Study of Religion Debate

Debate and references

Study of Religion �" Research Journal

 

Definitions:

www.dictionary.reference.com

 

Not: 

Used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue

(Dictionary.com �" unabridged)

In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition (American Heritage Dictionary)

 

Religion

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(dictionary.com �" unabridged)

 

Politics

The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

 

 

 

 

 

Speech

 

To say that Religion and Politics do not mix is an off-hand idea to begin with.  However, by deconstructing this simple statement it becomes apparent that this is more than a simple thought, put together by looking at the negative accounts of religion and politics alone, both today and in the past.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word not as meaning ‘in no way; to no degree’, and politics as being ‘the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

Religion, as defined by the website dictionary.com, is ‘a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So to look at this simple and uncomplicated idea that ‘religion and politics don’t mix’ more closely, what is really being said, is that a set of beliefs with a strong moral code does, in no way shape or form, involve itself in the administration and control of a nation’s internal and external affairs.

Not only is this a grossly frightening prospect, but, in a society where over 5 million people practice institutionalised religion in Australia alone, it is ridiculously untrue.

You stated that perhaps religion and politics do mix, but with negative consequences for a number of perhaps previously uninvolved communities and therefore should not mix.

The question put forward, however, was not whether they should or should not mix, but rather whether they do or do not.

By your own admission, religion and politics do mix, whether the consequences are negative or positive, however, depends on the person or persons who represent these ideals, and are not due to the ideals themselves.

The fact that religion and politics do mix will become increasingly apparent as we present our arguments, with myself, as first speaker, talking about morality in government due to religious ‘interference’.

The second speaker, Kira Owens, will tell you about previous instances were religion and politics have not only mixed, but mixed in a positive manner with ‘good’ consequences, as well as the presence of religious political leaders in society, now and in the past.

Lastly, Romy Andrews, the third speaker, will conclude our argument with a thought to what our life today would be like without the moral and consequential input of religion throughout history, and how it has enabled communities to become united in order to act either defensively or proactively in order to shape the world we know today.

 

Religion is practiced by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world right now, to various degrees.

It seems reasonable, therefore, that there be a representative of these beliefs who may bring in a moral line of the decision-making process, rather than nonreligious entities focussing on economic growth with little or no thought to the human aspect of the argument.

A good example of religious morality appearing in a government debate is that of therapeutic cloning

The Government was recently in discussion over a change in Australia’s cloning laws and restrictions, to allow scientists to experiment with therapeutic cloning as a way to find cures for certain diseases.

The Government was willing to pass this law with little thought to what that might mean for the embryos that would be harvested or for the women who would be asked to put their own health at risk.

First it is important for everyone in this audience to understand what therapeutic cloning is.

The ethical health care website provides a good definition for what cloning is and also what it involves, along with potential risks for women.

Cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transplantation, involves fusing a body (somatic) cell of one animal with an egg that has had its nucleus removed.  The finished product is a one-celled cloned embryo that is a twin of the animal that donated the body cell.  A cloned embryo has two possible fates, the second of which I will be focussing on.

The destruction of the cloned embryo to obtain its embryonic stem cells for research is what is widely known as therapeutic cloning.

Harm to women stems from the inefficiency of human cloning.  In the only published human cloning experiment, 16 women donated a total of 242 eggs, approximately 15 eggs per woman.  Only 30 of these eggs reached a stage where embryonic stem cells can be explained, with no use for the left over 232 eggs.

Women risk potential complications from the super ovulation, or medically increased production of embryos, and egg donation process, including ovarian cysts, rupture, and cancers.  Pelvic pain, stroke, negative effects on the future fertility of the women, and even death are also risked by donators.

It was the religious voices in parliament, and religiously inclined politicians, who created this debate, forcing other parliamentary figures to give deep thought to their final decision.

Another aspect of therapeutic cloning that was used as a standing block for the outcries of religious spokespeople, was the idea that the embryos being destroyed where, in fact, human beings.

The destruction of these embryos, therefore, was seen as an act of murder and morally corrupt.

This so called ‘interference’ of religious spokespeople has created second thought to the changes in these laws, ensuring that every voice was heard and every aspect examined.

The changes have been allowed therapeutic cloning to go forward, but placing tight restrictions on the allowances of this research to protect the rights of the women and the embryos.

This is a prime example of positive effects of religions moral values ‘mixing’ with the political leaders of not only our own country, but the entire world.

Kira’s presentation on previous and current positive religious influence in politics will support the argument that religion and politics do mix, and that the outcome depends upon the people involved and not the concepts themselves.

 

Author's Note

school works