The Instigator
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
KarlMarKard
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Religion's Immunity

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,260 times Debate No: 3277
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (24)

 

Vi_Veri

Pro

Why should religion be immune to criticism from the atheist community?

I'd like to challenge any real theist to this debate.

For example, when the Danish Caricatures were drawn, the Danish government had to give a public apology (even though they shouldn't need to in a government where there is free press) about the cartoons. Even though the Muslim protestors killed hundreds over it, the Danish were the ones who had to apologies.

Now, when say, Steven Colbert does a skit on President Bush, you don't see the Republicans burning down Steven Colbert's studio (they would be the ones paying for that action).

Why is it that we grant religion immunity when we grant nothing else (even tense ideologies such as political affiliation) immunity from reason, logic, science, and law?

I believe that religion should not have this immunity.
KarlMarKard

Con

When it comes to religion, theists will accept anything that is taught to them regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis. In fact, the more far-fetched the tale, the more the theists love to eat it up. That is in essence the core aspect of their beleif - blind faith. To believe in something with no basis, proof or without the support of logic and reasoning is exactly what makes it so special to those who automatically proclaim it to be fact. To us it's the "easy way out" and obvious opression, but to them it's corageous and a testament to their character that they would be so bold to go against science, factual evidence and all the nay sayers, all in the name of God. This is, of course, because they actually believe that God is in fact holy and that they are on a moral crusade to save themselves and hopefully those around them.

Now, I agree with you that religion's immunity should not be granted, however, that is not what you asked for in this debate. You asked why religion should be immune, and to that I have a few ideas that I figured I would attempt to debate. However first I would like clarification on a few things. I would like to know are we talking about the Chrisitian religion specifically, all monotheistic religions, or all religion in general?
Debate Round No. 1
Vi_Veri

Pro

"Why is it that we grant religion immunity when we grant nothing else (even tense ideologies such as political affiliation) immunity from reason, logic, science, and law?

I believe that religion should not have this immunity."

Unfortunetly, I meant why do we grant them immunity.
KarlMarKard

Con

If God were real, wouldn't you fear him? Wouldn't you fight for him? Wouldn't you do everything to uphold the values past onto you by an almighty, infinte being who holds your destiny of eternity in his hands? If you answered yes, then I have already won this debate.

The point is that to theists, God IS real. He is ever knowing and all powerful. They believe that he gave us rules. They believe that he gave us tools, like the bible and the evangelists, to help spread his message of peace and love (even if that comes in the form of war and torture, apparently). Regardless, many people believe in this God. Many politicians, powerful political figures and rulers believe in this God. Many citizens believe in this God. And because of Gods power and God-like qualities, he is above politics, he is above man, meaning he is above man's logic and reasoning. We don't have to understand him. The point is that we can't. The point is that all we can do is trust him and have faith. Thus if that is the entire point, then why subject religion to critism? If you do, it means you're missing the point of blind faith. Theists know better then to question. God would be disappointed. It would be blasphemous.

And as far as atheists questioning, well theists sincerely believe that they are doing the will of God and the right thing for their "ignorant" and "liberal" atheist friends who don't know any better. They are protecting them from eternal damnation by continuing to uphold the word of God without question and promote God's will here on earth. They truly believe with 100% certainty that they are doing the right thing. Their faith in their God is above reason, science, logic and law. And that's that. To allow atheists to buy into those instead of into God would be promoting false idols or questioning God's godness. It's wrong. It's a sin. And it cannot be tolerated. Any questions?
Debate Round No. 2
Vi_Veri

Pro

"If God were real, wouldn't you fear him? Wouldn't you fight for him? Wouldn't you do everything to uphold the values past onto you by an almighty, infinte being who holds your destiny of eternity in his hands? If you answered yes, then I have already won this debate."

*clears throat, begins*

If crime were real, wouldn't you fear the no government? Wouldn't you fight for government? Wouldn't you do everything to uphold the values past onto you by the founding fathers who shaped a constitution after rebelling against a tyrant to free a nation? The same laws and constitution that shapes your current life and restrictions, the future of your children, and the safety of everyone? If you answered yes, then you value your safety as a civilized human being.

"The point is that to theists, God IS real. He is ever knowing and all powerful. They believe that he gave us rules. They believe that he gave us tools, like the bible and the evangelists, to help spread his message of peace and love (even if that comes in the form of war and torture, apparently). Many politicians, powerful political figures and rulers believe in this God. Many citizens believe in this God. And because of Gods power and God-like qualities, he is above politics, he is above man, meaning he is above man's logic and reasoning. "

ehm...

This does not, in any way, mean that theists are above the law if they are Incorporated in the law. We have Christian ideals in our government (ex: no same-sex marriage), and the law is upheld. Therefore, if Muslims commit horrendous crimes, why should the government apologise when the rest of the sane folk follow the law in order to maintain some sort of worldly order?

Yes, punishment in the next life may be very real for a theist, BUT punishment in this life is also very real. America could easily bomb Mecca, it could have bombed Kyoto, but it doesn't and it didn't. Reasons? Because we tolerate religious beliefs.

Now, the problem is when this tolerance breaches our laws. Just because religion is offended doesn't mean it can go and commit atrocities.

=== Let me try this in a new direction.====

There are Neo-Nazi's that live in the united states. They are allowed to vote, to own property, to carry out their rights. BUT when these Neo-Nazi's breach the law, the government goes and punishes them.

I do not believe that we should be afraid to criticize religion. I don't believe they should be immune from this as the Neo-Nazi's are not immune from political critics.

After the Danish Cartoons, there was a muslim woman photographed with a burka hold a sign "God Bless Hitler." They had fits of rage, killed, were ignorant, and made up their own facts (they even created 2 of the cartoons themselves). Now, why should the government grant them immunity from critics and say "Oh i'm sorry!"

It shouldn't.

The nations of the world didn't tell the Nazi's they were sorry about the horrendous behavior. They crumbled them into a heap. Just because something has to do with the after life, doesn't mean it's as legitimate as the here and now. Nazi's truly believed that their race was supreme, they died for their race, they killed for their race. And they were defeated.

I do not believe all religious people are like this. I just know that those who are need to be put in their place before the judges of reason, logic and mostly earthly *law*. If not, they should be forced in that place to protect those of us who do not believe in their ideals and value life.

So, why, KarlMarKard, should we not fix the problems the radicals create, but sit back and give them immunity from critics?

Why should we let the radicals violate laws that harm people, teach people anti-medicine, preach intolerance? The question is, KarlMarKard, why should we sit back and grant them the immunity to do as they please when groups that believe heavily in what they preach (Like cults, KarlMarKard, and radical political groups like the Nazi's) are being punished all of the time by the government?
KarlMarKard

Con

I believe you are taking my thoughts and words out of context. Also, this is kind of off topic, but I believe I will lose this argument regardless of my points because I have somehow made enemies with the Conservatives I am defending in this debate! Haha!

Anyhoo, I do not agree with the way the Danish cartoon situation was handled. I'll admit that I never heard of this occurence before you brought it up in this debate. But my stance on this topic goes beyond that one instance and attempts to defend the idea of why religion is given certain immunity. Perhaps you are not familiar with my style of debate (I'll admit that I've only participated in 2 or 3 on this site thus far). But take for instance my position vs. theLwerd in the argument that a clearly racist letter was not racist. My goal was not to prove that racism did not exist in the letter, but rather provide insight as to why there WAS. I don't care much about winning debates as much as I do offering the other side of an argument. And so I continue with this debate.

I will first start off by saying that I have no idea what you're talking about when you started asking about crime in your last argument. You asked if crime were real wouldn't I fight for government. The answer is yes because crime is clearly real and that fact is accepted by all, whereas there is a lot of speculation about religion. Yes religion exists but there are different theories and aspects to particular beliefs. Anyway I suppose you are hinting that theists should fight for laws to be upheld because crime is just as real as whatever God that they believe in. I understand that. But what you're not understanding is that GOD is ABOVE law, and ABOVE crime.

Martin Luther King said that if laws are unjust, it is our responsibility to fight and go against those man-made laws to uphold what is right. I'm sure no one would disagree that it was wrong for him and other blacks to fight unjust laws that affected millions of American lives. And so it is with theists who are so strong in their convictions that they push their religious agenda upon others. There intentions are good. And I'm not talking about the Nazi's you speak of that kill in the name of God. Rather I am speaking about the Conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage because they seriously believe that it is wrong (not just from a poltical standpoint but in terms of their personal religious beliefs).

Everyone regardless of their faith has to answer to the law. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't fight for what they sincerely believe is right. For instance abortion laws have been threatened to be repealed since they came about in the 1970s. Christians continue to fight for the right to life because it is important. It is a big issue and one the Church takes very seriously. I am not arguing that radicals be able to break the law for their own beliefs. Yet you asked in starting this debate why religion be immune to criticism. I have answered this repeatedly (probably in a non-nice way, as the hating against me in the comment section reveals) but I will once again. TO THEISTS, THE LAWS OF THE BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE ABOVE MAN MADE LAWS. The word of George W. Bush is not above the word of God.

I feel like I have won this debate because I answered the question at hand whereas you have only asked more questions. For instance you wrote "So, why, KarlMarKard, should we not fix the problems the radicals create, but sit back and give them immunity from critics?" My argument is that we SHOULD fix the problems, the way we fix problems created by everyone and anyone (or attempt to, or should attempt to). Also, you have provided no proof that "critics" have given these religious groups immunity. I have seen no sources or citations or anything.

You asked why why should we let the radicals violate laws that harm people, teach people anti-medicine, preach intolerance? Well I don't think we should. I hear about religious radicals being punished all the time. You noted that cults and Nazis have also believed strongly in their positions and yet we have we have punished them. Like I said, we punish people who go against American policies and laws as well. The problem in todays society is that many law makers are in fact Conservative, making them different from libertarians because their Christian beliefs force them to take a socially conservative posistion whereas they are economic liberals like libertarians that believe in small government. So until beliefs that stem from religion or religious principles stop being a factor in government, there will be religious immunity to some degree.

When you hear politicans talk about the presidency for example, they are not only discussing healthcare and the economy but social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research (not so much the latter in this particular election but nevertheless it's an issue). Logically stem cell research is a good thing. It saves lives. Logically abortion is a good thing (think about it). But religion teaches us that life is sacred. Religion tells people that stem cell research is wrong. These beliefs have made their way into politics. That is undeniable. The Constitution and even Bill of Rights exist because of the morality of our founding fathers. Much of their beliefs were based on the religion they were taught by their patents who were taught by their parents and so on.

My point is that religion will be immune so long as the people in power are generally in agreement. Keep in mind that the "peopole in power" may or may not be voters. If that were not the case then why is gay marriage still illegal? Because of the religious institutions that do not want to expand the term marriage to include same-sex legal loving unions, because it goes against God's teaching. If the Bible said nothing bad about gays, religious people probably wouldn't be as opposed to gay marriage (since the argument is that marriage is a religious term not a legal term) and therefore equal rights would prevail. But alas religions imposition into politics is apparent.

So you see, religions are not immune to criticism. They are critisized all the time. The bottom line is that people in power, whomever they may be (generally elected officials), will affect how things are run. If people escape the wrath of the law it is not because religion is superior to laws here on earth (even though that is the case for theists). It is for political reasons or other incentives that injustice exists.
Debate Round No. 3
Vi_Veri

Pro

Vi_Veri forfeited this round.
KarlMarKard

Con

It seems my opponent has forfeited the final round and so I will reiterate the main point that I have been trying to make all along. That God's law is above man-made law. God's law says that abortion is wrong. The United States law says that abortion is okay. I believe theists will accept the penalties imposed by human law if they choose to do something crazy as say bomb an abortion clinic. Their actions are wrong, yes, and they are not immune to the penalties of our legal system. To say that they are is completely false. So while I don't think that they should be immune, I feel as though Pro should recognize and understand why religious groups sometimes fight for immunity it not all but CERTAIN situations. For instance a religious Jew might choose to not show up to work if he is scheduled to show up on a Saturday, his day of religious observance. That is wrong (he is disrupting his business) but he should be immune from punishment because he had religious reasoning for hiss less than dangerous action. Thus religion should give immunity to people SOMETIMES, but not always. You have not argued against this so I feel a vote for Con is in order, despite how unpopular I may have become.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
thanks for the very intellgent and well thought out views

here is a quite comprehensive site on Islamic history of recent and the reasoning for the sheer everyday terrorism

http://www.prophetofdoom.net...

It is horrible but is also VERY interesting- remember all those hijackings in the 70s?

I dare ANYONE to read the ENTIRE terrorism timeline, which really only covers the last fourty years in detail. It summarizes all of the acts of terror over the last years of note, inclduding the marxists in SA, and abortion clinic bombings, and Waco and 9/11 in detail

it is TOTALLY fascinating and sickening at the same time and it really gives alot of insight into the weird lives and interconnectedness of characters that you have only heard about tangentially, such as carlos the jackal and Idi amin

Islam unfortunately is tied directly to at least 90% of it

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
I see what you are trying to say. It is a difficult question, or point, and I can't say much more than what I have already said. I finally see what you are saying. The extemists are real followers of Islam as they are spreading the word, by choice and when that doesn't work, by the blade.

I was trying to say that you cannot force a belief on another, but you wern't saying that. You were saying simply that muslims are to be banned. I don't agree, but I finnally see what you were saying. I find it abit extreame, as it is the radicals you are talking about, but according to the religion of Islam itself, that is how all Muslims should be. Then your points make sense. People are still people though, and that cannot change.

Thank you for the discussion,

ironduke
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
good points, BUT

we can ban doctrines like Islam and Nazism that promote hatred and the overthrow of our government

and make no mistake , if you are muslim, your adherence is to the UMMAH first and country second

And I again will say that the murderous insane thugs are the REAL muslims- they will tell you the same thing

they are folliwing their spritual leader- MO

look at Europe - whats happening there?

how about thailand?

Indonesia? Malaysia? Turkey ?

islamists are trying to take over , like it or not

that is a FACT
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
THose are radicals, if you ask an average joe Muslim, he would tell you that he does not agree with the way certain radicals say they represent Islam.

But if that is all you hear, that is all you know, right?

Yes, 9-11 was wicked and evil, according to the United States Senate and any other person with a moral structure worth a lick. But are the actions of many to be judged on the actions of a few? I don't think so.

There will always be those who hold on. But many would fall out of the faith, just like you said. People do not die for things they believe to be false.

If it has come to a point where you can say that the people who follow the religion of Islam are all evil, and deserve to have it taken away from them just because of what happened in incidents involving an extremist movement, perhaps you should reexamine your beliefs. You are a Buddhist, do you not claim that all religions are equal???

Cult-a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

A cult does not fit in with "mainstream" So it should be with any other religion. If a religion is not different from the rest of the world, then it has no purpose.

Yes, they have done terrible things, but so has any other religion who has existed for a long time.

Of course, at it's heart, Islam is a religion of violence, they will spread the word by the sword if need be. It preaches peace, but more often then nought is followed by the sword, as evidenced by Mohammed himself when exiled from Medina.

He preached peace, and then, when he had enough men, went back and took the town.

But, regardless, my point stands, you cannot take the patch of a quilt and declare the entire pattern to be as such. People are all unique, don't condemn them before you have spoken to each person individually.
Posted by Shoot_Down 9 years ago
Shoot_Down
Con really didn't argue what she asked.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Islam can easily be banned

No Mosques

No Maddrassas

No tax exempt status

Make it a terrorist group so all meetings are conspiracy to commit terror

Well see how long the "faith" in the murderous cult lasts then

new generations will NOT want to be forced into the cult, as is already happening in Iran and other places where there is EDUCATION

Islam is a death cult based on enslavement and brutal oppression

It needs to be banned immediately

And the fact that you compare it to Christianity shows you have NO CLUE

how many Christians are trying to violently take over other countries, like China? huh?

read these sites and then get back to me if you want to debate the subject, buddy

www.prophetofdoom.net

www.faithfreedom.org

www.religionofpeace.com

REMEMBER 9/11 - thats all you need to know about Islam

SOLARMAN
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
So you do not believe in the right that all men have the Freedom of Belief? Because, you see, to ban a faith is absolutely impossible. You could ban it, but it would go underground, as seen all over the world, like the Christian church in China. Faith is not something you could ban and make go away. It is held in the heart, and a firm believer in whatever the person believes in will still believe.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
ISLAM NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY BANNED

PERIOD.

www.prophetofdoom.net
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Sorry about the missing 3rd round. Mid term exams got in the way :(
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Online Debate Tournament Facebook Group:

http://www.facebook.com...
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 9 years ago
RequireTruth
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by SteamPunk 9 years ago
SteamPunk
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by mew 9 years ago
mew
Vi_VeriKarlMarKardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30