Religion and politics should never be combined

Religious Politicans for the Religious “I find this argument to be valid under certain circumstances.” Then this should be enough for a Con win, seeing as the resolution states that religion and politics should -never- be combined and I have made a case for religion and politics being combinable under “certain circumstances”. “Firstly, you are right; in a Democratic society, the most popular opinion/person SHOULD win. However, this is not always the right (fair, equal, civil) anwser. As you may recall, not too long ago, women did not have many rights, and this was because of democracy. The most popular opinion back then was that men should have more power than women. Obviously, as we know today, everyone has the right to be treated equally. The point is, democracy can be extremely biased, and although it is impossible to please an entire country, a government should give all races, genders and orientations equal rights.” On the topic of Women’s Rights, what if religious women did not want the right to vote? What if they genuinely believed that voting was not for women? Genesis 3:17 says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” “He will rule over you” could be interpreted as men having to right to vote and women not having that right. Would it not be ‘good’ if then a government did not allocate voting abilities to women? Could we not have a system where religious women (whom believe they don’t have to right to vote) can’t vote and non-religious women have the option to vote? That would allow for religion in politics AND ‘good’ policies, would it not be? “Now, this is why I oppose to a government that combines democracy and religion: Say you have a country of 100 people. Maybe about, 60 are Christian, 20 are gay, 15 are atheist. Out of the 20 that are gay, 10 are Jewish, and the other half are Budhist. Let's say they were all voting to pass a law for Gay rights. 50/60 Christians vote against gay rights, and the rest, 45 people, vote for. So, you have the group of people who come from many different ethnic backrounds who all agree, but do not have the majority vote. Then, you have the majority vote, who all share the same religious beliefs. So, of course, the group of Christians would win the vote. However, is it fair? Does it represent the entire country? Did everyone get a fair chance? That's your call.” Would it be fair if the minority won the vote? This seems to be a fault of Democracy that could be unfair even if it were the other way around. Personal Religion “This is where I can't really draw a line anywhere. Yes, technically, even as an Atheist, you are religious. Your beliefs are to believe in science, and therefore you have religious beliefs.Of course, some "religions" have a better (equal, fair, civil) sense of moral than others, that can most certainly be applied to everyday life. It's the other half of every Bible that makes me cringe. So why not vote for Atheism? It's the most unbiased point of view out of all of them.” I hate to play the semantics game, but Atheism merely details lack/rejection of belief in god/gods [1][2][3]. Atheism is often tied to science because people derive their lack of beliefs in god/gods from science. Science tells them that there is no need for good, or that the idea of god should be rejected. You still may have beliefs as an Atheist, but if you were purely an Atheist and believed in nothing else, you wouldn’t have beliefs. This being said, a vote for Atheism means a vote for a rejection of god/gods, which leaves us nowhere to go in terms of policies (as it only tells us what to avoid, if anything). My Second Argument: Religion doesn’t always preach the neglection of infidels, you could make one up right now that doesn’t! Besides, Christianity goes on about “lov[ing] thy neighbour,” even if some of its members do the exact opposite. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.infidels.org...