The Instigator
liberal_at_heart
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

religion should be excepted in both Private and public atmosphere'

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/19/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,101 times Debate No: 1986
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (28)
Votes (14)

 

liberal_at_heart

Pro

if the first amendment protects freedom of religion then how is it possible to separate church and state? or further more schools and God?
shouldn't religion be aloud in every inch of american soil?
if we don't instate full religious tolerance then we should take out God in the pledge of allegiance .... because that is violating peoples individual rights..
Tatarize

Con

Religion is acceptable in the private and public sectors. You have a first amendment right to religious freedom. However, you have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You cannot force individuals, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, atheist, Buddhists, to read the Bible and pray to the Christian God. This is what is actually meant by prayer in school and why it was removed.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

We have religious freedom, and a constitution which prevents the government from trampling on those religious freedom by forcing us into religious beliefs we do not adhere to. The first amendment protects us from the government enforcing religious beliefs on people who do not ascribe to those beliefs.

Picture if you will: going to school, sitting down in first period, saying the pledge of allegiance to "one nation, under Krishna". You are then handed your copy of the Koran to quietly read for the period, you buy some M&Ms from a child in class raising money for the Satanists club. While handing over the dollar you read the required motto "There Is No God". Before being directed to focus on reading your Koran again.

You can believe whatever you want, but the government can't tell you or even suggest what should be believed. This is what is meant by the separation of church and state.

Your final comment is ironic, to say the least. You ask, "if we don't instate full religious tolerance then we should take out God in the pledge of allegiance .... because that is violating peoples individual rights.."

If we aren't tolerant of religions by forcing religious views on people, we might as well remove all religious views from government? You believe that religious encroachment of first amendment rights is "religious tolerance" and that if we aren't going to be tolerant we might as well remove "under God" from the pledge?

The state (federal, states, counties, cities, schools) does not have the right to tell children that there is a God, it's a violation of establishment clause of the first amendment to do so (Newdow v. Elk Grove). I am an atheist and having government officials tell me that my religious beliefs are wrong and "there is a God" would be just as unfair as having those same government officials tell you to pledge allegiance to "one nation, God does not exist, indivisible."

You have taken the idea of tolerance to suggest that government officials in jack boots should be able to stage their own inquisition. Forced bible reading, forced prayer, everybody required to be a Baptist?

To suggest that using the mechanisms of government to enforce religious beliefs on those who do not adhere to them is tolerance. Reminds me of _1984_ and one of the mottoes: Freedom is Slavery. Rather, government preference of one religious view over another is tolerance.

You are confusing privileges with rights. I have a right to freedom of religion. I can believe in twenty gods or no god and it has no bearing on your rights. However, at one time Christians had the privilege of forcing students to pray before class and forcing them to read the Bible. Removing that privilege, as the Supreme court did in 1963, makes religions more equal and more tolerant of different beliefs. Where does it end? It ends when the government treats all religions equally: that is religious tolerance. My belief in no god is just as valid as a Hindus belief in many, and the government has no right to say who's right and whose wrong.

Religious freedom is not only freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion, and you need the latter just as much as you need the former to have true religious freedom and true tolerance.
Debate Round No. 1
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
In regards to my own debate.
I have no feeling that religion should be excepted privately. Religion is a major part of people's lives.
Society itself, however, should not have any religion.
I don't hate religion. I just don't believe it's so important.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Look I agree with you liberal_at_heart. You bring up good points but you should have either made your argument longer or atleast let it go to a second round so you can defend your argument. Better luck next time.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>By address my question with assertment of others and unprove theory of evolution doen'st give any validity to invalidate the Word Love.

You aren't very coherent, but I think you are suggesting that explaining the neurochemical foundations for attraction, lust, and bonding with a tangential relationship with evolutionary understanding for the necessity of sex and bonding for raising children is nullified because you suggest that the theory of evolution is unproven. Even though the underlying neurochemical basis thereof is on solid ground without explaining why species which need sex to continue as a species. I must be misunderstanding you because if that's what you're saying you're a complete idiot.

>>You keep asserting the works of others which is not coming from your own.

I reference the works of others for interesting points and ideas which they put far better than I could. I use their words in place of my own because they said what I want to say, better than I could. I attribute the work because it isn't mine and they deserve credit for their work. I do not say that the points are my own, but I do endorse them fully and would defend them if pressed.
Posted by FexHere 9 years ago
FexHere
Second point of argument, Mr. Tatarize, During our debate i dont see any coherence and logic on proving all my assertment on you. You keep asserting the works of others which is not coming from your own.
Posted by FexHere 9 years ago
FexHere
By address my question with assertment of others and unprove theory of evolution doen'st give any validity to invalidate the Word Love. see my comments on you tatarize regarding with agnotism. with simple logic on it.
Posted by Redman 9 years ago
Redman
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Read the above statement directly from the Constitution. The part before the comma indicates that Congress can not make a religious law: the seond states that people are aloud to exercise their religion freely. That being said, the private atomsphere is covered, while the public is not. This is especially true for schools, K-12, in America. If you want religious influence, such as prayers, bible lectures, etc, GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL. If you want some type of religion in a public school, you must do so at an appropriate time and place, so that you do not infringe upon the rights of the non-religious, or those who have a religion different than your own. This is a necessity to bar religious persecution and freedom from religion for those who are to be harmed by religious influence.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>Why doesn'd FexHere make any sense???? I don't understand half the things he says

He isn't very coherent. He honestly believes that the emotion love is contingent on the existence or belief in God. That if I'm an atheist, my kids will have no respect for me and never love me because I denied the creator of love. The other debate it seemed like he thought, without God, choices are impossible.

I only understand what he means because I've talked with people who honestly think like that. The fact that the defenders of God are mostly incoherent and constantly make absurd claims is one of the many reasons I can't believe them. I would have far fewer qualms giving God-belief the time of day if the defenders weren't the best argument against it.

"If you were taught that elves caused rain, every time it rained, you'd see the proof of elves." - Ariex
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Why doesn'd FexHere make any sense???? I don't understand half the things he says
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>"What if one day your Son/s or daughter/s will not respect you because they believe that love does'nt come from our creator as what you did?"

Love is an emotion. It has a sound neurological and evolutionary basis. That odd sort of 'God can't explain love' thing is harder to wrap my brain around than that 'you need God to explain free will' argument. Also note that these are all arguments from a lack of imagination. Because you don't understand and can't figure it out God did it.

----

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.[2] Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

----

Remember in the last debate when I pointed out I disbelieve because of all the bad arguments... Exhibit B.
Posted by FexHere 9 years ago
FexHere
What if one day your Son/s or daughter/s will not respect you because they believe that love does'nt come from our creator as what you did? Imagine that your weak body and they abandoned you tatarize? Answer it as Athiest.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 Redman 9 years ago
Redman
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 artC 9 years ago
artC
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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 liberal_at_heart 9 years ago
liberal_at_heart
liberal_at_heartTatarizeTied
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