Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

Pro has done a great job summarizing my argument. However, in citing of Kenya, French Revolution, and Russia examples, Pro may mistakenly believe that the majority vote is the manifestation of the democracy. It is admitted that the rights ordained by the majority may not necessarily appear to be fair to the minority, but neither can Pro deny the fact that minority can be adequately protected under the democracy. The United States Constitution, for example, does not establish a single unified "Congress;" instead it vests legislative powers in a Congress which consists of a Senate and House of Representatives. When Congress acts, it must act in a bicameral way. The House functions on a majoritarian basis while the Senate cannot take action without a bipartisan support due to procedures like the filibuster. The two chambers of Congress are constitutionally designed to be in constant tension and competition with each other, so that they can serve as checks on one another. A majority vote in the House may not pass the the Senate given the fact that Senate minority can filibuster the bill whenever they are under the impression that their voices are not heard. As a result, the Senate enters litigation only when there is a broad and bipartisan support within its chamber. The United States system, therefore, would sufficiently protect the minority view while the consensus is made. My opponent also suggests that God is absolute necessary for real principals. I would respectably disagree. Principles under discussion include fairness, equitability, and health. Under the democracy, all the principles therein are protected though Judicial system (judicial review). Justices are immune from the national politics and their functions are to speak for the law i. e. , human desires. Justices are guided by reasoning, and reasoning alone. Plaintiff and defendant are required to present their cases in front of the justices, who act as impartial arbitrators. Justices are required to recognize the minority view (religion freedom for example) while also take the majority view into considerations. Under judicial review, citizens are allowed to sue government and numerous laws that are discriminately against the minority view (Marriage equality for example) have since been struck down. Therefore, fairness and equitability can derive their legitimacy from a secular source, and there is no need to restore to religions when an alternative is available. Besides, religions may even lead to human rights abuse. Recent protest in Egypt in response to President Morsi"s decree is one of the examples about how an individual, in the name of religious righteous, may attempt to abuse the power. Moreover, religious rules published by Vatican suggest that making woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child. [1] Salvation may lie in Jesus Christ, but Church"s views on the role of women are still deeply troubling. "The bible supports. .. can be taken away by its giver" My opponent suggests that God"s immutability may preclude him from being wiling to take the right away, even if he COULD. The word inalienable is defined as: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor (Oxford Dictionary). Palpably, if God has the capability to remove a right from an individual, regardless of his willingness, that right is necessary alienable. Equality and Liberty Christianity, in terms of its development, is no distinction from other religions. Roman emperors, like Greek kings, alway identified themselves with divine patrons. Constantine's own father revered the Unconquered Sun (paganism) a step towards monotheism. But the choice of the Christ was not inevitable - it depends purely on Constantine"s personal whim. In 312, Manichaeanism and Mithraism were no less popular than Christianity. Constantine could just as easily have chosen one of these and people today - and Europe, perhaps even America might today be Mithraistic or Manichaean. [2] Rome emperor embraced religions in guiding his troops and fulling his ambitions. Whether it is paganism or Christianity would not alter the fact that religions were political tools. "Leviticus 19:15" I have came to realize that I may have made a terrible mistake by suggesting that Book of Leviticus does not any details of law. Therefore, I am willing to retract my previous arguments. However, Book of Leviticus explicitly speaks against homosexuality, which has been gradually accepted on the ground of Equal Protection. Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. " Therefore, it should still be debatable if God confers everyone an equal right. It is debatable if democracy would last forever. It appears that no government can exist forever. From ancient Rome to 18th century British monarchy, it seems that democracy would eventually give its way to anarchy or oligarchy, perhaps even dictatorship. However, this is not a debate about whether human rights can be sufficiently protected by all type of governments. As long as there is one example of secular government (democracy in the United States), it should not be unreasonable to conclude that human rights can find their safe haven under a secular government. In conclusion, under the democracy, human rights can have adequate justification. Thank you References [1]. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]. Jerusalem: The Biography by Simor Sebag Montefiore