The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

Should laws outlawing blasphemy be introduced across the United States?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/30/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 3848
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (12)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

There are a large number of debates on this site that devout Christians may find insulting, and some of the arguments posted by atheists may even shake their faith in the very existence of God Himself.

Is the increasing lack of respect for God and the Church damaging American society and, if so, does Christianity need protection under the law?

Should individuals that use words which are scurrilous, abusive or offensive, or which vilify Christianity, God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible be liable to prosecution?

Since it is not clear that such laws would be contrary to the First Amendment - for example, Massachusetts has a blasphemy law which clearly inhibits free speech - perhaps we could leave the Constitutional arguments to one side and discuss the principles of the matter instead?

My view is that there is nothing sacred about any religion and, therefore, Christianity should not enjoy an elevated status under the law and that those blasphemy laws that do currently exist should be repealed.
draxxt

Pro

Hello. Before we begin I must deal with all of the formalities... erhem... Thank you for starting this debate and I look forward to an exciting blah diddy blah blah.

I hate formalities, don't you?

Now that that's out of the way, let's get this show on the road!

(Just for the record, this isn't a resolution, it's a question. Read the debating tips R3. The resolution in this case would be "Laws outlawing blasphemy should be introduced across the US."

I must define a word for clarity:

Merriam-Webster as

blasphemy as: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God"

"Since it is not clear that such laws would be contrary to the First Amendment - for example, Massachusetts has a blasphemy law which clearly inhibits free speech - perhaps we could leave the Constitutional arguments to one side and discuss the principles of the matter instead?"

I accept this term and full-heartedly accept it's conditions.

"My view is that there is nothing sacred about any religion and, therefore, Christianity should not enjoy an elevated status under the law and that those blasphemy laws that do currently exist should be repealed."

My opponent establishes Christianity as an agreed upon religion and I accept this as well.

Clearly we see that showing "... lack of reverence for God" would mean disobeying His words. In this case, we shall assume one of the more common theisms, Christianity (My opponent, as stated above, is speaking in the terms of Christianity which is the agreed upon religion). By disobeying God's laws, you are showing a lack of reverence for Him.

There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed.

For the logic and reason you've seen above, you must vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

Hello and thanks for joining the debate. Thanks also for referring me to the "Tips" page – it was useful and I now realise that posing a question rather than making a statement can be misleading and lead to ambiguity. I fear that this may have been the case here, as you seem to be arguing my point of view!

You wrote:

"There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed."

I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!

As I am arguing Con, i.e. laws outlawing blasphemy should NOT be introduced across the United States, I should just like to take this opportunity to add my twopennothworth:

Because blasphemy laws necessarily imply that Christianity has a moral superiority over other faiths and atheism, they equate to the Sharia Law system of government which operates in non-secular Islamic states and are, therefore, directly at odds with the system of government of a secular country like the US.

That said, if it is the case that the title of this debate and my opening arguments were, in any way, misleading, please indicate this in your response and take it as read that I duly concede.

If it does, indeed, transpire that I have mislead my opponent I would ask all members cast to their vote in favour of Pro in order that his win ratio is not adversely affected due to my ineptitude.

Thank you!
draxxt

Pro

Thank you for an exciting debate thusfar. Let's keep it up!

"Because blasphemy laws necessarily imply that Christianity has a moral superiority over other faiths and atheism, they equate to the Sharia Law system of government which operates in non-secular Islamic states and are, therefore, directly at odds with the system of government of a secular country like the US."

Not at all. As you'll see below, the views of Christian morals are one's that society SHOULD instill upon it's people. For the record, people are idiots. The only way to keep us from clubbing one another to death is by upholding morals that are beneficial to society as a whole.

""There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed."

I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!"

What you are saying is that not only do blasphemy laws no longer need to be introduced but the one's already existing should be taken away?

In your statement:

"I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!"

I will assume, for the sake of debate, that you mean we no longer need and currently do not need to add blasphemy laws.

That being the case, we have no need for laws against

Rape, adultery, murder, polygamy, theft, false testimonies, etc.

If you were to take away these laws which have become widely known as fact, We see our government would become somewhat resemblant of an Anarchy. While that might please certain members of the voting community, we see that the laws you surmise as "(having) no need for) then you are promoting a lawless society. Christian values are set in place because they are the morals that society is taught. Not because Christianity is regarded any higher than any other religion, but because the morals they uphold are one's many would agree with. I have always said: "Morals are subjective." This is true.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, where do your morals lie? Will you vote for the debator who sides with lawlessness and antiesteblishment? Or will you vote for the debator who is keeping firm the beliefs as well as the politics of blasphemy laws.

For the reasons and refutations above, you vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro's argument would have been easy to dismiss in that it spoke only of outlawing particulars which are part of blasphemy, but do not make up the whole of available blasphemy, and the laws were not outlawing it qua blasphemy but only qua other attributes of it.

However, Con did not take the option of making that argument, or indeed any other :D

By the way, just a side note, why does the security code on this site so often contain a homophobic slur? I've seen the same slur in it several times, which means it's quite possibly nonrandom, which means whoever made the security-code software has subliminal messages that the site's owners should take it into account, considering certain clauses in the terms of service.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Yeah, I know. I almost dug myself in a hole there.

and sorry, I forgot about my previous post...
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
And I'm only voitng for you, Eli, because I don't think that CON got your arguments. Assuming I could find the right words for clarity, I would've taken you down.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Libby. Idiot.

The person you referred to in your first post.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Who's study hall?
25 characters
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Oui. I was in her study hall first period.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
And none taken.
25 characters
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
I understand. I have my rebuttal ready but, David, where are you writing this comment from? Libby's room?
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Oh... Dear... CON, if you don't knock this down in Round 2, you need to work on your debating skills.

No offense, Eli.
Posted by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
If your agenda is to discredit the farce that is religion, then yes, pass blasphemy laws, after all, if the religion had merit, it wouldn't need protection, nor fear blasphemy.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Grey_Fox 9 years ago
Grey_Fox
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 GraceDelacroix 9 years ago
GraceDelacroix
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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 Orrs_Girl 9 years ago
Orrs_Girl
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
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