Religious justifications regarding a proposed national/state law should be disregarded.

I. OP understanding of democracyMy opponent doesn't understand what democracy is, given several various comments. " Also, is it a true democracy when an issue is justified by religious reasons", "Democracy must rely on hard facts to truly be a democracy", ect. de·moc·ra·cy diG2;mäkrəsē/ noun a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Democracy is a system that represents the majority, for the majority, and built by the majority, under a free electoral system in which one has the right to elect his representatives. If democracy is rule by the majority, and the majority are religious, and want to justify laws based on religion, then they have every single right in doing so.Proposing that we shoud "discard" religious justifications, or any justifications at all, isn't democracy. It'sauthoritarianism. Look, I don't like bible thumping laws, or probably a lot of the things you have in mind, but can you honestly tell me that people shouldn't be allowed to explain religious justification? II. Religious Justifications cont.- Jewish adherents should be allowed to sacrifice a lamb once a month in temple. (Jewish progressives have been fighting for centuries to preserve religious traditions)- Homosexuals should be allowed to get married (Yes, this argument is religious. Christian homosexuals fight for this instead of civil unions)- Citizens should be allowed to wear crosses in public (Debate currently going on in France)- Students shouldn't be required to eat only pork in school lunches (Going on in several countries)My opponent obviously isn't grasping my points. Religious arguments have to be made, to protect religion itself. Just as secular arguments are needed to protect those who are not religious. You can not disregard the other side of an argument without oppressing that side. This is how we preserve the rights of the minority in a system where the majority rules.III. Liberty/Anti LibertyI still feel my contentions aren't being properly conveyed to the opposition. You can't give one man liberty without taking anothers away. Liberty IS NOT one sided. There will always be some who gain, and some who lose liberty with every law or desicion we make. The whole point of this contention is to show that liberties often get taken away from the religious, and who can protect the religious without religion itself? This is the only way to preserve liberty. By giving all social groups, religions, denominations, and beliefs a say in government. You can't choose which justifications are worthy in a law. End of story.IV. Secular Justification/The Secular argument is based on logicThis is a misconception. When I refer to secular, I was not reffering to those solely who don't worship in god. I'm saying that their are people out there who actively work against religion, just as their are people who actively work against atheism. By giving one the power of justification, and taking it away from another, is choosing sides in a war between anti theists and the ultra religious.Remember the 9/11 cross debate, where International Atheists or something (largely accused of anti-theism) tried to remove the WTC cross that was built by the local churches for worship? The only reason the bill was turned down was because people defended their right to worship at ground zero.That is an example of protecting relgious customs in the only way possible. Through religious justification. My opponent admits that religion is highly personal and should be taken seriously. If he concedes that religion and the practicices within it need to be taken seriously, then he must concede that the religious have the right to defend their way of life. This is true equality and democracy at work.V. Conclusion- My opponent went through the whole debate with the sole impression that all religiously justified laws are designed to take away from the secular. He did not consider that some laws can hurt the religious. I agree with the first point, but the latter is where his BOP collapses.- My opponent has misunderstood what democracy is, and made several arguments that giving the religious justifications in legality work against the minority. He did not consider that some religious may be a minority (Czeck republic, 85% atheist), or that taking away the right of justification is making them a minority. His BOP faltered greatly here.- My opponent conceded several times that the rights and practices of the religious should be taken seriously and be personal. His BOP outright falls, because he did not take into consideration that some laws can hurt the rights and practices of the religious.Overall, my opponent presented a strong case, but he left a couple large wholes that leaked the BOP right out of his argument. For the most part, I agree with the OP. Just not at the same level of affirmation my opponent wants to apply universally. Good debate, and cheers!http://www.religionnews.com...http://www.justice.gov...^ This one. The Department of Justice recognizes the right to protect religion as a civil right guaranteed under the constitution, as a article under the constitution of the United States of America.http://www.coe.int...^ Good one as well. The Council of Europe,guarantees the right and defense of the religious practices as a human right.http://www.eurojewcong.org...^ A congress of Jews dedicated towards the legal protection of religious worship and practiceshttp://blogs.justice.gov...^ Muslims are often discriminated and worked against for their customs. They must justify their practices by justifying their religious.http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://www.eeoc.gov...