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

My opponent begins the second round by agreeing that the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people. Then he turns around and makes the following statements which I will refute one by one: STATEMENT #1: "People may be forced to obey codes that may be taken from religion, but their never required to believe that those codes are right." MY RESPONSE: The "Establishment Clause" says the exact opposite of "people may be forced." It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." STATEMENT #2: "If you cannot enact a law for religious reasons then you are not free to exercise your religion." MY RESPONSE: So you agree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and, at the same time, believe that Congress should be able to enact laws for religious reasons? What part of "no law" do you not get?! STATEMENT #3: "As long as this does not conflict with the establishment clause, it should be considered acceptable." MY RESPONSE: It clearly does conflict with the "Establishment Clause"!! The "Establishment Clause" states that NO LAW shall be made respecting and establishment of RELIGION!! My opponent goes on to state that "the government has not been declared a "christian" government." However, members of the Republican Party are constantly claiming that the United States was founded on Christianity in order to justify the enforcement of religious laws against victimless crimes such as homosexuality. My opponent says that it is easy to say marriage is between a man and a woman. I say that it is easy to say it's none of the government's business who someone wants to marry. In my second round arguments I very clearly refuted the statement "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." I responded by saying that "the more time, manpower, and resources that the police use to stop people from committing "sins" that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties is less time, manpower, and resources that they will have to stop people from committing acts that do infringe on other people's rights or liberties." Again, isn't that a danger to society? The idea that my "principle of liberty in effect is really bad and would decrease freedom" is as absurd as the idea that getting a job infringes on somebody else's liberty. A job is a privilege that people earn by developing skills which make them valuable to society. It is religious "order" that decreases freedom by telling people who they are allowed to marry, what they are allowed to put into their own body, and things like that. Abolishing religious laws would mean that the government would micromanage people's lives a lot less. My opponent did make a good point when he said "If you are always trying to prevent infringement of liberty, then what about the liberty of an unborn baby. If doctors are allowed to kill unborn babies then they violate the child's liberty. So my opponent goes against the very principle that he advocates." My response is that the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being worthy of constitutional rights is debatable. I would support lawmakers if they concluded that a fetus is worthy of those rights on scientific grounds. I would not support lawmakers if they concluded that a fetus is worthy of those rights on biblical grounds.