Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

This is the last round of this enjoyable, but slightly frustrating debate. My opponent will have the last word, but I will try not to present new arguments per tradition. “As long as there is one example of secular government (democracy in the United States), it should not be unreasonable to conclude that human rights can find their safe haven under a secular government. In conclusion, under the democracy, human rights can have adequate justification.” My opponent does seem to be learned, but he allows too many of his misconceptions to carry too much weight. The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, a very important distinction. The Founding Fathers universally rejected Democracy. (1) Also see the video in R3. The U.S. Was not founded as a secular government, nor were our rights derived from any other than Biblical principals. The Declaration of Independence, in it's opening, declares that we get our inalienable rights from God. One can't turn around and then use the US as an example of successful secular rights establishment. Misconceptions about the separation of church and state will have to be covered separately, as that would be a new argument, but the mere fact that the Creator is directly pointed to as the giver of rights shoots down the notion that American rights have secular basis. “Pro may mistakenly believe that the majority vote is the manifestation of the democracy.” Yes, sans mistakenly. (2) My opponent repeatedly refers to the part of my argument that relies on a specific God, as if I am referring to generic religion. He cites examples of Islamic abuses, as well as Constantine's creation of the Catholic church as examples of the unfairness of religion. I would agree with most of this. I would even go a step further and reveal that Constantine combined sun worship with Christianity to create a new, non-Christian religion, that has remained separate, though much larger; the Catholic church.(3) However, if you ignore all Catholic traditions, and only use the Bible as a guide, you end up with examples of governments that honor a consistent and successful list of rights. Examples I can think of right now are the US and Canada (also cites God as the rights giver(4)). “Justices are guided by reasoning, and reasoning alone.” Incorrect. Justices are guided by the law, a transcendent set of principals they are to apply using reason. “Palpably, if God has the capability to remove a right from an individual, regardless of his willingness, that right is necessary alienable.” In this context, this is a strange argument. If I sit down with my 7 yr old nephew with a big, steaming plate of broccoli, and tell him, “Don't eat this,” I know it's safe. He'd laugh at the thought of taking it. You could say, between just him and I, the broccoli is inalienable from me. But it's not inalieanable because he COULD eat it? It's against his nature to eat it. Besides that, going to the highest possible level of power (God) negates most any argument. It's like boasting that no one could beat you if you shot them with the Death Star. It's just not going to happen. “Christianity, in terms of its development, is no distinction from other religions.” This, too is a new debate topic on it's own. I will only reiterate, “an orderly list of rights, logical in scope and limitation, can only be derived from Biblical principals for the fair, equitable, healthy, and orderly function of a society.” This debate is not about religion vs. secular reason, it is Biblical principals vs. secular reason, something my opponent has refused to acknowledge. If Islamic, Hellenistic, and Christian principals were all essentially the same, a lot more of us would get along, and only the leaders would be arguing for power. In conclusion, my opponent has laid out a secular basis for shifting public desire, codified into law, in lieu of non-existent rights. He refers to fairness and justice, but gives no basis by which these can be clearly defined. Desire cannot reign supreme as our guide, not for long. I ask my opponent and the audience to wonder, would it be a fair, equitable, healthy, and orderly life if we lived where desire were the guiding principal? If you were treated unfairly, and had to go to the court for justice, would you want the judge to look to the desires of the majority, or transcendent principal (law) for fairness? My opponent does understand our court structure, but fails to recognize that the Justices are supposed to be isolated from the political system specifically so that they are held to transcendent principals, and NOT the whims and desires of the masses. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.newadvent.org... http://www.efc.ca...