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

"The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people and the "Free Exercise Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion off of people. " I agree but go back to what I said: "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. " At this point the religiously based laws of the republican party fulfill my opponent's requirements because no one is being forced into religion; everyone is still free to believe what they want to believe about anything. Further he never refuted this: "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. " Since he never refuted it in his last post, even though he could have, he is accepting it as true. At this point he has never actually affirmed the resolution so you are going to negate on that. He modifies his argument for liberty by explaining that liberty should only extend as far as that it does not violate other people's liberty. I contend that this is a danger to society. If I use my liberty to get a job that someone else wanted then I violate their liberty by: preventing them from taking the job and preventing them from earning the money at the job. But the same thing happens to me if he gets the job. If we are to accept my opponent's principle that we should only have liberty as far as it does not infringe on other people's liberty, then neither of us can take the job. The fact is that we are all interconnected in society, especially in economics. If someone buys the last loaf of bread then no one else can buy that loaf of bread, and their liberty is infringed. Our acts of liberty effect other people's acts of liberty and rather than going with my opponent's principle of preventing infringement on liberty, we need allow for liberties to compete. Some people will gain more liberty and some will lose it. My opponent's idea would require the government to micromanage individuals to ensure that they never infringed on anybody else's liberty. You will forget about his police argument, because enforcing his principle of liberty would only make the problem worse. It would be incredibly difficult to try to micromanage society and the cost to freedom would be great. Comparatively, it is not hard to crack down on major abortion clinics, we have been fighting illegal drugs for a long time now, and it is even easier to say marriage is only between a man and a woman. But against his police argument again, he says that more laws would decrease enforcement of other laws. But he forgets that we could simply increase the amount of police resources. Going back to his principle of liberty though. Even if that is true it conflicts with my opponent's argument that abortion should be legal. 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 opponent has the burden to prove why the religious policies are bad for society. His two points toward that end are: that they violate liberty, and that they place strain on the police. Even if you do not buy what I said at the beginning of my case you vote con on the arguments against his points: 1: that his principle of liberty in effect is really bad and would decrease freedom. Religious order is again preferable to this. 2: that the principle makes the police issue worse. 3: that he contradicts his own principle on the abortion issue, so it really could not be that good could it. At this point he has no reason why the principles are bad for society and you are going to vote con. My opponent says that you do not need religion to justify his principle. Since you have the burden of proof, I would put to you: what makes your principle of liberty superior to the anarchy I described in the first round? Why do humans have worth? Because if they do not have worth then they have no rights and humans themselves are not worth protecting. And if you find that reason: is is in line with your principle? If the pro cannot prove that humans have worth then there are no reasons why religious policy would be bad and you are going to vote con. Religion gives you a legitimate reason to believe that human beings have worth, and there is a reason to protect their rights. And if you accept that then there is a legitimate reason to prevent all the evils afore mentioned in this debate. I said in my first post that: "We need to try to limit the freedom of men to do evil. " This is a religiously based conviction. My opponent says that people can still have religious convictions but that law makers should not be motivated by religion. My attack was that if they are prohibited from basing their decisions on their religion, then that violates the free exercise clause. If you cannot enact a law for religious reasons then you are not free to exercise your religion. Exercise (from the New Oxford American Dictionary): a process or activity carried out for a specific purpose, esp. one concerned with a specified area or skill. As long as this does not conflict with the establishment clause, it should be considered acceptable. I have already proven that the religious policies in question do not violate that clause because they never force people to join or believe a certain religion and they never prohibit people of other faiths from joining the discourse. I established this based on something my opponent said, so we agree on it. Further, my opponent's case violates the free exercise clause because it prohibit law makers can never base their decisions on religion. Going to the Washington quote. The right to freedom of conscience has never been violated. No one has tried to force anyone to believe something is right or true, nor could they because there is no such thing as mind control. I also explained in my first post that even though individuals have free will, that does not mean that they should be free to do whatever they want. As I showed in my first post that leads to anarchy. It mentions "natural rights", but if there are multiple natural rights should we not protect them all. My opponent only advocates protecting one natural right and that is liberty. It says we should not give sanction to bigotry. No one is being forced to adopt any belief and the government is not excluding those of other beliefs, so there is no bigotry. The final sentence has very little to do with the resolution. It merely asks that we do our best to live under the government in peace. So the quote really gives my opponent no clear support and turns against him on the issue of natural rights. My opponent failed to affirm the resolution and his arguments have been effectively refuted or turned.