Religion in society
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1- challenge, choose a topic listed or give your thoughts w/explanation
Rd 2- Debate start, rebuttal's
Rd 3- Rebuttals
Rd 4- Rebuttals
Rd 5- Conclusion/Final points
This Debate is just to get thoughts flowing. Please no profanity or discrimination
Since I get to choose the debate I will choose the following.
"If a society agrees to follow a religion, they must in no way contradict any of its scriptures."
This includes the politics, lifestyle and sudden moral 'split second' decisions that any member of the society may face.
The definition of religion will be a strict doctrine of behaviour and morality professed to have come from a greater power.
Well, if a society were to follow a religion, I agree the scriptures should not be contradicted. But if an individual were to disregard those scriptures, even accidentally without thinking, like some people do, then would the price to pay be fierce? Seeing as if a society were to follow a religion, much like Americans or Europeans follow governments, then we could safely say there WOULD be terrible consequences for accidentally placing your feet in the wrong hole.
How would this affect individuality? Or the worship of a separate religion as in America? Would they be held to trial, or simply deported/ "disappear"? People would be sent into an isolation phase where they couldn't say anything in fear of saying something wrong or disgraceful. Also this doctrine you speak of; would it be much like a monarchy Unitary System of government? So the "greater power" would be God of course, but the leader of the society, I assume the position is known as Pope, who is to say might become power hungry and use the word of God against anyone who questions him over making laws or forming a government, or even controlling lifestyle by extremes? We all see how many and terrorist groups perform and are corrupt. I believe it possible that that society would be so enveloped with the doctrine that they take drastic strikes at other religions or groups. The mentality is all the same, support your cause by any means necessary even if it means dominance by violence.
There is not a single religion whose doctrine commands the violent treatment of those who disobey it. Ask any non-terrorist Muslim to show you the scripture commanding non-violence and no killing of human beings. Therefore if any society were to base its law around it, being violent and aggressive would only display their incapability to read and fully understand their scripture (as many Arab nations have failed to do to the Qur'an).
Instead, there would be prison sentences and other humane methods of punishment based around what would be applicable to a modern day society (since following a religion is no excuse to not consider international relations and world standards of human rights). It is thus that I conclude that if a nations were to elect a religion to base its law around, it would be incorrect for them to sway form it in any way.
Whilst the Bible and Qur'an have stoning involved in punishment processes (the bible only having such i the old, and often disregarded, testament) it would clearly be a reason for the UN to step in and violently stop the violence (ironic but true). So if you want to pick at random quotes from certain texts feel free to do so but often that was only applicable to the primitive cultures merely beginning to form as the religious texts were written.
I will start with the argument of violence again. No religion may exist that requires violence as a consequence, but is has been done. About 1000 years ago when religion was high and mighty, violence was actually quite prevalent in society. The Christians led full fledged wars for dominance purposes.
Below is a visual chart showing the growth of Christianity.
The above source explains the crusades, which was filled with "Holy Wars". And as my source says, there were nines crusades. To me that is a lot of "Holy Wars", which were fought to spread Christianity throughout Europe. Now the crusades have have began as to liberate Jerusalem from another religious group, but they also extended their reach throughout Europe as I have said. This is an example of violence from a religion based society. Not only violent, but a series of wars fought to become the dominant religion. Sure, my source is about what happened almost 1000 years ago, but I also do know that many religions are still at war with each other, at least mentally. The below source is an example of a religious group wanting power, and tries to achieve this through brute force. As said, "Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society"
^( http://www.nytimes.com... )
My next example is of the Jewish and Muslims, who are more recently at each others throats. Again for the control of Jerusalem. It is quite prevalent that dominance has overruled religion since the middle ages, and who knows when finally religious groups can get along and respect each others religion?
^( http://www.aish.com... )
So back to consequences. Prison sentences should be required, but we all see that some criminals come out of prison and commit the same crimes over again. There is no stopping the will of some people to break the law, or scriptures persay.
Of course anyone can conclude that if a nation were to choose a religion to base its law, then swaying from it would be counterproductive, but there is nothing stopping that religion from trying to spread. An example would be America, a democracy. America has tried to spread democracy across the globe in the areas they have influence. Another would be of Germany and the U.S.S.R., who both tried to spread communism across their borders into other countries. Theses are not exactly religions, rather they are forms of government, but really how much different is religion? Both religion and government follow a doctrine. But are those doctrines followed strictly?
This source specifies that most religions have deemed sacrifice to be "a barbaric practice", but in Iran sacrifices have been made in the name of religion. A woman who had two children, was convicted of adultery, and then sentenced to death by stoning. Stoning begins with the victim being wrapped in a white shroud, buried up to the chest, and then stones being thrown at the victims head until death. And as the article states, the stones are not big enough to kill the victim in a short period of time. I also believe no one stepped in to "take care of" this act of violence., and Iran had a history if punishment such as this. My point here is that even though religion is supposed to be innocent and forgiving, there are still cases of sacrificial punishment, and not all the time does someone step in.
I am extremely sorry if it seems I have taken random quotes from certain texts. I instead tried to look at some of the facts of the texts this time.
Consummator forfeited this round.
Consummator forfeited this round.
Consummator forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.