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

Thanks, PCP. 1/a) Con says he finds secular ethics to be irrational and thus should not have to accept them. This has nothing to do with my contention. I asked what the rational explanation was for imposing beliefs on the basis of religion alone. Con responded that there is a logical basis for doing so "if that particularly religious belief is conducive to peace." This is a terrible argument; I've explained that people create laws for the sake of diplomacy and their own livelihood. The concept of espousing peaceful laws has nothing to do with god but the desire to live in a functional society. If people want laws for peace, it can easily be derived that peace is the moral option based on secular ethics. Con writes, "It is no good to point to specific religious beliefs like opposition to gay marriage as unjust and then argue from that that no religious ethics ought to be prioritized, because an analogous situation can drawn with secular ethics." This is a strawman; I never denied that evil can be done in the name of secularism. What I said in regard to gay marriage was: "The undeniable reality that [marriage is] also a political institution gives the religious arguments against gay marriage no basis, so why would one wish to impose their religious ethics into law from that?" Here Con misrepresented my point and did not address my question at all. In a secular society, it is much harder to implement bigoted laws because they would have to be justified by standards that didn't rely on circular logic such as "the Bible told me so." It's true that people have come to the same or other immoral conclusions using secular perspectives; however, as I explained in the last round, using secular reasoning leaves more room for rational discussion. When you say something is "god's will" then a theist will accept no reasonable answer to the contrary for nothing can truly challenge such an assertion. If what is or isn't god's will is disputed, it further proves god's will cannot be the sole basis for determining morality. 2) Werd. 3) Con writes, "If it's argued that religious ethics ought to be de-prioritized because not everyone is religious, then by the same token it ought to be that secular ethics ought to be de-prioritized because not everyone is secular." First, I've explained that one can apply whatever religious moral standard they wish to their own life. However laws are not limited to the religious or the secular -- they apply to everyone. Therefore it is non-sensical and tyrannical to impose specific religious beliefs onto non-believers. How would Con feel if only Muslim politicians were elected from here on out, and as such imposed all kinds of Islamic laws onto citizens? As a Christian, I'd imagine that Con would be deeply offended if not downright outraged that he was being forced to swallow a system that said politicians need not justify outside of the explanation "Allah says so." As such, religion alone cannot be the basis for the law; some other ethical standard ought to be considered in the process. That is not to say that the religious perspective is wrong, but simply that it needs to be justified for a reason outside of "god's will." Humanism posits determining and defending concepts of justice and morality not using a standard limited to a particular sect of believers, but that applies to equal respect for all of humanity, and demonstrates a moral standard applicable to all people regardless of creed. 3a) Con writes, "I did not make the claim that because there a variety of religious beliefs and ideals that we cannot know which ones are right or wrong." However in R1 I explained that it is logically impossible to either prove or disprove god, therefore it logically follows that we cannot know which beliefs are right and wrong whether Con said this or not. Con continues that since we can't disprove god, it doesn't make sense to apply secular ethics. I've explained that while we can't prove god's existence, we CAN prove the faculties of human reason. It's non-sensical to apply "god's will" when we don't know if god exists let alone god's desires, but it's perfectly sensical to apply human logic in determining law because we know (solipsism aside) that humans exist, reason exists, and that humans can rationally determine the laws they want to govern them. I completely disagree with Con's assessments here. First he says that religious ethics ought to be prioritized if they're the most conducive to peace. I've explained why religion alone should not be the basis for law making, and that a peaceful solution or alternative can be derived from secular ethics. Even in the instance where a secularist advocated war and a theist advocated peace, peace may be the moral option; however, saying peace is moral simply on the basis of religion is unjustified. Explaining why peace is moral for any reason outside of god's will advocates a secular perspective. Con says he has "the right to impose my standard of right and wrong on someone if I believe murder is wrong and that anyone who murders ought to be punished due to my standard." THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. First, Con himself has no right to dole punishment on anybody. Second, *murder is illegal* and society at large deems it a heinous, punishable offense by the government. As a theist Con might believe that fornicating in a church is immoral, but he has absolutely NO right to punish one for doing so according to his own standards lol that's simply not true. 3b) Con is under the impression that because a theist believed something, it must not be a secular concept. This again is false. Just because a theist stated something was immoral does not mean it's not a secular concept upheld by a religious figure. Also, Con quoting Tertullian proves nothing and certainly not that tolerance was a "theist's concept" considering pre-Socratic, atheist Greek philosophers advocated the same thing about 460 years before Tertullian [1]. 4) Con concedes that people misinterpret "divine command" and have all throughout history, so there's absolutely no reason to value something on the basis of it being divine command alone considering you don't even know what god's will really is! 4 a/b/c) This is irrelevant to the debate, but I'll bite considering Con completely misrepresented slavery in the Bible. It's true that many slaves were "indentured servants" as Locke described; however, this was ONLY FOR MEN and specifically excluded to non-Israelites [2]! They were released after 6 years *only if they were Jewish* and certainly not if they were women. The Book of Isaiah is explicit in that innocent children were forced into slavery on behalf of someone else. Also there was a difference between indebted slaves and those sold into slavery like Joseph (Genesis 37:25-28) or captured slaves from foreign land, as well as rampant rape and sexual slavery. Female slaves who were raped were subsequently whipped [3]. Women were *forced* to marry random, ridiculously older men against their will or face death. Please don't let Con delude you into thinking the Bible was anti-slavery. -- CONCLUSION -- It's true that the SoCaS primarily refers to not establishing a state religion; however, "Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be that Congress should not establish a religion, enforce the legal observation of it by law, or *compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience*" [4]. Con never denied the fact that god is NOT a prerequisite for morality. We can apply moral laws using secularism (this remains uncontested). We have no reason to presume we know god's desires (and we got it wrong many times in the past, apparently), so dictating law based on "god's will" is delusional and counterproductive. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...