The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

There is justification in limiting freedom of religion.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
thegibson has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 102465
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




(This comes from a Christian! Of course, this is just for debate purposes.) Freedom of religion spurs people to act on their religion, sometimes in radical ways. For example, Muslims are commanded to kill infidels- people who don't share the same belief. So a Muslim goes out and kills a Hindu. This act of murder to the Muslim would be justified because he/she is simply exercising his/her right of freedom of religion. However, murder is still murder! By limiting this freedom of religion, that Hindu's life is saved.

My opponent might say that from an ethical and legal standpoint, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the first amendment (because this debate is taking place from a US viewpoint) and therefore is a civil liberty belonging to the single individual that should not be violated by anyone or anything. However, to this I would say that if we can't just look at the rights of one person. We have to do the most good for the most amount of people (Utilitarianism). If limiting freedom of religion saves lives, then it is justified. For my opponent to win, they should be able to prove to the voters that there can never be justification in limiting freedom of region. Ever.

Thank you in advance to my opponent and good luck!


I will be arguing that limiting freedom of religion is never justified.

First, my opponent believes that freedom of religion causes death. They say that a Muslim can kill a Hindu and be justified by the First Amendment because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. But the First Amendment doesn't allow people to kill others in the name of freedom of speech, so why would it be allowed under freedom of religion? Instead, it is in countries where freedom of religion is limited where people are killed because of religion. Take pre-independent India and Africa. European settlers imposed restrictions on the natives, not allowing them to practice their native religions. In response, conflict sprung up.

When freedom of religion is restricted, nothing changes. Freedom of religion used to be restricted to strongly in Africa that people were killed for practicing tribal religions. That restriction involved mass religious persecutions. People will always want to practice their religions, and restriction will only cause more death because there has never been a peaceful restriction on freedom of religion, and there is no way to peacefully AND effectively restrict freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion does not cause death. People cruelly taking advantage of their religion and manipulating their religion's text to kill others causes death. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or freedom of religion, and therefore it is unjust to restrict it in any way, shape, or form.

(Disclaimer- I am an anti-religious atheist. This is, however, my personal belief. Also, it is hard to form a proper argument in ten minutes, and I commend my opponent for posing this challenge.)
Debate Round No. 1


What I am saying is that freedom of religion spurs malicious actions. Muslims are literally commanded by their religion (the Quran) to murder people of different beliefs. If they obey their religion, then there is no telling how many people would be in danger. In this instance, by restricting religion you are protecting lives. At the end of the day, as I said, we have to do the most good for the most amount of people. So if one person's civil right is compromised, but thousands of people are saved, then restricting religion is justified.

My opponent says that freedom of religion does not cause death. To this I would ask him to then explain the motive of the perpetrators of 9/11. Did they not kill out of freedom of religion? (Because their religion commanded them to?) Because if the Quaran literally says to kill select groups of people, then these Muslims would simply be obeying the Quran and exercising their civil right (in their eyes of course)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zoecri 1 year ago
If a persons religon says that they should murder people, or do something illegal, then they should be limited
Posted by jscmedley 1 year ago
Thank you! Lol you know a lot more on this subject than I do!
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
The basic limit of the First Amendment is self-applied value to such things and grievance, gathering of people, speech, press (writings) and religion. More, and more, there are religions that are setting their own cost by value, often based on percentages of income. Not undescribed donation. Which under the First Amendment is describing a group that shares beliefs publicly as a militia by Second Amendment.
Religious Human Sacrifice is reason for impartial United States Constitutional separation, as it is viewed as a Capital Punishment. The legal precedent set by law it to insure that the impartial judicial Separation process has been documented by the religion. As it has been granted liberties only under a basic principle and precedent as strict condition.

Something that is Free does not have a price tag. No self-value is listed. All things that have a price tag are a by basic principle a liberty taken from the greater impartial separation.
If that makes any sense. An Amendment to the United States Construction can be seen, used, and proved illegal. While/Or seen, used, and proved to be complex and deceptive in a way to rephrase basic principles to crime. Unconstitutional.

Great debate by the way.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
Religious influenced death is called human sacrifice. The first Amendment points out that Religion is inalienable as a freedom because it holds no self-value of its own. The value is created by the follower of publicly shared belief. This point is made to literate that religions tend to pass laws to dictate authority instead of govern a separation process to establish an Order of Law which operates on an impartial system of separation that can take place.

Religion is simply associated to an unregulated public democratic form of self-governing. Again the formation of religion falls under the United States Constitution and not any change of principle and precedent based on Amendment. The First Amendment is a warning that a religion can form free in the public without directed connection to a set of beliefs previously held by an organization. Like a weather pattern where a series of events merge.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.