If we colonize a planet, should religion be banned to prevent religion based civil wars?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will allow pro to make their arguments first.
"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.
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.
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.
Religion= Some good things, some bad things
Ban religion= BAAAAAD
New Colony equals a fresh start, something old can leave (religion), and something new can take its place (simple living no ties attached)
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?
"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:
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by A.Starr 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: The "con" had better explanation and more reason.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.