The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

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 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 56303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws.

examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist.
to name a few.

it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be practiced, says a lot about the religion.
bsh1

Con

Lol...I guess I can accept this.

Let's take some time to define what Judaism is. "Judaism is a monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Mishnah and the Talmud." [1] The Torah itself, "refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy." [2] Thus, to use the phrase "old testament Judaism" is a misnomer, since all Jews follow the old testament. Essentially, what my opponent is advocating is making Judaism illegal.

Besides the clearly Nazi-esque undertones evoked by this stance, there are some clear issues Pro's primary assertion, which is that: because the Torah/Old Testament calls upon us to do things that we realize are wrong, any religion founded on the Torah/Old Testament is barbaric or violent.

(1) Christianity is founded on the old testament. The Bible includes the exact same books as the Torah, and both call upon us to do unsavory things, including killing people who disown or disrespect their parents, Leviticus 20:9, killing people who use the Lord's name in vain, Levitcus 24:16, and offering up animal sacrifices, Leviticus, Chapters 1-9. Clearly, none of these are rational or acceptable things to do (at least from our modern perspective.) So, if Judaism should be illegal because its religious texts are violent, so too should Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and many other faiths. We would all have to become atheists or Buddhists.

(2) Simply because the texts describe violent acts does not mean that we should interpret those acts literally. For example, when the old testament states "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9), it is not literally calling us to kill someone. Rather, it is emphasizing the wrongness of the action, and that the person who curses his father or mother deserves some form of punishment. Most Jews and Christians don't follow the text of the Torah or Bible literally, rather they interpret it as setting out generic guidelines of what is right or wrong. This is evidenced by our modern judicial system--obviously, we don't put people to death for trivial things like that.

(3) Our right to freedom of religion is fundamental. We can't just outlaw religions because we find their beliefs detestable. Rather, we can outlaw certain practices of a faith (i.e. not stoning people), but the faith itself can't be outlawed.

I await Pro's responses.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

first a clarification. i dont think we should outright ban that religion. we should limit it, from being fully practiced.

con says if judiasm should be limited or banned, then christianity should. but, this doesn't follow, cause christianity doesn't require its adherents to do the awful things described. how exactly does this make sense?

co says we shouldn't interpret the texts literally. perhaps not. but if people do, it should be illegal. that's all the point i'm trying to make. plus, many of the texts are clear commands to kill, marry your rapist, treat daughters as property, etc.
bsh1

Con

Thanks to Pro for her arguments.

The resolution reads: "freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm." The question at hand here is whether or not Judaism's practice entails violent acts. Clearly, it does not.

Pro says: "cause christianity doesn't require its adherents to do the awful things described." Yet, if we interpret the Bible literally, Christianity DOES REQUIRE its adherent to do the awful things described. Yet, because Christians don't interpret the Bible literally, they don't commit those actions. The same is true for Jews. Most Jews don't go out into society and start stoning adulteresses; in fact, most would believe that to be wrong, Individuals who do go off the deep-end with their interpretation of the Old Testament (and their are Christians who do this as well) should be punished as individuals; the whole religion should not be banned or modified.

Ultimately, since the vast majority of Jews are peaceful, civic-minded people with a nonviolent interpretation of their faith, their is not need to restrict the practice of their religion, and we can vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

christianity does not do any 'awfule things described' stonging and such is mandated to the OTestament jews, not the christians.

pro seems to be conceding the debate....
you say those who do do those awful things "should be punished as individuals; the whole religion should not be banned or modified." . no one is claiming they could, or would be able, to modify a religion. they are simply banning what is wrong in the religion from being practiced. if you would punish people who do do those awful things, then you are esentially agreeing with me, that the religion should not be permitted to be fully practiced.
bsh1

Con

Pro says that Christians don't do the awful things described in the Old Testament. Pro seems to forget that Christians are also mandated to do those things. Consider that the reason Christians don't do those things is because they don't interpret the Old Testament literally.

The resolution reads: "freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm." Because Pro is making the claim, Pro has the BOP. Her argument has been that because Judaism leads to violence, it should be limited. Pro has failed to offer any concrete evidence that Judaism is actually a violent religion; therefore, Pro cannot meet her BOP.

Ultimately, due to a lack of any real evidence or of any warrants at all, except a faulty interpretation of the Old Testament (assuming most people read it literally), Pro hasn't met her BOP and you must default Con.

Thanks, please VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pros bad spellin and barely even countrd bshs point
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
dairygirl4u2cbsh1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a different debate. PRO held the burden of proof by resolving a change to the status quo and, in my opinion, failed to uphold it. PRO never once linked to any specific Bible verses, for one thing, thereby placing a huge hole in his case, as one can hardly ban the practice of something if we don't even know what that practice entails. When CON rebutted this, pointing out that PRO's uncited standard would apply to other religions as well, PRO entirely stopped debating the resolution and instead argued that no, Christianity isn't bound by the Old Testament. Regardless of the validity or lack thereof of this statement, it is irrelevant to the resolution at hand. Because PRO went off of on this tangent and failed to meet his burden of proof, I award arguments to CON. PRO, next time cite examples to support your case and be prepared to prove why it would be beneficial to society to make the change you advocate.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "christianity does not do any 'awfule things described' stonging and such is mandated to the OTestament jews, not the christians." S & G. Con managed to make multiple text references of which Pro did not managed to do so. Pro's stance was confusing often shifting positions between religion vs individuals while Con managed to do a point by point analysis. The clear winner is Con.