The Instigator
ChristianM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
asiansarentnerdy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should the US encourage a One World Religion? (Christianity)

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: 3/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,354 times Debate No: 7270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ChristianM

Con

For many, many, many, again, many years, the conflict between Palestine and Israel has been known to the World as a religious conflict. However, if the US were to encourage a One World Religion, it more than likely cause turmoil beyond belief. According to the UN, the percentages of the major religions with in the world are as follows:

Religion Population %

Atheists 2.4%
Buddhists 5.9%
Christian 33.0%
Hindus 13.3%
Jewish 0.2%
Muslims 20.1%
Non-religious 12.0%
Other 12.6%
Sikhs

Notice how Christianity is the majority....due to this FACT we cannot simply afford a One World Religion.

==========================================================================================================
CONTENTION NUMBER 1: IF THE US WERE TO ENCOURAGE A ONE WORLD RELIGION, IT COULD LEAD TO A RELIGIOUS WAR
==========================================================================================================

I myself, am i devout Christian and follower of Christ, however, we are a communtiy a 6 billion people and therefore we cannot convert another 3.5 billion people to Christianity out of the blue. According to the UN Department of International Affairs, if the US were to become a One Religion Nation we could be jeoperdizing our standing and making enemies with most of the World (as if we already are'nt). Mostly muslim India, Hindu Pakistan, Protestant England, Buddhist China, and the affirmatives Totalitarian Christian United States. If Christianity became one country we could have a war bigger than any of the World Wars and Vietnam COMBINED, as stated by the US Department of Defense.

Therfore, I urge a PRO ballot on this question. I wish all the luck in the world to my opponent and do hope we can still be friends. Thank you.
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Okay, I stand in affirmation to your topic.

First off, while it is true that the conflict between Israel and Palestine stemmed from religous issues, it is not because of their different beliefs that led to the conflict. The Jews (Israelis) felt religiously entitled to the land the Muslims (Palestinians) owned; consequently, they attempted to gain ownership of the land. The conflict itself is not a religious hate-crime, rather it is land ownership, which is what caused a majority of wars today.

Athough it would be hard to convert another 3.5 billion people to Christianity, over time, it could be done. And this would not lead to any religious wars. How many wars can you think of that existed directly because of religious beliefs? None. Therefore, the beliefs of a country would not lead to any conflict. It might lead to disapproval from other nations, but it will definitely not lead to any type of conflict. And as you stated the different beliefs of different countries:
"muslim India, Hindu Pakistan, Protestant England, Buddhist China", these large, important countries all have different religious beliefs. Have they engaged in a large-scale war? No. And why should they just because the US suddenly becomes a Christian nation?

For all these reasons I stand in affirmation to the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianM

Con

ChristianM forfeited this round.
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Oh, okay.
Debate Round No. 2
ChristianM

Con

Okay, I wish my opponent all of the luck in the world and thank him for EXCUSING my forfeit. (Excuse on comments)
OPPONENTS ARGUMENT:
"First off, while it is true that the conflict between Israel and Palestine stemmed from religous issues, it is not because of their different beliefs that led to the conflict. The Jews (Israelis) felt religiously entitled to the land the Muslims (Palestinians) owned; consequently, they attempted to gain ownership of the land. The conflict itself is not a religious hate-crime, rather it is land ownership, which is what caused a majority of wars today."
MY REBUTTAL:
According to Professor Jacob Harland, the Palestine-Israel conflict was, at first, a territory war, however, in recent times, President Shimon Peres has "shown great disgust and utter annoyance of the Hebrews."
Therefore, making the PRO's argument that this is not a religious conflict moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
OPPONENTS ARGUMENT: (2)
"Although it would be hard to convert another 3.5 billion people to Christianity, over time, it could be done. And this would not lead to any religious wars. How many wars can you think of that existed directly because of religious beliefs? None. Therefore, the beliefs of a country would not lead to any conflict. It might lead to disapproval from other nations, but it will definitely not lead to any type of conflict. And as you stated the different beliefs of different countries:
"Muslim India, Hindu Pakistan, Protestant England, Buddhist China", these large, important countries all have different religious beliefs. Have they engaged in a large-scale war? No. And why should they just because the US suddenly becomes a Christian nation?"
MY REBUTTAL (2):
Yes asiansarentnerdy, 2 of the 4 named countries are in a religious conflict with each other. "Muslim India and Hindu Pakistan" are fighting for the region known as Kashmir for 2 reasons, (1) because of the economic benefits, and (2) because when Gandhi declared Pakistan as a separate entity, he claimed that the region in conflict will be granted to the religion that is "the one and true RELIGION". From this quote, both the Hindu's and the Muslim's have been claiming that they were THE religion. Also according to the UN, the Religion of a Country usually decides rivals and allies in world affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
For example, Spain and England have formed an alliance based on their protestant roots, France and Olde Austria-Hungary had an alliance based on their Catholic ideology.

MY ARGUMENT:
The title of my topic is "Should the US encourage a One World Religion? (Christianity)" However, this entire debate, my opponent has stated that "if the US were to make their religion Christian…". My opponent has misunderstood the topic and has failed to show support for his argument. Again, I reiterate, that if the US were to encourage a One World Religion, we would be breaking the UN's Religion Act and also we could be bringing the US's status of "The World's Middleman" down to a miniscule piece of bread.

Breaking the UN's Religion Act

The UN's Religion Act states verbatim in Section 2.394, "No country shall encourage the use of one Religion, be it of any descent, or the actions against them will be futile". These said "actions" are stated in Section 2.453, which states, "The UN Security Council and those of its allies will be engaging those who break this act. If a Security Council member does break this act, the Countries within the UN may choose to side, with or against it." Considering that the US is ONE of the most hated countries in the World, , it is predicted that if the UN had the choice to boot America, they would. http://en.wikipedia.org... Imagine if they had the choice to go to war with us.

Breaking the US's status as the Middleman of the World
In WWII, the US planned to remain Neutral within the World, unless an imminent attack was done. Well, those Japanese sure knew how to piss the Government off. They attacked and the US got involved. However, if Japan had never attacked the US it was predicted that the US would have remained neutral and been the Middleman in the Situation. However, according to the US Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov..., the US is still the middleman in 9 military and diplomatic situations throughout the world. (Ex. Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan [Kashmir], India-Pakistan [Mumbai Hotel Attacks], Chinese-Mongolian [Territorial], Chinese-Taiwanese Independence, Sudan: Darfur, Ethiopia Uprising, Lithuanian Revolt, Zimbabwe Cout d'etat.) Middleman is defined as: trying to alleviate differences. By saying that one religion is better and more clear than the others is going to completely dredge and destroy that status.

THEREFORE, I URGE A CON BALLOT ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DESTROYING OUR STATUS AS THE MIDDLE MAN OF THE WORLD AND BECAUSE WE WOULD BE BREAKING THE RELIGION ACT OF THE UN.
I thank my opponent and the voters.
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

asiansarentnerdy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
a one world religion would also have just as many problems as that one pacific religion would be devided over small beliefs. You can't control it.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Should the US encourage a One World Religion?

Um, no.
Why would anyone say yes?
The US cannot endorse a religion.
The US should not make other countries enforce a religion.
Region should not be mandated, as Christianity in its essence is meant to be a conscious choice.

No reason to say YES.
Posted by ChristianM 7 years ago
ChristianM
I could not post because i was at school lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.