The Instigator
The_Historian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bonifatus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

This House would ban religious symbols in public buildings

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Bonifatus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,125 times Debate No: 42177
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

The_Historian

Pro

Pro is for the banning of religious symbols in public buildings, Con is against this.

1st Round: Accept your position
2nd Round: Opening statement
3rd Round: Rebuttal and arguments
4th Round: Rebuttals and arguments
5th Round: Rebuttals and closing argument
Bonifatus

Con

Con opposes the banning of of religious symbols in public buildings
Debate Round No. 1
The_Historian

Pro

We live in a time of secularism and multiculturalism, why should public buildings be adorned with religious symbols of one religion when people of every cultural and religion are represented. That is unfair and discriminatory to people of other religions. That is why all public buildings should ban religious symbols.
Bonifatus

Con

Bonifatus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Historian

Pro

We live in a time of secularism and multiculturalism, why should public buildings be adorned with religious symbols of one religion when people of every cultural and religion are represented. That is unfair and discriminatory to people of other religions. That is why all public buildings should ban religious symbols.
Bonifatus

Con

Con would like to apologize, first and foremost, for missing the first argument. My busy schedule did not allow for time to reply. Con believes that pro has the burden of proof in this case. How do you define religious symbols and public buildings? Furthermore pro neglects to acknowledge that religious symbols not only describe a religion, but a culture. Would a picture of the Greek pantheon of gods not be a religious symbol representing the Ancient Greek religion? This would mean that you ban much of the Greek and roman art. Finally, the fact that we are a modern society, as pro suggests, should mean that we are able to respect other religions. This does not mean banning the symbols that represent how many people define their lives.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Historian

Pro

Pro would define religious symbols as objects, artwork, statues and paraphernalia or anything of that sort that represents any religion. Pro would also like to admit that con makes a valid point that religion and culture are separated by a blurred line. However, there is more to culture than religion. For example Canada's history is full of colonialism, imperialism and great Canadian innovation.

Con states: "Finally, the fact that we are a modern society, as pro suggests, should mean that we are able to respect other religions." In an perfect world this would be plausible, but we do not live in a perfect world and people do not respect each other like they should and there is also my original point of secularism. Let me use Canada as an example again, if you look next to religion in the Canadian constitution it says "Freedom of religion", not "Christianity and freedom of religion" or "Islam and freedom of religion". Therefore no religion should be favoured in government, and all public buildings should ban religious symbols.
Bonifatus

Con

Under pro's definition of religious symbols a ban becomes close to impossible. You now start to ban objects under the wording of the resolution. You ban some Christians from carrying rosaries, you ban Jewish men from wearing Kippas in public building, and Muslim women from wearing headscarves. This creates two problems. Firstly you practically ban the latter two groups from public buildings and secondly you violate the freedom of religion clause in the Canadian constitution and the first amendment in the American counterpart.

Furthermore, secularism can exist in the government without existing in the buildings. Ending religious discriminations would be allowing each religion to be able to decorate an area of the building as they want. The resolution does not end religious discrimination. Instead it mearly discriminates against all religions equally.
Debate Round No. 4
The_Historian

Pro

The_Historian forfeited this round.
Bonifatus

Con

Con will allow pro's comment to be recognised. While we understand that pro did not INTEND to ban people, ultimately, con believes that that is what the wording of the resolution requires. Furthermore, the government of the United States, while a strict proponent of the separation of church and state, is not secular in their proceedings. Each meeting of Congress is started with a prayer. Now that body has found a way not to offend anyone whilst using such a major religious practice. Why is it impossible then, for them to do the same thing with religious symbols? As these religions have tremendous impact on our society, banning their symbols without giving the chance to find a compromise is not only unfair, but in some ways it can be a violation of basic human rights..
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Historian 3 years ago
The_Historian
I am not sure if this is allowed, but I want to respond to one point in con's last response. Pro does not think we should ban people from taking religious paraphernalia into public buildings. That would be discriminatory, and against the rights of the citizen's of any country. Pro thinks the government should not be allowed to place religious objects, etc in public building, an example would be in the Quebec legislation building there is a cross. This is an obvious religious symbol of Christianity and therefore should be taken down in order to stay in line with government secularism. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak and I apologies for missing my turn and if doing this is not allowed.
Posted by The_Historian 3 years ago
The_Historian
Apologies for forfeiting round five, I was extremely busy yesterday and could not find time to respond.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ej3467273 3 years ago
ej3467273
The_HistorianBonifatusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both ff, both didn't use sources. Bonifatus did make good arguments.