Capital punishment should be illegal, and abortion rights should be respected.

I take the bible out of context? Well let me begin by saying that I have found three main ways that Christians are able to sidestep logic and frustrate non-christians who attempt to quote scripture and use the bible against them. 1) "You are not a Christian, therefore you do not understand the bible". I have been told in the past that, since I have not given myself up to Jesus and become possessed by the holy spirit, that I cannot effectively interpret the Bible. 2) "You are offending me, and let's keep the Bible out of the discourse of our argument". I have another debate in which my opponent uses this "logic", and simply drops my arguments like so much conjecture. Please refer to my debate titled "The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure". 3) "You are taking the Bible out of context", or "You cannot take the Bible literally". Here is Leonitus's strategy. The Christian will often follow this with "Jesus talks of a monster with one thousand heads as well... You don't really assume that he is being literal, do you? Huckabee uses this argument, and I wish I could get on the stage with that &^$#%*$* just for five minutes.... All of these tactics are cheap, illogical, and lower than what a used car-salesman would use to sell you a lemon. The lemon in this case is prejudice Christian values, which don't survive very long in a logical debate. I want to interject at this point that I think that Jesus Christ was the greatest philosopher of all times, as well as the greatest person who has ever lived. My problem is with the people who use his name to assert a bunch of principles that I believe he would have been very disappointed with. I believe that if Jesus was alive today, he would refute Christianity as a whole and he would end up having to carry the cross again, but it would be the Christians this time filling the role of the Romans. Now back to your argument Leonitus. So, Jesus makes an absolutely golden maxim here "let he who is without sin throw the first stone", which is so eloquently logical and carries with it such a socially valuable application that it would take a master philosopher like Jesus to postulate it, and you are going to say that Jesus is just telling a line from a story? He doesn't actually mean that you shouldn't cast judgement on someone else, because you are human and flawed as well? Come on man, don't try to twist Jesus's words. Jesus gives this logic to humanity as a gift, and by cheapening it you are doing him an injustice. Your second argument, that Jesus says to abide by the law, hardly can be used to say that Jesus frowns down on any attempt to change a law that is unjust. Where are you going with this argument? Next, you say that "No one is talking about morally judging a person when we're talking about pro-life and the death penalty". Well I'm sorry, but you must not be reading these debates on this website. Pull up one of them and read it, and all you will be reading is about innocent babies being killed by abortion, and guilty criminals deserving capital punishment. I don't see how any of you can even support your arguments without bringing it up... I am not saying that Christians are inherently murderors. But I think that when your character is thoroughly saturated with superstitious Christian beliefs, then you start to lose the logical foundation to make some decisions on policy, like whether or not you should put a man to death. No one should ever come to the conclusion that you should kill another person, unless there is an imminent threat to another person involved. Once a murderor is caught, we can lock him up indefinitely. People who would otherwise be issued capital punishment are never going to have their prison sentences mature, and thus are never going to be able to threaten innocent civilians outside of prison. Now you call abortion murder. Yes, if your definition of murder is "killing another human being". Personally, I don't care if you find a dictionary to support that definition, because I will refute it. Murder, to me, is defined in this way: Knowingly and intentionally ending the life of another person, without the other person being in the position to harm another person. Now the argument is about personhood, if you would like to address it. I don't consider sperm, eggs, and embryos people. I consider a baby a person, but I think that there is a short while after conception where a responsible decision to abort can be made without ending the life of a person. A month or two into pregnancy, when there is brain activity and the like, I think that abortion is not a responsible decision and I question the morality of abortions that are performed this late.