It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Blob
| Started: | 5/8/2012 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 736 times | Debate No: | 23399 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)
 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.  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. |
 |
|
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. Con 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. |
 |
|
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. Con 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. |
 |
|
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. Con ConnorR forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Con |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
| Blob | ConnorR | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 4 | 0 |
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.
Buddha is not a god. Neither are Presidents Obama or Bush. But vile insults of any of them should be socially unacceptable.
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".
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.
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.