tecoyah

Participants:

galenrox vs. Ivan The Terrible

Debate Monitor:

Enola/Alone

Topic:Separation of church and state/Religious freedom

Coin Toss: Ivan the Terrible goes first

Ivan The Terrible

Were do I post it?

__________________
"Miss quote? It's an outright fabrication!" Myself in response to Iriemon's post.

tecoyah

You post in here.....and it begins the debate

tecoyah

In an effort to jumpstart this debate, I will begin asking Moderated questions as in debate #2.


Moderator Question:

To Begin, Please tell us what place you feel Organized Religion holds in the legislative process of the United States? Do you feel this is an acceptable position for Religion to hold in Government?

Ivan goes first

Ivan The Terrible

Thank you tecoyah,

As we all know the debate about the separation between church and state has been a hot topic since its inception. The Founding Fathers in there wisdom declared that the government does not have the power to establish an official church. This is the only real separation I recognize.

I think that galenrox and I can agree to set our personal religious beliefs aside and debate the philosophy on which we base our laws. I believe only this approach can yield an informative dialog.



Organized religion plays a very involved role in the privet lives of the average US citizen. It should come to no surprise that Organized Religion has always been at the forefront of the American legislative process. By and large I think this has worked out the benefit of the United States in several ways. One such benefit on both a personal and national level is that religion has severed as a moral compass. Stating from our Nations founding , our collective sense of justices was derive form the ordnances held in the Bible. Religion severs its purpose to mankind by showing the path to true love, peace and wisdom. When involved in government affairs it should sever as an adviser to the minds of the legislators. I believe that it has played such a role in the United States, and should continue to.

galenrox

I think an important distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between religious beliefs and organized religion. Religious beliefs are very important in the legislative process as a source of morality. It would be unreasonable and unwise to ask for a system where people couldn't address their religious beliefs on issues where they are very relevent, such as the death penalty, abortion, poverty, etc.
Organized religion is not the same as religious beliefs. If you show me 50 different catholics, I'll show you 50 different beliefs on God, how their beliefs in God translate to politics, and how much God should be considered in their politics.

And we need to remember that the following of the doctrines of organized religion is completely voluntary, while the following of the laws of the United States is mandatory. Also, we need to acknowledge that those who accept religious doctrines accept them into all parts of their lives, parts where the Government has no business going.

Organized religion has no place in government, religious values do. It's cool for the president to seek advisory from the Pope, since the pope is a very wise man, but to take "The catholic church says this is wrong" as a justifiable call for legislation is wrong.

__________________

tecoyah

Moderator Question:

At what point does the legislation of personal, heartfelt belief, become a detriment to those that might not follow the same path?

Galen goes first

galenrox

I'd have to say the line for legislation needs to be drawn when the act no longer effects those that are opposed to the act. I know this is a vague classification, since there are varying degrees of broadness in interpreting what effects someone, but unfortunately everything dealing with religion is vague.
The line essentially has been crossed when your legislating worrying about people's immortal souls, or legislating based on your religious morals with no other backup. For example, I think sodomy laws cross the line, because the only purpose in banning sodomy is obeying religious ideals, and preventing an act that is viewed as a sin. On the other hand, depending on your belief on whether or not a fetus has a soul and is alive, abortion would be valid area for debate, since if a fetus is alive, then protecting it is not only a religious issue, since as a society we've agreed that killing an innocent human being is wrong, and we believe this secularly along with religiously.

Essentially, if there is no valid secular argument (which in and of itself could convince people to your side) accompanying your religious argument, you're crossing the line.

Ivan The Terrible

Thank you tecoyah,

I pretty much agree with galenrox. The only thing I would be doing is restating his post.

tecoyah

Moderator Question:

In what ways do you see the use of organized religion becoming a threat to the stablility of a society?

Ivan goes first