The religious policies of the Republican Party are bad for society.

Since the pro has the burden of proof I argue against what my opponent said. He says that the republicans ignore the "establishment clause" in the constitution. First, he never explains why the constitution is good for society. Second, his arguments are morally based when we should be talking about actual dangers to society. Third, his arguments seem to revolve around the idea that people should have freedom to do whatever they want and live with the consequences. Essentially this is advocating anarchy because the government would not be able to impose limitations on freedom. In anarchy there would not be anything to prevent people from killing each other. When people do not recognize moral or at least legal restraints on their actions society crumbles. There is no reason why I should pay for things when I can steal them. Everything we know and love about society would lost under anarchy. Furthermore, the freedoms that my opponent advocates could never be protected. Is the government going to stop a vigilante from killing an abortion doctor? Not under my opponents view, because the vigilante can do whatever he wants. Without any established order in society, society crumbles and we cannot protect the liberties that my opponent advocates. Religiously biased order (however bad my opponent says it is) is always going to be preferable to no order. Fourth, he says we should ignore other people's sins because human beings are supposed to have free will, but this is irrelevant. Yes, every human being has free will, but should we just allow evils to happen right under our noses when we could have stopped them? We need to try to limit the freedom of men to do evil. This does not violate their free will because their free to think or believe whatever they want. They should not be free to do whatever they want. Fifth, what my opponent attacks about religion is not really an attack on religion. What he really attacks are the moral codes and laws that are based on religion. People may be forced to obey codes that may be taken from religion, but their never required to believe that those codes are right. Nobody is ever forced to believe the theology of a particular religion either. Furthermore the government has not been declared a "christian" government, so it is still open for other religions to enter the discourse. Republicans for their part do not support this sort of legislation. Sixth, my opponent's interpretation of the Establishment Clause seems to be that any action that might be that any law that was based on religion is a violation. However this violates the Free Exercise Clause because it prohibits people in power from exercising their religious views. Finally, if we are to accept my opponent's interpretation then the government becomes heavily disabled. It becomes unconstitutional for the government to act in favor of anything that religious group advocates. And that group could hypothetically advocate anything. A protestant church could advocate a strong national defense and gun rights. The government would then have to choose not to have either of those things on the grounds that it might be respecting the "establishment" of a religion. George Washington said that: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. "