The Instigator
michael_care
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,871 times Debate No: 32713
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

michael_care

Pro

First round is acceptance. I will argue in the affirmative: a secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.
Second Arguments in favor of your stance. Statistics must be supplied.
Third round is counter arguments and further comments.
Fourth closing statements.

Definitions:
Secular society - A society where religion and the state are separated. Religion has no executive influence on the state and vice versa.

Acting on their beliefs - Any form of religious practice. This includes wearing religious items and clothing.
tmar19652

Con

You have the complete BOP to prove the resolution. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
michael_care

Pro

While I am rather a strict atheist, or antitheist some might say, I do genuinely believe that religion has not only the universal right to be expressed, but the constitutional right. By this, I mean firstly it's one of our most basic and palpable human rights, and secondly, religion has unequivocally shaped almost every civilized society on earth. This doesn't mean, however, that every civilized society must remain politically theocratic -I'm absolutely convinced in saying that secularism is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way that modern society must progress; be that socially, politically, or in fact religiously; the reason being that secularism supports an obvious distinction between religion and government, where neither have any executive power on one another.

Another fundamental principle of secularism which is incredibly advantageous to both state and religion is that it allows everyone in the public square to voice an opinion and gives them the right to persuade or dissuade people in any respect. In other words, secularism is about inclusivity, so why would a secular society essentially ban all religious practice? In doing this, it excludes a vast majority, which defies the very nature of secularism.

Many would argue that France is the most secularized country on earth, because of its tight restrictions on religious practice. But don't you think that this has something to do with public opinion, where 40% of the population has absolutely no religious belief? If you won't buy this, then how about the claim that this is just a piddling attack on faith executed by a few hundred corrupted politicians? And I'm sorry, but when I was researching this topic and searched 'French corruption', three politicians had been taken to court on grounds of corruption, in the past 2 days. I'd say that the France are both politically and morally questionable at best. Because of this, I hope we won't be using France as a flagship in this debate.

A notable chapter in history was the rise of communism in the Soviet Union, where Stalin grasped the power of state. While he was in power, he banned religion, claiming that he was the supreme ruler, and his people should have no other idols. Indeed he made a very good case, and worked hard to make sure religion was eradicated. Religion didn't die out though, it simply went underground, and very few were dissuaded from their beliefs. The point of this is that religion is ineradicable, so a law that prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs would be absolutely frivolous.

Quite frankly, the criminalization of something so dear and sacred to people is both frivolous and unacceptable. I personally have known people who have had incredibly difficult and harsh childhoods, and the way that they obtained comfort was through simply going to a church and praying. This is a religious practice isn't it? Do secularists really wish to take this offer of refuge and salvation away from the masses. Around 70% of England has a religion... How could it be democratic to ban religious practice? I understand that not all of these people will practice regularly, but I've mentioned a few times now how secularism is inclusive of all and doesn't give any culture a predominant position in society. Instead, it demands equality.

How awful would it be to prevent a woman, whose son is near to death after a horrific accident, to act on her beliefs and pray? It's inexcusable, and while I do still maintain my position on religion that is purely atheistic, I truly believe that banning something so dear to people would be an unwise and terrible thing to do.
tmar19652

Con

I only need to make one argument to win this debate. For example, if there was a religion that said you have to kill 10 people per year in order to remain in good standing with god, should society not prevent these religious people from acting on their beliefs? According to your standpoint, these people should be allowed to murder without any legal recourse for the victims. In this case, Society needs to prevent people from acting on their beliefs! Therefore, I have won this debate, and Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
michael_care

Pro

michael_care forfeited this round.
tmar19652

Con

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 3
michael_care

Pro

michael_care forfeited this round.
tmar19652

Con

My arguments stand, and my opponent has not fulfilled their burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
michael_caretmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
michael_caretmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. The lack of sources for information I question the validity of, is the reason for no argument point to either side.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
michael_caretmar19652Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.