The Instigator
SNP1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
demonlord343
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religion can be blamed for some crimes committed by theists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 53270
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

SNP1

Pro

This debate is about if religion should be blamed for some of the crimes committed by theists.

Rules:
1. Burden of proof is shared
2. Stay on topic
3. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct.
4. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points.
5. Follow the following format for the debate

Format:
Round 1- Acceptance.
Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals.
Rounds 4- No new points/arguments.
Round 4- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case.

Let the debate begin!
demonlord343

Con

Hello SNP1.

To the audience,
This will be a series of debates. So please, follow the debate!

I accept. Claim: Religion should not be blamed for some of the crimes commited by theists.

This looks like a fun debate.. I look forward to the opening arguments.. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Pro

Religion CAN be blamed for some crimes, a prime example is a Jihad in Islam. The purpose of a Jihad is to defend Islam in a type of Holy War.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

This is easily compared to the Crusades of the Catholic Church to try and implement Christianity as the true religion.

http://usna.edu...

The Inquisition was about getting rid of non-Christians.

"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the
Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by
death." - Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, 1271).
Christian civilization, by virtue of its exclusivist
heresy and monotheism, became the self-justifying
destroyer of all non-Christian culture.

http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org...

Adolf Hitler even stated in his book Mein Kampf that killing the Jews was done for God.

http://atheism.about.com...

there is even an interesting book called The 9/11 Verses: Terrorist Teachings in the Koran that talks about how the Koran actually promotes terrorism, the same verses that approve and promote the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

http://www.amazon.com...

There is still a war, terrorist attacks, etc. happening between Palestine and Israel BECAUSE of religion. They are all trying to take position of their "Holy Land".

Hinduism does not even escape this as there are hundreds, even thousands of cases of domestic violence caused in Hindu societies. Hinduism even teaches that if a husband dies before his wife that it is her fault.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com...
http://www.historyextra.com...

This is not saying that all crimes are the fault of religion, but religion is responsible for quite a few crimes that have happened over time.
demonlord343

Con

I claim that no religion should be at fault for the crimes that their members commit. Before we decided that all religions should be banished from thought, I must urge the audience to look at the good things that they have also done.

Martin Luther King Jr., a theist amongst them all, was one who led for African American civil rights and moderate protection. However, is his religion held accountable for the actions he made? The answer is no he was not. He was held accountable for his actions, and his actions alone.

http://www.biography.com...



Gandhi, an activist whom freed India from the British control, was a very religious person. To many, he is now referenced as a God. However, do they get any praise from being nonviolent? No, they do not.

So I must ask "Is it really the religion at fault?"

The answer I say is no. We do not uphold the good that comes from religion even though we make sure that the bad is now marked upon theists forever. Good can come out of religion, and it can most definitely outweight the bad that has been done and that it will do.

I think that those who go and do terrible deeds for their religion should be punished, but not because of what they believe, but by the actions that they commit. One can choose what to believe. One can choose their own actions. There is always the choice to do an action, and a choice to not do one.

One can dismiss any influence made by people or religion. One can also choose to allow it to influence them. The question of what influence a religion gives is dependent on reality.

A reality is what one chooses it to be. Thus, even the reality of any situation can still be a choice by the individual. It is based off of what we observe, and if we are to make such a claim that an action is a result of what theists believe, then we must observe any theism to be bad, we must observe all theistic religions.

Below are some religions that have had little to no attention for violence:
Buddhism
Deism
Many forms of Christianity, such as a Jehovah's Witness.
Polydeism
Pandeism
Panendeism
Autotheism
Judaism
Orthodox Islam

This does not even begin to sum up all the religions that exist today. All of these forms of religion have been mostly nonviolent.

However, I must return to how this affects my original claim. All of the actions of these religions as a whole have been peaceful. So, the few that go astray and commit crimes must be aheld for their individual actions.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 2
SNP1

Pro

"Martin Luther King Jr., a theist amongst them all, was one who led for African American civil rights and moderate protection. However, is his religion held accountable for the actions he made? The answer is no he was not. He was held accountable for his actions, and his actions alone."

"Gandhi, an activist whom freed India from the British control, was a very religious person. To many, he is now referenced as a God. However, do they get any praise from being nonviolent? No, they do not."

They do get praise for being non-violent. This also does not address the issue. I never said people cannot do well while being a theist, I said that SOME crimes can be blamed on religion.

"The answer I say is no. We do not uphold the good that comes from religion even though we make sure that the bad is now marked upon theists forever. Good can come out of religion, and it can most definitely outweight the bad that has been done and that it will do."

Just because religion can do good does not mean it cannot do wrong. I also do not see how the good has outweighed all the bad that has been caused by religion.

"I think that those who go and do terrible deeds for their religion should be punished, but not because of what they believe, but by the actions that they commit. One can choose what to believe. One can choose their own actions. There is always the choice to do an action, and a choice to not do one."

Yes, but by that logic person A in this situation is guilty of nothing.

Person A bribes person B to kill person C. Person B kills person C. Person B is guilty, but person A is innocent.

Is that fair? Person A represents religion, the bribe represents eternal paradise (or other specific rewards).

"One can dismiss any influence made by people or religion. One can also choose to allow it to influence them. The question of what influence a religion gives is dependent on reality."

And at the same time people can be indoctrinated into religions, and when raised that way they can be influenced for it to become part of their reality.

Again, religion does not cause everyone to commit crimes, just like person A cannot convince everyone to kill person C, but those that do decide to be person B are still doing it because of person A.

Without Islam there would be no Jihads. Without Christianity there would not have been the Crusades or Inquisition.

Just because people have free will does not mean we cannot be influenced. If religion influences someone to commit a crime then religion is also to blame, just like person A is also to blame for the murder person B committed.

I am NOT saying that all the blame should go to religion because humans do have free will, but religion does deserve some of the blame in these situations.

The late Christopher Hitchens explains this in his book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

I do not agree with everything stated by him or in his book, but there are many good points.

Some people might say there is a difference between person A and religion, and there is. Many hardcore theists hold religion as the most important thing. If someone holds religion as the most important thing and they follow the passages in their "Holy Book" about committing those crimes then how can we say religion is not even partly responsible? We hold racial superiority as being partly responsible for slavery, so why not hold religion as being partly responsible for those crimes?
demonlord343

Con

"Yes, but by that logic person A in this situation is guilty of nothing.

Person A bribes person B to kill person C. Person B kills person C. Person B is guilty, but person A is innocent.

Is that fair? Person A represents religion, the bribe represents eternal paradise (or other specific rewards)."

According to the dogma of faith for almost all religion, the so-proclaimed "reward" is given to those who do good throughout their life cycle (obviously the terrorist version of Islamic religion is an exception, but amongst everything, they have a very small percentage of the population of the world that believes in it).

Also, I belive it would not be fair to the thousands of people involved in religion were to suddenly be prosecuted because of an individual. What if all those people went to prison for life? What if it was in a state with the death penalty (If the crime is drastic enough)? All those people would then be punished for something they had nothing to do with.

And, according to your logic:

Person A works for company B (This is a reasonable comparison for religion, since you are most likely depend on it to survive. This can also be true for the church that you attend, for a form of therapy). Company B says that immigrants are bad for business. Person A kills four immigrants (This is the same. Kill a few, and profits of the company increase, which means better pay for the average worker). Thus, Company A is at fault.

That is not true. Company A is not responsible for the employee's actions. Just like religion is not responsible for its participants.

"And at the same time people can be indoctrinated into religions, and when raised that way they can be influenced for it to become part of their reality."

Right, and as they do wrong, society will take punishment upon the individual, not the entire religion.

"Without Islam there would be no Jihads. Without Christianity there would not have been the Crusades or Inquisition."

This argument means nothing. Why? I am sure when they started this religion they did not intend to start the Crusades or the Inquisition. I am positive that Orthodox Islamic religion did not intend to make the Jihad. All of the religions that I have just mentioned started out peacefully. Just because they were twisted into something else does not put the original thing at fault.

My opponent has merely referenced a small portion of the religion spectrum. Many religious people do not look for an "afterlife" of sorts, but merely they believe in a diverse set of reincarnation beliefs. Those often pertain growing and learning as a person. They often do not have a heaven, and some of these people are monks.

"If someone holds religion as the most important thing and they follow the passages in their "Holy Book" about committing those crimes then how can we say religion is not even partly responsible? We hold racial superiority as being partly responsible for slavery, so why not hold religion as being partly responsible for those crimes?"

(Note: There is a grammatical error at the underline. I believe that means grammar points go to Con.)

a) Not all religion follows a holy book of sorts. Sure, most factions have a holy book, but this is a small percentage of the religion spectrum
b) Racial superiority? This is a red herring fallacy. I would then have to argue against this claim to prove his point false, and his point is also against the rules:
2.Stay on topic.
(Note: Conduct points I think now go to Con.)

My opponent is looking upon religion from this perspective: Religion has done bad things, thus they are responsible. Let us apply that logic to the real world.

If a priest went up and told a congregation that food was meant for the rich only, and some of the congregation went and robbed a bunch of homeless people of their food. Who is to blame in such a situation?

Well, the members of the congregation are obviously at fault. Does the priest deserve to get thrown in jail? Yes, because in this case, he was the leader. However, do we throw out the entire religion just because of the actions of the individual? No. That is not fair nor just to the members that were of the congregation that did not commit any crimes.

Now, lets change a variable from the situation above to better represented what happened with the Crusades or the Inqusition: The ENTIRE congregation robbed a bunch of homeless people.

This would still be unreasonable to throw out the entire religion. It was just one congregation and the leader that commited the crimes, and thus the religion is not at fault. If an entire religion is doing something against the law, two things are happeneing: a) bad leadership or b) The religious denomination is against the law and can not be permitted.

Also, at the time, the Crusades and the Inquisition was accepted back in those years. That is why it had so many followers. However, even then not everyone was in support of it.


Debate Round No. 3
SNP1

Pro

SNP1 forfeited this round.
demonlord343

Con

My opponent forfeited the final round. No rebuttals necessary.

Conclusion:

Religion cannot be blamed for some crimes commited by theists. It is unrealistic, not fair, and by no way, just.

Thank you SNP1 for the very good debate. Well done.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Honestly do not think I will win this debate...
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Migrating_Hacker, you need more than just saying "Con wins"
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Sorry, I was not able to post a debate... Kinda got distracted with free comicbook day... Good job demonlord, since I was not able to make it on in time to post my last round I do not see me winning this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.