God should be a considerable factor in acts of legislation in the US

I'll break it down into sections. ===THE RESOLUTION The resolution here has the same problem as my opponent's definition of theocracy. It is invalid if a god does not exist, and it assumes that religious institutions on earth are a product of a god. Rather, my opponent has been arguing that religious teachings should not play a considerable role in legislation in the US. Whether or not those religious teachings are the work of some god is irrelevant and cannot be determined. Also note that it is not my burden to argue in favor of theocracy. Religious teachings need not be the sole factor in legislation for me to be right; they need only be one considerable factor. ===DEFINITIONS Considerable: Significant, Notable. Worth consideration. [1][2] ===CONTENTIONS [REBUTTALS INCLUDED] I. "Democracy" My opponent argues in favor of a democracy, and he argues against the false opposition of a theocracy. I am not arguing in favor of a theocracy. In fact, whereas my opponent has thrown his support in for democracy, I will do the same. I am not arguing against democracy. My opponent is the one arguing against democracy, claiming that some people's views shouldn't count for anything based merely on where these views originate. That's not how a democracy works. In a democracy, the political views of the people decide the law, whether those political views were taught by a religion, taught by parents, discovered individually, influenced by peers, or whatever. The source of a political view does not matter in a democracy - only the political view itself. Ia. "Political views vs. personal views" My opponent has made the claim that religious beliefs are personal, and should therefore not affect one's political views. This is utterly false. For instance, many religions teach that humans gain valuable souls the instant they are conceived. Many religious people use this belief as the basis for being pro-life or being against embryonic stem cell research. As they well should if that is where their religious convictions point them. These people should NOT be saying "well, I think abortion is a supreme injustice, but I'm not going to advocate against it politically because hey, that's just a personal belief." Expecting that is ignorant and unrealistic. II. "Impossibility to enforce CON's Position" CON expects that we ignore people's political beliefs when they are the result of religious teachings, but this is impossible to enforce. For instance, there are pro-lifers who are pro-life for secular reasons. There is currently no system in place that could discriminate between the pro-lifer who has secular reasons and he who has religious reasons. If such a system were put in place, it would fail anyway. Those who have religious belief as the basis for their political positions would simply act as if their religion was not the reason for their political opinion. As evidence for this, I will point out that it happens already in the status quo. People who are politically active know that "the bible says X" isn't going to win them any support, and will always fail in a debate. So for instance, those against gay marriage will instead use secular reasoning to back up their position (claims like "gay couples are less effective at raising children" or "accepting gay marriage would lead to harmful population stagnation"). It becomes impossible to determine whether the person truly has these reasons for their position or if their position is based on religion and they are simply masquerading. III. "Considerable" The amount of people who base political beliefs off religious teachings is considerable in the US. The religious right in America, which bases many political views on religious teachings, is one of the largest political voting blocs around. They have the right to advocate political beliefs they hold, just as much as anyone whose beliefs are secular. Thus, the religious effect on legislation in America should be considerable. IV. RE: Gay Marriage My opponent's example of gay marriage is misleading. If anti-gay marriage views should be discounted, it is due to humans rights issues and not due to the fact that religious teachings were the basis for that view. V. "Legal Obligation" The first amendment does not say that religious teachings can have no effect on legislation, only that legislation cannot favor certain religions more than others. For instance, if someone believes that killing is wrong simply because it says so in the bible, that's fine to legislate - but if someone says that killing Christians is not okay but killing anyone else is okay, that's not legitimate legislation. Laws may not be made about religions, but they may be made based on religious teachings. Clarification will be provided next round if necessary. [1] http://www.askoxford.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...