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

In America, we use John Locke's concept of the social contract theory to determine law. Locke argued that the government could not act on behalf of a collective conscience, and that individual conscience must be protected from government authority [1]. As such, religious differences ought to be tolerated. The concept of a separation between church and state therefore refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state [2]. In other words, it becomes not only unconstitutional but downright unethical to allow the beliefs of one particular religion to dictate the law that governs all citizens. As such, a different standard of ethics must be applied to law. Secular Humanism is a philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision making. It is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives morally consistent with the ethics that govern their fellow man [3]. It should be noted that secular ethics do not necessarily oppose or inherently contradict religious ethics. Certain sets of moral beliefs, such as the golden rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be held by both positions and mutually agreed upon [4]. Let's consider the reality that not everybody believes in the same god (or rules), yet laws are intended to govern all citizens regardless of creed. As such, the first problem in prioritizing religious ethics is not knowing which religious ethics to follow. Using secular ethics, we can find ways to determine moral codes of conduct applicable to all people without showing a preference or tolerance for one religious perspective over another. For instance, Buddhists typically stand united in defense of legalizing gay marriage [5], while fundamental evangelicals vehemently rally against it [6]. Some even rightly point out that homosexuals would be condemned to death if people applied Biblical law to constitutional law, which stands contrary to the moral code espoused by groups such as the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, if we plan to prioritize religious over secular reasoning, one of the most pressing concerns is not knowing which religious doctrine to adhere to. Imposing one particular creed on citizens against their will is tyranny, and why many original settlers came to America in the first place. Another problem lies in the fact that no human nor scientific measure can either prove or disprove the existence of god [7]. As such, we have no reason to apply religious ethics over secular ethics when secularism is based on tangible, verifiable standards, and the basis for religious ethics is questionable, at best. Also, remember that religious ethics and secular ethics do not always disagree. When they do, we must realize that secularism offers a reasonable and logically sound basis for determining ethics, making it is a morally superior standard to something we cannot fully rationalize. These concerns make religion an insufficient standard for law making. Con may try to argue that law should dictate right and wrong, therefore if the secularist position is wrong and the religious position is right, that the religious standard ought to be prioritized over the secular. First, how would it be determined that the secular position is wrong? I contend that secular reasoning would generally lead to this observation. Nevertheless, one must consider why law was derived in the first place. When people live together in society, disputes inevitably arise. There are only two ways to resolve these disputes: violently or peacefully. Because violence has high costs and produces unpredictable results, human beings naturally seek peaceful alternatives [8]. As such, laws are created to resolve discrepancies in the way people live, act and trade. Rules that govern these aspects of life need not be determined by a supreme being or creator, but are in fact feasibly reconciled by the rational individuals who determine the necessity of law in the first place. In short, legislative law exists solely for our convenience to live peacefully in a functional society. If one chooses to follow a religious code of moral conduct, they are free to do so in their personal lives. However considering there is no evidence for god nor is there absolute evidence to prove that the Bible or any other religious book accurately portrays god's desires, then again we come to the conclusion that secular ethics ought to be prioritized in the legislative process. There we have concrete answers to reconcile disputes whereas with religion we do not. Furthermore, let us consider the ways in which sometimes religions call upon people to (violently) harm others or contradict modern science or standards of morality. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong rightly points out, "...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people" [9]. This is proof that upholding religious ethics can have devastating effects on individuals and even entire nations. Religious ethics are not infallible or able to be defended as inherently righteous simply by applying the word "god." Moreover, there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not morality is objective or subjective [10]. Even if morality is indeed objective, it does not have to be rooted in religion. There are many philosophies that espouse an objective standard of morality without relying on god(s) as a divine law giver [11]. Still, the fact that there is such a widespread dispute about the nature of ethics and morality proves that human beings - whom laws are intended to govern - should have an active say in the rules that govern their lives. If they don't, they are nothing more than oppressed slaves. Philosophers all through the ages have widely agreed that self-governance was a good, moral standard [12]. Even if one looks to religion to evaluate their own ethics, I fail to see why everyone shouldn't have that same opportunity to either choose or not choose whether or not religious ideals will play a part in their standard of life. If not, what right do believers have to impose that standard upon them? I eagerly look forward to Con's questions and rebuttal. == Re-Cap of Arguments == 1. We can't prove god exists making it an irrational basis for morality. 2. Even if god(s) existed, his/her exact desires are disputable. 3. Following religious dogma has been problematic in the past. 4. The law is applicable to everyone, yet religious beliefs on morality vary and we don't know which are right. 5. The government cannot speak on behalf of all religious morality. 6. The government imposing religion is oppressive tyranny. 7. A separation of church and state is right and necessary to respect rights. 8. Secular humanism is a logical philosophy with reasonable ethics. 9. We are capable and willing of governing ourselves ethically using this system. 10. Conclusion: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process. [1] Feldman, Noah. Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: 2005. pg. 29 [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...