The Instigator
Blob
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
ConnorR
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Blob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,878 times Debate No: 23399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

Blob

Pro

I will be arguing that it should be socially acceptable to make fun of God. Con will be arguing that it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of God.


Definitions

God: any supernatural god of any religion.

Make fun of: Find humor or laugh at in a vile or insulting way. To tease, ridicule or make jokes about, generally in a pejorative manner.

Socially acceptable: Worthy of being accepted by society.



Note: although I will be arguing in favour of the resolution, I do not intend to make fun of God in this debate. However, I may provide examples of jokes about God, for the purpose of explaining my arguments. Please do not accept this debate if you might be offended by such examples, unless you are able to keep your feelings out of the debate itself.


4000 characters.
1st round acceptance only.
ConnorR

Con

I will of course be arguing against Blob, I believe that although free speech is important. It is not right to be able to mock a religion and/or leader of that religion.

It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices.

1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others.

By the way when I say you in this argument I mean those who mock god not you as in the "Pro"

It is a conflict of rights and such should be decided in the courts, not on the streets and our minds.
Debate Round No. 1
Blob

Pro

The first round was for acceptance only. Therefore, Con’s entire post for Round 1 should be read as “I accept”. Con may copy his text from Round 1 and paste it in for Round 2, together with rebuttals.

My argument is simple.


It is socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s taste in music. For example, I could say “(insert genre of music here) music is crap”, and jaws will not drop. This is despite the fact that a person’s taste in music is often based on a firm belief (i.e. that said type of music is in fact superior to other types). However, if I were to say “God is crap”, then all of a sudden jaws will drop.


I argue that if it is socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s taste in music, then it should be socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s (taste in) god, because they are both preferences based on beliefs.

ConnorR

Con

It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices.

1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others.

By the way when I say you in this argument I mean those who mock god not you as in the "Pro"

It is a conflict of rights and such should be decided in the courts, not on the streets and our minds.
Debate Round No. 2
Blob

Pro

Con has decided to repost his arguments from Round 1, as I suggested, but he has not offered any rebuttal to my argument. It should therefore be assumed that he accepts my argument.


It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices.

It is not against the constitution to mock a religion. If I make fun of your taste in music, it may influence your choice in music, but you can still choose whichever music you want. The same is true for God. If I make fun of God, you may feel less sure about your beliefs, but you can still choose to believe in God if you want. In order to disallow you from practicing your religion, I would have to take the choice away from you. You have already admitted that making fun of God does not take that choice away from you.



1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others.

In fact, the opposite it true. If people are not allowed to make fun of God, then certain religions are given immunity from criticism, and this favours such religions. This would also breach freedom of speech, which is also a part of the 1st Amendment.


Con has failed to provide any reasonable argument as to why it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of God. He has also offered no rebuttal to my argument.
ConnorR

Con

I didn't say that certain religions are immune from criticism, I say all religions should be immune to criticism.
If people are allowed to mock a religion, as I stated before, it opens the door for misusing of that right.

It is, in my opinion, the same class as racism, calling someone the N- word or a chink. Many ethiticities have distinguishing religions. And many link their religion as a direct connection to their race. So mocking their religion is same asmocking their race.
Debate Round No. 3
Blob

Pro

I say all religions should be immune to criticism.

This would give immunity to religion but not non-religion, thereby promoting religion, which according to you would be against the constitution. If you wish to extend that immunity to non-religion, then you are essentially saying that all beliefs relating to God (whether they be a form of belief or disbelief) should be immune to criticism. In this case, you must explain why beliefs relating to God should have this special immunity while other beliefs (e.g. taste in music) do not. My argument is that it should not matter what the belief is about. A belief is nothing more than that: a belief. If it is socially acceptable to make fun of one kind of belief (e.g. music), then it should be socially acceptable to make fun of any kind of belief (e.g. God).



It is, in my opinion, the same class as racism, calling someone the N- word or a chink. Many ethiticities have distinguishing religions. And many link their religion as a direct connection to their race. So mocking their religion is same asmocking their race.


Many kinds of beliefs are linked to race: beliefs about God, beliefs about music, beliefs about how to treat people, beliefs about gender roles, beliefs about education, beliefs about sport etc. Literally every belief that is linked to culture or ethnicity can be linked to race, since culture and ethnicity are factors that determine race.

I am from Australia, the home of Australian Rules Football (AFL). This is our distinguishing sport, and we believe it is the best sport in the world. Are you saying that it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of AFL? Would you put such criticism in the same class as racism? And what of beliefs about how to treat people, gender roles etc? Are you saying that all of these beliefs should be immune to criticism too? I certainly hope not, for if we were to adopt such an approach, the human race would surely not progress in any meaningful way; humans would be idle, because no important beliefs could be criticised.


Racism is wrong because it involves the unequal treatment of different people based on their race. If there is no unequal treatment, then no moral wrong is committed. Making fun of God does not result in unequal treatment of people based on their race or their beliefs about God. Indeed, the opposite is true. Being able to make fun of God results in equal treatment of all people, because it means that any kind of belief harboured by any person can be freely criticised by anyone.

So again I ask: why should beliefs about God have special immunity to criticism, while other beliefs do not?


To give beliefs about God special immunity is a blatant double-standard.
ConnorR

Con

ConnorR forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Blob

Pro

Arguments extended.

Vote PRO.
ConnorR

Con

Vote CON, mocking God is blanatly disrespectful to all people, whether you mock God, Allah, Budda, etc. It is unexceptable
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Vile insults should be generally unacceptable by a civil society, about religion or anything else. Con took the wrong approach in the debate. Arguing constitutional protection is untrue.

Buddha is not a god. Neither are Presidents Obama or Bush. But vile insults of any of them should be socially unacceptable.
Posted by ConnorR 5 years ago
ConnorR
Vote CON, mocking God is blanatly disrespectful to all people, whether you mock God, Allah, Budda, etc. It is enexceptable
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Welcome to the world of semantics. Enjoy your stay!
Posted by Blob 5 years ago
Blob
Good suggestion. I'd go with that.

I'd also let my opponent define it, so long as the definition was reasonable.

I did not intend for my arguments to depend much on the definition of "Make fun of".
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
"Make fun of: say anything negative about, whether joke or serious, in the presence of another person/s."
I am sorry but that is not the correct definition.
Make fun of: Find humor or laugh at using a vile or insulting way. To tease, ridicule or make jokes about, generally in a pejorative manner.
Posted by Blob 5 years ago
Blob
I don't consider Shinto, with perhaps 50 million followers, to be a major religion.

I was mainly thinking of Christianity and Islam.

However, my intention was to simply limit the definition to any god that is thought to be supernatural or the creator of the universe.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Most Eastern Religions have some form of anthropolatry, whether the worship and respect towards a live person or a dead person.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Shinto
Posted by Blob 5 years ago
Blob
Which major religions practice anthropolatry?
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
what about religions which practice anthropolatry? That makes man god. Thus, it should be socially acceptable to make fun of others.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
BlobConnorRTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defined "make fun of" to include "in a vile or insulting way." that should be socially unacceptable for a wide variety of beliefs because we should seek a civil society. However Con's main argument was Constitutional separation of church and state, which is way off base. vile insults of religion are now more acceptable than, say, vile insults of the President. Con loses conduct for the forfeit.