Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

He has four main contentions in response to my arguments, which I will break down numerically for clarity: 1) One doesn't need proof for a certain class of beliefs in order for them to be considered rational. ----> In order to be considered a rational belief, it must be consistent with known facts in reality and adhere to the laws of logic [1]. To me and many others, the concept of god does not fall within either or both of those categories. While Con's link attempts to present logical arguments for the existence god, that alone is not enough to present a logical basis for certain religious beliefs. For instance, I pointed out in the last round that most Christians are vehemently opposed to gay marriage. While the argument that marriage is a religious institution has merit, the undeniable reality that it's also a political institution (consider the innumerable political effects of marriage) gives the religious argument against gay marriage no basis, so why would one wish to impose their religious ethics into law? Many Christians, especially Evangelicals, are also opposed to civil unions [2]. What logical or rational basis is there for imposing one's oppressive beliefs onto another non-believer on the basis of religion alone? 2) Secular ethics are just as unreliable as religious ethics considering there are many secular systems. ----> There are many religious systems, and I never suggested Con must defend one or all of them. Instead, I posit that he must defend espousing religious ethics in determining law on the basis of religion alone instead of applying secular reasoning. This also means that I don't have to defend every secular ideal. Instead, I have to explain why using secular reasoning is preferable. This leads us to Con's next point. .. 3) If it is to be argued that religious ethics shall be de-prioritized because America is a religiously diverse nation then by the SAME token it can be argued that secular ethics should be de-prioritized due to America being a secularly diverse nation. Not everyone will endorse the same secular ethical theory, so it'd be unjust for any legislative process to be influenced by a particular secular theory. ----> This is a straw man of Pro's position. Here Con says that a particular secular ethical theory would be applied, when the resolution only contends secular ethics (reasoning from a secular basis) be applied. In other words, that human faculties such as logic, reason, or moral intuition be used to determine law, instead of law making being derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance. It makes NO such mention of ANY secular theory over another, and simply contends that god be left out of the legislative process. Con's contention only helps prove my case. He acknowledges that there are all kinds of religious beliefs and ideals, so it follows we do not know (can not prove) which is right and which is wrong. Moreover, Con hasn't told us why one has any right to impose their standard of right and wrong upon another. My supposition that god should be left out of law making therefore makes even more sense according to Con's concession of religious diversity. Murray Rothbard once said, "It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright. " In the last round I pointed out the purpose of law and how it was derived: out of necessity to solve disputes, for our convenience to live peacefully in a functional society. Here Con tries to say that because both religious and secular diversity exists (in terms of ethics), we have no reason to prioritize the secular. However this is completely false; we have every reason to prioritize the secular in order to respect people's right to adhere to their own belief system - religious or not. This is a SECULAR concept. A religious legal system (theocracy) would promote espousing one objective belief stance over another. However we can come to the secular rationalization (and have, since the inception of this country) in personal freedoms including the liberty to adhere to one's own moral standard. If Con, as a Christian, does not believe in abortion, then he need not have one (or instruct his girlfriend/wife to get one). However he has yet to explain why he should have the authority to enact his religious belief into legislation. Furthermore, in the last round I pointed out that religious ethics and secular ethics were not always at odds. The concept to be considered in this debate is the basis of reasoning. Should human rationality be the basis of reasoning for law making, or should god? Well even if the religious belief that abortion is wrong is the correct objective moral standard, I've contended that we can come to that realization using secular reasoning. This again leads us nicely to Con's final point. .. 4) We have no reason to prioritize secular over religious ethics, because both systems have led to atrocities. ---> Applying secular reasoning leaves room for rectifying mistakes. Many religions presume god to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. As such they follow holy books verbatim regardless of how devastating the effects might be. Even the Christian Bible (New Testament) condones slavery in many instances; here's one -- "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" (Ephesians 6:5-9). Therefore, when Con says things like the abolishment of slavery were motivated by religious beliefs, I say nay. Something like the abolishment of slavery was fostered by secular rationalization which people decided to apply to Biblical and other religious teachings. Otherwise, if they followed the Bible explicitly, they'd be telling the slaves to obey their masters as they do Christ (which they did tell them back when slavery was still legal). Here we can see how the Bible could be explicitly used to defend legalized slavery. However, the "travesties" that Con mentioned - i. e. communism, fascism and nationalism (which is only his opinion -- many people love nationalism and communism, by the way) aren't even good examples of ethical institutions but political ones. Secular humanism seeks justice. Religious ethics seek "god's justice" but we don't even know if god exists or what god wants. We know human reason exists and that human beings want freedom, justice and certain rights. Therefore it is far more preferable and reasonable to make human law based on human reason. After all if we can't trust human reason, then we have no reason to accept religious philosophy considering the concept of god (and the "proof" Con tried to present for god) exists only as the result of human's capacity to reason that god exists. Point: I don't have to defend all secular philosophies just as Con does not have to defend all religious philosophies. Instead, I support secular ideals for law making. Secular humanism is simply the notion that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without being religious. Con has not proven in any way that this is not possible, or that we need to prioritize religious beliefs in order to come to the best legislative decisions. == Conclusion == Con has ignored my questions as to what authority the law has to force one's religious beliefs upon another's (which is oppressive, tyrannical and contrary to American standards of law). Instead he says secularism does the same thing. On the contrary, the secular notion of not imposing ANY religious belief on another is what I have advocated, i. e. upholding the notion of separation of Church and State. Also, one can use secular reasoning to determine which set of ethics is best instead of just accepting "god's law" or will. We don't need god for moral reasoning. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com...