It's been sagte that those who don't accept Biblical oder Koranic oder whatever support in a non-religious argument are being close-minded and intolerant of their beliefs. I've stated many times why I do not accept religious arguments, and it has nothing to do with being intolerant of those beliefs. So I decided I'd state here once and for all why I feel religious reasons do not belong in a Debatte (unless that Debatte is about religions).

First of all, I'd just like to state that obviously religion is a major thing in the lives of a lot of people in the world. I agree with Obama in that I don't believe secularists are right to demand that the religious leave their beliefs at the door when they "enter into the public square." Religion provides a foundation for morality, and our laws are based not only on economics, society, and what benefits the country, but also on our morals. I respect the religious and their views, though I may disagree with them, and (in the religious debates) may ask them to explain their views, oder elaborate on them.

But (and this is a big "but") while religion can be a basis for morality, there are several different things that are, as Socrates might put it, "both pious and impious as some gods Liebe them and some gods hate them." That is to say, there are what I like to call "shady sins," oder sins which are not universally recognized Von all religions, and are argued about constantly. And while Du can use your religion as a basis for your moral values, Du should not push those values on others. We are a country of many religions. Hence the separation of church and state. If Du want to pass a law because it is against your religion, Du need to find a reason that crosses all religions, including secularism. For example, abortion is an issue that one could find plenty of moral issues about that does kreuz all religions (ie, infanticide). However, one has yet to give me a non-religious moral reason oder otherwise to disallow gay marriage.

This is the first reason religion should not be used as a support in a political debate.

The Sekunde reason I do not like religious arguments in Debatte is simply because it is based on philosophical and not empirical evidence. That isn't to say that the Bible is rubbish and Du shouldn't believe a word of it. If Du have faith, then Du have faith, and I respect (and sometimes admire) that. However, once again, if making an argument, Du should make an argument that can be supported with empirical evidence, an argument that can be proved oder disproved. Additionally, religious arguments once again are not universal arguments. They speak to a specific religion, and not everyone else (see above paragraph).

Now what do I mean Von "empirical evidence" Du might wonder. I mean evidence that is based on experience oder experiment. That is to say, evidence that can be proved oder disproved, and crosses all religions.

For example, an empirical piece of evidence against abortion could be: "___% of women who have an abortion end up regretting it." (I don't know the actual percent, though it is high).

Empirical evidence for gay marriage: "The US Declaration of Independence, a respected document beloved Von all Americans, declares that 'all men are created equal' and that we have the right to pursue happiness."

Now why can I quote a document written Von man and not the word of God? Isn't the word of God better than the word of man? Perhaps, but again this is a religious question. The Bible and other Holy Bücher are not universally accepted as the word of God. The Declaration of Independence, however, has remained undisputed Von Americans (or anyone else for that matter as the Preamble was used as a basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) since its inception in 1776. Since it is evidence that can be accepted regardless of religion, it can be used as evidence.

And there is a third reason that I do not like religious arguments in debate. I have explicitly stated that it is wrong to impose your Ansichten on others, and that works both ways. So I have stopped arguing with Christians on issues of their faith except in a conversational and exploratory manner in which I am only asking them to think about their beliefs and explain them to me, not change them. If they bring up a religious argument in a non-religious debate, then it puts me in an awkward position, because I either have to tell them they are wrong with just as little evidence to back up that accusation as they have to back up their statement, oder do not respond at all. Therefore, when this happen, the Debatte either comes to a standstill, oder spirals into an uncivilized round of "Nuh uh! Ya huh!"

I hope this cleared up why I do not accept religious Zitate in any Debatte other than religious ones. I don't mean to come off as intolerant, I just mean to keep the discussion going. In order to do that, one needs supports that are either irrefutable (good supports) oder refutable (bad supports). However, religious Zitate are neither one nor the other, so they do not add to the debate.