args

Church and State should remain separate.

Hello, I would like to start off by saying this is a good topic for debate that I would love to take part in. First off, I feel some things need to be defined before we can start arguing so we have a more specific premise of debate. If you disagree with my definitions then feel free to post your own. I will be defining religion as a set of morals or belief system that involves a deity (god to enforce or create such beliefs). I feel philosophy should also be defined, which is, in general, a set of morals or truths or process for determining morals or truths. First I would like to point out you're right about the 1st amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean that religious people can't vote based on personal conviction? When it comes down to it that's the way everyone votes, but if there's a god involved then is it not okay? Honestly, here's the truth, when a god is not involved there is no such thing as moral truth or universal morality. There's no way to put one philosophy on top of the other because there's no ultimate justice. Just as Immanuel Kant said, there must be an afterlife for justice, otherwise things we see as immoral can be left unpunished. So if there isn't an afterlife there is no passing of judgement for actions. This is important because now we are left with a lot of beliefs and no way to prove any of them are right. What then is the best way to determine policy? The best way to do that is voting your belief and seeing which one comes out on top at the polls. If someone votes a Christian into office or a Muslim into office, then that's the decision of the body of voters. Under the representative system, this person is chosen to represent a body of people who share similar beliefs or desires as him or her. It would actually be a political atrocity for him or her to vote in a way other than his or her personal beliefs about a situation, because the people who elected him share those beliefs. I'm going to argue under the premise that God doesn't exist. Now I argue moral relativism, which I define simply being that morality is relative to the individual. Essentially, since there is no point in anything we do, whatever one feels to be right is what's right. Therefore, the only immorality is that which you do and feel to be wrong. So if someone votes in a way they don't feel is right just because they're forced to then that is a moral atrocity. For my final point, I would like to point out the logical contradiction in the policy. If we take away any religion, we are left with an atheist government. What's the problem with that? We are not establishing a religion, but we are establishing a belief system, which clearly contradicts the first amendment. When it comes down to moral issues, representatives and voters will have no choice but to vote within the debatable premise of atheism alone, and they will be restricted to that belief whether they like it or not. It would be a constitutional atrocity.