God should be a considerable factor in acts of legislation in the US

V. "Legal Obligation" The Founding Fathers would have intended to have a "wall of separation" between the Church and State. Thus, while we maintain a democracy, religion is not, in any way, intended to inspire law. In order to fully maintain the doctrine, it should be immoral, and in certain cases, unlawful, for lawmakers to ever consider God. Murder is popularly agreed on to be immoral by people of different creeds, and thus, would not justify as legislation inspired by any God. Ia. "Political views vs. personal views" My opponent had used a very open-ended example on the issue of abortion. Legislating against abortion would soon lead into a debate which incorporates religion into the argument, this being, at the question of when life begins. I am simply implying that this example does not work in this argument, as personal scientific views play a role in the abortion debate; if Congress were to legislate against abortion, the country would face the possibility of being "wrong" about the scientific debate of abortion. My opponent has proven my point on the debate with the issue of infanticide. Considering how religious the US was back in the 20th century, pro-life laws were very likely to pass. The abortion issue played a bigger role in politics as the years went on up until 1973, in which a Supreme Court case came up which would let people choose when life begins and how their God would think of it for themselves. I would like to point out that my opponent has presented a large misconception of my rebuttal. In my arguments, I am trying to prove how holding political views stemming solely from religion would be immoral. Acts of Congress inspired solely by views of God's wishes violate the doctrine. Do I believe in the legality of abortion? Yes. I am simply implying how we should have more views on arguments other than religion. II. "Impossibility to Enforce" School prayer has become somewhat of an issue in modern day politics, and has vocal supporters. Like other arguments on other issues, support for public school prayer was thought up by the religious right. Being unconstitutional, it proves how we cannot and should not allow religion to play a role in lawmaking. While we may not be able to establish a system that will completely prevent laws stemming from religion, I am implying how it would be immoral to use religion to hold a political position against gay marriage. Do I believe these people should admit if their views stem from religion? Personally, yes, as it will help the people judge if how much or how little religion truly plays a role in lawmaking. Personally, I believe in a fair democratic process with zero bias stemming from religion. I am very aware that there is no true way to completely end religious bias in political positions, contrary to what my opponent seems to believe. I remind my opponent that, while I believe in preventing some of the bias within legal means, I am also defending the morality of the issue and the doctrine. III. "Considerable" My opponent does not seem to fully understand what I was implying. The concern of religion playing a role in lawmaking is that it can lead to bigger and stricter laws stemmed from religion. A law can be introduced to appear to have no religious bias, however, newer ideas can be introduced, and the bias will build continuously. If the US continues to have laws introduced which stem from religion, then the sake of having a democracy will slowly be forgotten about, and the thing that will destroy democracy, may as well be democracy itself. Simply, if we use democracy as an excuse to pass certain laws, then we may as well have no democracy at all. The concern is that a theocracy will build up to dominate law, unless we maintain the doctrine. ==CLOSING STATEMENTS== The purpose of my argument in this debate was to defend democracy, while at the same time, explain how it is essential to prevent a theocracy from forming within the democracy. I am stressing how it should be immoral, and whenever possible, unlawful to rule solely by religious views. In order to respect all religious views and creeds, we as a county must think religion-neutral. If Congress were to ever pass a law of what ever content, proudly and openly for only the sake of pleasing some type of a God, the law would be illegitimate to enforce. Instead, we as a country must use our own personal values and morals when it comes to legislation. (i. e. , no killing) I, at the same time, acknowledge how it is impossible to completely prevent religious bias, yet support prevention if it laws nearing religious values should ever become an issue. We must be mindful of other creeds to maintain a free nation.