Religous zealots should not be eligible to vote

I will open my closing remarks by extending appreciation to my esteemed opponent for this thoughtful interchange. Though we argue, it is refreshing to do so amiably. 1. Believers, unlike convicted criminals, respect the law. While more elaborate and sprinkled with conspiracy, my opponent's rebuttal on this contention nonetheless commits the guilt by association fallacy. Even if he can show that "many Christians and Jews vote Republican because of their political, financial and military support for Israel," it does not follow that such ideological allegiances constitute criminal behavior. Having said that, my opponent is hard pressed to even get that far. Many Christians and Jews vote Republican due to the party having more conservative leanings, not solely because they condone Israel's violence in Gaza. My opponents logic also reduces to absurdity. For example, California residents, by virtue of paying taxes to the state, support California and it's policies. California has several solar power plants in a concerted effort to increase production of renewable energy. Technology developed by Solel Solar Systems Ltd. drives 9 such power plants (http://www.export.gov.il...). Solel Solar Systems Ltd. is an Israeli corporation, whose taxes and fees indirectly fund Israeli policies and government. California residents should know better than to indirectly support such violence, and anyone continuing to use solar energy from these plants ought to have their voting rights revoked for using such "criminal lack of judgment." Judgment itself can only be assessed in hindsight. One's judgment must first lead to personal involvement in criminal activity before it can be deemed criminal. Therefore, my contention stands. Believers, regardless of their reasons for what they believe, do not fall into the same classification as convicted criminals. 2. Believers, unlike the mentally ill, have a proper grip on essential reality. My opponent's rebuttal in this regard assumes that scientific explanations of human origin are totally conclusive, and if it were the case, then perhaps his refutation would suffice. However, science has not cast away all doubt on the matter. There exists secular biologists that find Darwinian theory inadequate. Debates abound in the realm of philosophy regarding the logical fidelity of these theories. Scientific explanations of life are still controversial, and anyone that chooses sides on a controversial subject cannot be considered mentally ill. 3. Believers, unlike children, have developed the same reasoning faculties as non-believers. As I stated in my opening round, some religious followers fall into one or more of these categories. There are indeed believers in both history and today that think like children. And if it were possible to measure the maturity of a voter, perhaps my opponent could have his way. However, it is non sequitur to conclude that all believers think like children. While believers have been known to react poorly to new scientific data, they have also brought new scientific discoveries. Hasty generalizations are themselves childish, and using them to justify the removal of voting rights is tantamount to a temper tantrum. 4. Religious zeal is too subjective to determine voter eligibility. I seriously doubt the sincerity of my opponent's solution to this problem. He suggests requiring voters to publicly renounce their religion in order to participate in society! Such thinking cannot exist within a democratic framework and is more reminiscent of ancient Rome. Christians were given the choice to renounce their faith or die in Colosseum. Minus the lions and gladiators, my opponent appeals to the same principle: force others to bend to the government's ideologies. It would be far more reasonable to require an IQ test than to base voter eligibility solely on one's belief in creation. 5. Suppressing religious votes is oppressive. My opponent states: "Denying people a vote on the basis that they would waste it by voting on religious, rather than political grounds, seems eminently fair to the majority of the electorate that cast their votes on the basis of the economic and social policies of the parties and candidates standing" This statement makes a giant assumption, that voting on political grounds is somehow independent of one's ideologies, as if there is one right way to vote on every issue. The fact that voting even exists refutes this very thinking. The act of voting in itself is an expression of one's ideology, and the majority ideology (theoretically) rules the land. Therefore, any attempt to refuse believers the right to vote is oppressive. My opponent considers voting on religious grounds a waste, as though voting on atheistic grounds has been somehow proven, irrevocably, to be the only correct way to vote. ---------- In the final analysis, my opponent wants a society based on one ideology: his ideology. I suspect, if the Bible condoned abortion and believers voted as such, then he would not complain. As it stands, there are those that disagree with him and he hopes to argue that their are undeniably wrong. Well, my opponent cannot have it both ways. If he feels that a dictatorship is a better way to govern the people, then he must hope that it does not become a religiously founded one. Religious believers are capable of reasonable voting, though it should not be surprising that they will vote according their conscience--particularly in matters of a sensitive nature. Believers cannot be associated by guilt with criminals, the insane, or children. They cannot be blamed for having an ideology and voting according to it, and religious oppression is not the answer. Therefore, religious believers should retain their eligibility to vote.