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

First, some comments on a few of my opponent's answers. 1: My opponent didn't answer this question, so she seems to be the only advocate of Secular Humanism in existence. She alone has logically deduced that this theory is valid. But we obviously can't base a sound judgment on one person's testimony, so Secular Humanism is so far not verified. 2: The laws you blatantly cited from the bible. "Some even rightly point out that homosexuals would be condemned to death if people applied Biblical law to constitutional law…" You probably haven't read any significant portion of the bible, have you? There are many Biblical laws that Christian religions don't follow, such as the one aforementioned by my opponent. If you had read the Bible, you would know that Christ came in a few thousand years later and rescinded the Law of Moses, replacing it with the higher law of Christ. 3: It has a lot to do with the science of the day, and yes, a lot to do with logic. One observes that a heavy object is more difficult to pick up from the ground than a lighter one. Therefore, since the heavy object is more attracted to the Earth, it would logically fall faster toward it than the lighter object, which is not as attracted. Of course, this is all BS, but in Aristotle's time it was logic. 4: Prove every secular philosophy to be true beyond doubt, and I'll agree with you. 5: You talk about oppressing homosexuals in your case, how it's a horrible thing, and now you further that oppression. That, my audience, is true hypocrisy. 7: No, it's not about applying religious law, it's about applying religious ethics in the legislative process. You claim protesting is equivalent to hate speech? That's very narrow-minded. You say in your arguments that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, and yet you spout evolutionist rhetoric like a fountain. The ‘plethora of evidence' you mention is not evidence; merely outcomes of experiments that seem to compliment Darwin's theory (that he created without a shred of evidence). The theory was there, and those scientists that advocate it see facts because they want them to exist. 9: It's an example, so you can't flaunt your fond excuse of "completely useless." You don't seem to understand ethics very well, do you? The point is that you wouldn't KILL 9,999 people to PREVENT the deaths of 10,000. I highlight the verbs so my opponent can wrap her mind around this sentence. 10: Please extend my answer regarding why this question is both absurd and useless from #4. I will give my own case, and then cross-reference my arguments back to my opponent's. Resolutional Analysis- The actors of this resolution are one of two: voters or elected representatives. This resolution says basically that the actors of the resolution should act on secular ethics first and religious ethics second. So, if the actors of the resolution are the voters, the resolution is saying that people should ignore their religion, and vote secular instead. If the actors are the elected representatives, then the elected representatives should not vote according to their conscience, but to someone else's conscience. 1: All the impacts my opponent has (Religions kill people, theocracies kill and oppress people, if He exists then God is a taskmaster and we are his slaves if we follow his laws, etc.) are easily rebuked by this simple resolutional analysis. There will be no governmental oppression of religions. All I'm saying is: if you're religious, you shouldn't be a hypocrite and vote against your religion. If you're not religious, then your religious ethics aren't going to get in the way of secular ones, are they? However, if secular ethics are prioritized over religious ones, nearly all the people in the world are going to be hypocrites. It is against democratic principles to vote against your belief, and therefore democracy is overturned by this resolution. If this resolution is affirmed, then it will preserve the tyrannical and dictatorial regimes that already exist, and destroy the free and democratic ones. 2: As to my opponent's answer of "Is it possible that the bible is true?" 1. Insults aren't very good arguments, and 2. Even if the actor(s) of the resolution was governments in general, religious ethics are still just as important, if not more than, secular ones. As my opponent has ceded that the Bible is POSSIBLY true, that means there's a POSSIBILITY that if we stick with secular ethics when we make our laws, we'll all go to Hell. Let me explain. Whenever religious and secular ethics collide in the legislative process, we have to make a choice between the two. Now, if God does exist, and he did outline his laws in the Bible, and we DIDN'T follow them when we made our laws, that means everyone who obeys the law will face Eternal Damnation. Even if the chance is absolutely minute that the Bible is true, the overwhelming impact of eternal damnation is so great, we should do anything and everything we can to avoid it. This world is temporary; we're all going to die, so that means we should focus on our life after death; the eternal one. No matter how many people die because of religious ethics, no matter how many people are oppressed, nearly all of us will go to heaven. And then we'll be happy for eternity, even if we were miserable for a minuscule amount of time. The magnitude outweighs the probability, in this case. I will now cross-reference my arguments back to my opponent's. 1–And yet, you can't tell others what they ought to believe or prioritize. Even if belief in God is erroneous and unwarranted, belief has de facto value, according to Dewey's Theory of Valuation. Point #1. 2–The authors of the Bible believed they were transcribing the history of God's commandments and His people, and there are many people today who believe that also. It is the same with the Book of Mormon and the Torah. 3–‘Problematic' is an understatement, but today it isn't nearly as ‘problematic' as it was. Even so, religious ethics are much different than the outcome of religious zeal. Jihadists, the KKK, these organizations don't promote or uphold their religions, they only tarnish their religion's beliefs. 4-Neither do we know which secular ethical theories are ‘right.' They also vary widely. Deontology, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Intuitionism…these theories' contradict each other in several ways. 5-Not ethically. But the government in general is not the actor of this resolution, so this point is ‘ridiculous and irrelevant.' Point #1. 6–Once again, this is "ridiculous and irrelevant," in the immortal words of my opponent. Besides, it wouldn't be imposing religion, merely religious ethics, which are two entirely different things. 8-As internet poster XEntity intelligently says: "Logic is not an absolute law that governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be absolutely impossible. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent." We may find faults in the supposed ‘scientific facts' that disrepute religious ethics in the future, mainly because we might be as narrow minded as XEntity suggests. Logic may be a powerful tool, but it doesn't always fit for the job. 9–Governing ethically according to Secular Humanism, which is one of many secular ethical theories, which all claim the same rewards, but reach those rewards by different means. 10-Please extend my answer regarding why this answer is both absurd and useless from #4. In short, the government is not the actor of the resolution, logic has its uses and its faults, and if you vote Affirmation, several things will happen, including: 1. Democracy will cease to exist in a principally ethical form 2. We'll all go to Hell, which is a pretty unethical place. I negate.