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

My opponent started by answering my question about proving humans have worth under secular principles. No this does not mean I would necessarily commit crimes if I knew God did not exist. It is in the nature of every human being to believe that there is a way that things ought to be; most people have morals of some sort. The difficulty comes when you cannot prove that your morals are better than anybody else's. He says you do not need to religion to make society civilized, but can you prove that humans have worth without religion? Because civilization is put into place to protect humans. When you cannot prove that humans have worth, then civilization becomes worthless and there is no reason why civilization is superior to anarchy. But furthermore if you cannot prove that humans have worth then you cannot prove that his particular brand of civilization is superior to any other. There is no reason to protect the rights he advocates and no reason why anything is bad for society, because nothing is bad. Now perhaps he can prove that civilization is valuable without religion, but he has to first prove to you that human beings have worth without religion. He has avoided doing this but he still has one post left. He goes on that congress can enact no law for religious reasons. Look what I explained: "congress is not enacting laws for religious reasons the people in congress are. Senators and Congressmen are still people, with same rights as any normal citizen. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them from voting based on their faith, the same way it would not prohibit anybody else." I also told you in the last round that with freedom of speech and conscience comes the freedom of motive. People in congress can do what they do for whatever reason they want. You can't judge or punish them for their motives, and yet this is what my opponent would have you do. People in congress would be prohibited from enacting laws with religious reasons, and yet they have the right to freedom of motive. I told you that the official attitude of congress has officially endorsed one religion. Now my opponent has told you that it doesn't matter whether it's official because no law should respect the establishment of religion. Well, congress as a whole only has an official attitude. This is because congress is an official entity and the individual opinions and views of congress men are their own, not congress'. Congress has never officially endorsed any religion. But then go to the terminology: "no law." It does not say that lawmakers shall not respect the establishment of religion. For a law to respect the establishment of religion it would have to officially endorse a religion, because a law is nothing more than an official statement by the government. But this hasn't happened. But now going to the term establishment. I'll give you three definitions from the New American Oxford Dictionary that apply: 1: the recognition by the state of a national church or religion. The state in this case is not creating a national religion because: a: no religion is being officially endorse by congress or any law. b: no one is being forced to stop practicing their religion in favor of another. c: the state is still open for other religions to enter the discourse. 2: a business organization, public institution, or household. So congress cannot regulate places or institutions of worship. Well it's not; those institutions are still free to practice their religion. 3: an influential group within a specified profession or area of activity. So congress can't regulate the views of those within a certain religion. Well it's not, people are still free to hold any view they want. So whatever definition of establishment that you accept, the policies that my opponent attacks do not respect the establishment of religion. For this and all of the above reasons the republican religious policies do not violate the establishment clause. But further limiting congressmen to only non-religious motives is a violation of freedom of motive, as I've explained. This is unconstitutional because the freedom of motive is part of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. My interpretation of the establishment clause is preferable to his, because his would conflict with the freedom of motive. On the issue of enforcement. Why would we need to draft policemen, are there not enough volunteers. He gives you no evidence to say why we would need a draft to increase enforcement. My opponent completely drops the arguments I make that abortion is dangerous to society and a violation of rights, so you will extend that. But now onto the drug issue. He suggests that one can use drugs that manipulate the mind and still be free. But how are you free when your mind is being manipulated? It's an oxymoron. How are you free if you're being manipulated by a chemical? Sure you took the drug on your own but doesn't the drug itself infringe on your liberty?