The Instigator
whatitsworth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Discipulus_Didicit
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

If we colonize a planet, should religion be banned to prevent religion based civil wars?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Discipulus_Didicit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 75728
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

whatitsworth

Pro

If we colonize a planet it mostly likely would be mixed based on Color, Creed, Sex, Race, Sexuality, etc. But would Religion destroy the colony because Humans always seem to find a way to destroy others beliefs because they may inflict pain on one another. There was about Nine crusades to promote religion by force in the middle east could it happen again?
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

I accept, and will argue that religion should not be banned if such a colony were to be established. It would be better to allow freedom and individual choice on this matter, despite pros assertion that doing so may cause conflict on the young colony. In fact I believe that such a ban would actually increase the chances of violent conflict occurring.

I will allow pro to make their arguments first.
Debate Round No. 1
whatitsworth

Pro

Historically Man has always want to dominate over another man for his or her country so they may expand the borders or influence. Yet religion has gone to far. Yes personal freedom would be established in a colony but a certain boundary must be set to ensure tensions between one another should not be pursued. Religion should not be placed in a amendment, ordinance, law, decree, etc. No one should be persecuted from their own colony just because the majority rules. Religion is a never ending topic of who holds control of the most. Yet in a colony I'm sure it would be divided between people because everyone has a difference upbringing.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

You claim (and I agree) that conflict has non religious causes and religious causes, yet you state that religion has gone too far. My question to you is, how far is too far? what is it about religion that makes you think it is worse than any other cause of conflict?

"Yes personal freedom would be established in a colony but a certain boundary must be set"

This is completely different from what you were saying a moment ago but I'll roll with it anyway. What do you propose this boundary should be? From what you are saying it seems that you have changed yoir stance from banning religion to instead proposing a strong seperation of church and state. Is this the case or am I understanding incorrectly? It is important that I understand what your stance and proposal actually is if we are to discuss it.
Debate Round No. 2
whatitsworth

Pro

Boundaries will be established in future by depending on how the situation develops. If a war breaks out how would it be handled, a boundary establishes a base and will give people an idea of self respect, but their is always that one group of people that must take it to the next level. Power has always been a leaders fault. It has destroyed families, civilizations and personal backgrounds.

In the world today religion has divided people's personal opinions. People are always looking for new answers so that they may feel satisfied in their life. But belief is just an idea it shouldn't change the entire stance of human race and divide people based on the principles of a religion. Religion goes too far when hate follows. Such forms include the Westboro Baptist church, terrorism, crusades, genocide, etc. Religion can be the root of all evil if it isn't used in moderation.

Banning religion can go in two ways, violent and non-violent. But seeing what goes on the world today it seems religion may take a violent approach if a colony is established. Their is good and bad, but I always see that religion always segregates a community. People are constantly left out, but if religion is banned maybe we can work together and reach a common goal.

Yes maybe you have valid arguments that I completely change my ideas.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

Boumd will be established you say, by this do you mean that people of different religious beliefs will be physically seperated to prevent conflict between them? This seems like a rather drastic measure, comparable to the creations of ghettos in cities here on earth to keep certain groups separate.

Certainly I think that your claim that the want of power causes conflicts is true, but I contend that so does the want of freedom. When you undertake to ban a religion you not only stand against the religious leaders who may be seeking power for its own sake or may not, you also stand against the freedom of personal belief of the masses. By undertaking to ban religion you are undertaking to impose and support an authoritarian mind-controling regime and I would say that such an action causes enough harm as to be unjustifiable.

You say that religion divides peoples opinions, but a division of of opinion is not necessarily a bad thing by itself. Different opinions can easily be handled in a civilized manner. Your statement about religion going too far in these divisions when hate follows I find it harder to argue against. Of course religion does cause harm, very possibly it even causes more harm than good, but banning it outright has far more severe implications. On top of the negatives I mentioned previously such a ban would only serve to cause more divisions than it patches up.

In conclusion:

Religion= Some good things, some bad things
Ban religion= BAAAAAD
Debate Round No. 3
whatitsworth

Pro

Banning religion does seem radical however it may be required. Religion has always been about dividing others and being unjust. For an example look at Christianity, over the course of its history it has divided into several branches such as protestant, orthodox and catholic. Sometimes people go against what is said and create new division's. But by banning religion everyone is treated equal. Religion has affected peoples opinions and has destroyed others peoples ideas. The church has always used a divine right over everything. Starting a colony can be a fresh start to choose not to use religion as a basis for everything. Maybe science has a better answer for why humans can colonize mars and not "God". Banning it may make us closer as a society by tearing down of wall of beliefs that has destroyed the human race for centuries.

New Colony equals a fresh start, something old can leave (religion), and something new can take its place (simple living no ties attached)
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

Religion is a set of ideas that evolve over time with the culture and people who follow them. The branching and divisions that you refer to here are natural byproducts of this evolution of ideas, not an intrensic property of religion itself.

You claim that by banning religion everyone is treated equal, but this is simply not the case. People who want to follow a certain religion would be required to act against their desires while people like me (and I presume you as well, but I am not sure) who do not follow any religion would have no such requirements and thus are unfairly favored.

You also say that this hypothetical colony would be used as a new start. However, any such colony would naturally be tied to the motherland from which its people came (in this case earth). Because of this any natural trends prominent in the motherland such as religion would also become natural trends on the new world by default, so preventing such natural trends from being mimiced on the new world would not be so simple as just quashing them in the initial stages of the colonies development, instead because of the connection to the homeland such a ban would require constant enforcement leading naturally to the creation of an authoritarian state which has deemed the private lives of its citizens to be within its right to examine, judge, and alter at will. Not 'simple living with no ties attached'.

Is that the new start we want?
Debate Round No. 4
whatitsworth

Pro

If a new start is needed then let it be. Religion can altered and changed as I said before. But what happens when multiple religions meet each other? The answer is not good. All the time religions has overtaken other peoples original beliefs and hence forth destroyed them. Why should religion continue onward, religion is already in a bad position on earth. Why should it continue on colonization of other planets. Sometimes change is good. People may want to keep their religion but how many people are going to be on colonizing on mars. Religion should not be intertwined with science. Really science is the main cause how colonization works, not religion. Banning religion overall just make us a better people instead of what's happening back on earth. Look at colonization back then. When colonization happened each European country thought they could hold their land. Well turns out holding land in another continent 1,000 miles away was a lot harder than expected. Natural resources will most likely be found once a base is established for a good time. The probability of a colony eventually wanting to split is more likely. Are they going to be thanking god or thanking one another for because of a religious boundary. Maybe another reformation of religion is required to reach our goal even how hard it may be to give up.
Discipulus_Didicit

Con

I will now quote my opponent and respond to their final arguments sentence by sentence.

"If a new start is required let it be"

If your new start includes the creation of an authoritarian state the likes of which I described in rounds 3 and 4 (which you have not denied) I will not let it be. I will oppose it in every way I am able.

"Religion can be altered and changed as I said before"

You said no such thing. You have said that religion is bad and should be banned.

"But what happens when multiple religions meet each other?"

Sometimes bad things. Sometimes this:
http://pressreleases.religionnews.com...
http://m.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk...
http://m.huffpost.com...

"All the time religions has overtaken other peoples original beliefs and hence forth destroyed them."

Which is exactly what you are proposing to do.

"Why should religion continue onward? Religion is already in a bad position on earth. Why should it continue on colonization of other planets?"

Because it is what a freedom loving society would do.

"Sometimes change is good"

And sometimes it is not.

"People may want to keep their religion but how many people are going to be on colonizing on mars.

Maybe hundreds. Maybe millions. How many of them deserve to be forced to live under a system that forces them to act against their deepest beliefs?

"Religion should not be intertwined with science."

I... do not quite remember saying that it should... perhaps because I never said anything like that... sooo...

" Really science is the main cause how colonization works, not religion."

You are correct. Religion itself did nothing to contribute to space flight technology. I dont see how that relates to this debate though.

"Banning religion overall just make us a better people instead of what's happening back on earth."

I have already explained why I disagree with that statement.

"Look at colonization back then. When colonization happened each European country thought they could hold their land. Well turns out holding land in another continent 1,000 miles away was a lot harder than expected."

Even to this day the influence of old colonial empires is heavily felt by the lands they colonized. Canada used to be owned by French and British at different times. Canadas main languages? English and French. Go figure. The Spanish colonial empire once encompassed most of what is now Central America. Their primary language? Spanish. Go figure. Brazil-Portugal-Portuguese. Need I go on?

"Natural resources will most likely be found once a base is established for a good time. The probability of a colony eventually wanting to split is more likely."

Regardless of whether or not political independence is declared cultural influence remains as I have just pointed out with the example of languages.

"Are they going to be thanking god or thanking one another for because of a religious boundary?"

We shall see.

"Maybe another reformation of religion is required to reach our goal even how hard it may be to give up."

I disagree, for the reasons stated above.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry about the horrible spelling errors. I am not usually this bad but I am on my smartphone right now rather than a computer and the fat fingers are killing me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by A.Starr 1 year ago
A.Starr
whatitsworthDiscipulus_DidicitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The "con" had better explanation and more reason.