was ): in Islamic law this is forbidden due to

the fact the the one asking for the loan is in need and requires aid, hence abusing this person is unethical and not

preserving the community.

(I choose these 2 points to represent 2 of today's world problems , 1) security , 2) finance ).


Nothing in Pro’s statements demonstrate that religion should be the basis of laws. Even if we agree with Pro that the death penalty is a good thing and that interest on loans is exploitive this would in no way confirm that religion should be the basis of law.

Religions Often Have Cruel and Inhumane Commandments


The bible condones slavery, see Ephesians 6:5-8, and the early church and for many centuries afterward practiced slavery [1]. First Peter 2:18-21 encourages slaves to obey even cruel masters who beat them for no good reason. Exodus 21:20-21 says that you are allowed to beat your slave as long as he does not die within a couple days.

In the Old Testament the death penalty was a common requirement arguably for minor offenses. The death penalty was commanded for anyone who worked on Saturday (Exodus 31:15), worshiped another god (Deuteronomy 17:1-5) or ‘cursed’ his or her parents (Exodus 21:17).

The bible condones genocide on multiple occasions. In First Samuel 15:3 God commands the Israelites to kill the Amalekites making sure also to kill the children and infants. The God of the bible condones and commands immoral actions making is a poor basis for a set of laws.


The Quran commands mass slaughter of idolaters in 9:5, “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them” [2]. Muslims are commanded to attack Christians and Jews in 9:29. Verse 33:50 condones sexual slavery of women captured in war. Torture of captured pagans is commanded in verse 22:19-22 , “garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”

Men are commanded to beat their wives in verse 4:34 referring to them as property, “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property… admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them,” not only can you not get a loan under the Quran but you can also have your hands cut off for stealing, 5:38: "Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done-a deterrent from God.”

Why would we entrust religions with establishing laws when many of the commands in religious texts cannot even get the basic laws correct such as murder or laws prohibiting slavery?

The Death penalty and High Interest Loans are not Relevant

The United States is uniquely secular but we have the death penalty and a multitude of laws governing how loans can be handled in a lawful and mutually beneficial manner to protect consumers. What is the connection with religion? Beyond that, Pro has not offered evidence to suggest that the death penalty and a lack of loans are part of an ideal legal system.


Both the Quran and the bible contain unlawful immoral commands and they most certainly should not be the basis of the law in any country. Pro has simply assumed that the death penalty is a good thing and loans are not without establishing that these are related to religion.



Debate Round No. 2


1) The Quran commands mass slaughter of idolaters in 9:5, "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them"

Historical part:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context.
Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war.
Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or,
if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule;
however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious.

extra explanation :

This verse or these verses are specific to the time and place at which they were said (a time of war)

to this specific enemy (the Arabs and probably mecca) because when they waged war they waged war on their own

kin (the Muslims at first lived at mecca then fled because of the oppression, then mecca waged war on them).

simply put if you"re in war isn't it natural to kill your enemy.

2) Muslims are commanded to attack Christians and Jews in 9:29.

A Muslim messenger was sent to the Roman Empire (Christians) and was killed, the act of killing a messenger means a

declaration of war, as for the Jews they joined forces with mecca against the Muslims and they broke a peace pact.

extra explanation :

in Islam one is not allowed to fight non-Muslims except in certain conditions being oppressed, self defense, etc...

3) verse 33:50 does not mention slavery.
explanation :

4) verse 22:19-22 is about the punishment of hell (next verses talk about heaven).

5) verse 4:34 women beating :( )

it is a really a long long subject this page sums up the hole topic.

6) cutting hands of thieves verse 5:38.

FYI: the teaching of Islam is divided to three parts A)Quran, B)hadith, C)sunnah (anything related to the prophet, actions

History etc.....

As for the bible I cannot respond to the versus.

Sorry for the quick writing.

and this site: is not objective (except in misinterpreting a lot)

thank you for participating in my first debate hope to debate with you again.


2-D forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Alright. reward me with a response if I am wrong.

slavery: - slaves had houses. they were permitted to live int heir house so long as they worked. IN canada it is the same way. When I slave grew old they were not discarded. Yet today, u must pay the same taxes. A slave owner under a religion cannot abuse a slave without a moral reason. so it is not a bad thing for anyone. Slaves were often better of than many Americans

death penalty: The death pentality was instituted sot hat society did not collapse. Permitting adultery and gangs, which promote rape and abduction via a lack of morality which spreads without intent to all perverts in the land.

genocide: The Mali-do-da's. were a horrid people who were going to become a prominent problem of pillagers. To allow a child to survive would come up with a revenge instinct.

idolaters: Are those who disagree with God. To have any God set up against God means they seek another moral guide. Any moral guide set up against the truth only promotes rebellion, leading to rape and pillaging. inevitably.

women: are like a possession. They all wish it to be so. Only to respectful and Considerate men. a moral man**.
however the quote was specifying unfaithful idolaters and non believers. Not saying it was appropriate to beat women**
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Yes, the law should be based on Religion.

The Bible is not a guide line for any other nations laws except the Jews. Yet the religious quality is perfect.
Posted by Omar_Sadek 3 years ago
no problem looking forward to debate with you again

I have to go to work now :D

Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
Oops, sorry Omar I got busy at work and completely forgot about this.
Posted by Omar_Sadek 3 years ago
I fail to see where we disagree.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Omar. Finances are the root of all laws. At least that is the bible's take on it. " For the love of money is the root of all evil."All of those 8 commandments are there to counter financial decisionsDo not steal. Do not kill. Honor father and mother. This the first commandment with promise, you shall live long on the earth.. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.You shall not covet your neighbors wife. You shall not covet your neighbors goods.Breaking any of those commandments will have a financial impact on people.

Getting rid of the root of America, the ten commandments, has turned us from an independent society to a dependent society. From rugged individualism to a freeloader society.All of laws are there to influence monetary decisions. Even abortion has its roots in finance. Not wanting to do what needs to be done financially for mothers to raise there child.
Posted by Omar_Sadek 3 years ago
thanks Ragnar
Posted by Omar_Sadek 3 years ago
I agree with you that if a law is good then why not, but what decides if a law is good or bad, I am talking

about the standard that people can decide that a law is beneficial to the community or it is time to

change them.

I assume your talking about the finance part of my argument in your second sentence, I was giving a

basic example, if some one tries to manipulate the law then there should be methods to counter act

these manipulations.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
If it a good law, why not. The ten commandments are actually good laws. Maybe the first couple have some controversy. But even those have some validity. " Do not have any other God's ( providers ) before me. We went from that when so many people started making government there provider. Freeloading became a way of life.

And we are so smart. We now have 50,000 laws on the books to enforce the last 8 commandments.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Welcome to the site. Good luck on your first debate here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: In his only contribution Con showed that certain interpretations of religi?n could lead to unjust laws. Pro limited his answer to the common Mohammedan defence of his religion rather than providing a framework which would guarantee only those laws which tend to the common good would be passed. Arguments- Con. Conduct- FF
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Com forfeited final round.