Question: Should Religious Institutions Maintain Their Tax-Exempt Status?

Should churches be subject to taxation? Absolutely, every church should be required to pay taxes, as there is no valid justification for their tax exemption. Simply stating religious belief does not exempt one from taxes, so why should it exempt a church? Essentially, religion is a multi-billion dollar industry; the only distinction between a corporation and a church is that we impose taxes on the former.

//"But you have to see that by taking our religion out. Is favoring the other. "// Taking religion out of school does exactly that, it takes religion our of school so that there is no favoring of any specific religion. My opponent has not shown a single religion which is favored by keeping religion out of school and will not find one. //"Allowing us not to pray, is taking our religion OUT of schools. .. .so that makes room for other beliefs. "// That is exactly what it does and I will not argue about that. And it does not make room for other beliefs as if it's a religion, it is kept out of school. I challenge my opponent to find one religion which is favored by this. //"Public schools don't teach creation, but evolution is. "// Public schools do not teach creationism because there is no Bible class in a secular public school. Creationism is not actually science and therefore has no place in a science class. Evolution is a non-religious scientific theory. People of all religions and non-religion accept and deny evolution's validity. If my opponent can show why evolution is inherently connected to any religion then he would be right that it should not be taught in schools. However he will not be able to do this as the theory of evolution was created, tested, and verified independent of any religion. My opponent has yet to show why favoring the Christian god in schools would not be a violation of the Constitution.

For the feedback, thank you. I totally appreciate you treating this as a worthy debate. I’m enjoying it as well. Rebuttal 1 I believe you are missing the point about religion in your school, and your examples. It an example, its not making your argument that Religion should not be forced on children in school. Your just stating what happened to you and others. Even if every 2nd school had prayer, it doesn't make your argument any different that it occurs. Did you want to avoid math, and do you not use it now? Is this not the same? Rebuttal 2 You present two impossible tenants. Regardless, it doesn't support your argument, or further the debate, unless you’re going to say, your religion is allowed and your religion is not. It’s a side issue not related to the debate but problem with your overall argument, by saying one has priority of belief over another. Rebuttal 3 So we go from weak women to a possible powerful fanatic. Interesting. As for unconformable it depends where I am an what I'm doing. If it’s in the bathroom probably uncomfortable. However if anyone knocks on my door during a reasonable time, I am more then willing to debate or talk with. Again begging the question does not further your argument. You still have not made an effective argument as to why. Discomfort and objection is not rational ground for your argument. Rebuttal 4 Actually I think we both misunderstood. I took the position of North America an industrialized world, where you mean every school and public schools. However it doesn't address your question it shouldn't be forced, just that it varies what the laws are. Rebuttal 5 Your argument from bias is slightly biased. I lived with 5 gay men during university, being the only straight one in the house for a year. A friend, who is a drag queen, upon his birthday, requested we all dress in drag for a night, as his present. I look fabulous in my g/fs dress. I am not homophobic. My argument, which you seemed to miss, is that you cannot choose topics based on discomfort of the people involved. Your argument that it might offend gay people to hear that the bible says there doomed to hell is not a reason not to study the bible and its impact on history especially when it says that. Maybe if you taught it, you would have less gay Christians and more ration gay men when it came to religion. If your argument is not to teach people because it might offend them, then teaching evolution might offend Christians who believe in ID. If you choose to support gay offensive over Christian’s offense, what is your basis to choose? again this is moving your argument forward, only if you choose to have rights over another based on discomfort. This is a weak argument. My argument why religion should be forced. Why? Its a school, where else are you supposed to learn things? Home study, your friend down the street a church? It is completely acceptable to force religion into school. Teach about religion, its effects, its contradictions, its actual message (slavery, incest, bigotry) and the fact you can’t prove a god exist. It’s like not teaching about Hitler and the holocaust and ignoring that it was a Christian idea and movement (Sam Harris, letters to a Christian Nation). To wit, not a single member of the founding fathers was Christian in any sense most people apply it and the treaty of Tripoli stated that US was not a Christian nation, which was signed by the congress. Again, very few people seem to know that. If people taught it you wouldn't have Michael Bauchman repeating it and being believed by a majority of Americans. If you don’t teach history, your doomed to repeat it. Defiantly have religion in the class room, and you will have a lot less religious people in the world and a better informed public. And defiantly include ID in science, make it mandatory 1st year in high school. The more you read about what science is and the flaws of ID, the more people will stop calling it science. Show why it’s not, show how it’s not, and what science actually is. Teach the controversy. You know how you get a well-informed person on a subject, have them read about it. The bible, include it as mandatory reading. Make children (or teens) read it. All of it. Twice. Have a pop quiz of "does god promote slavery and if so how many times?" "does the god really hate gay people?" `was the bible used to justify slavery in the south, north and everywhere else?` 'given that Jesus what born in the middle east, to Jewish parents, why is it that every church you walk in, he looks like an poster child for albinos hocking sun screen?" “What day did Jesus die, Friday morning, afternoon, Saturday, Sunday or all of the above?” you’re going to have a lot more rational people if you have to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Every major institutional religion in the West and most in the East urge"sometimes by means of threats or bribes, E. G. , Of hell or heaven"that one accept package deals chosen by others. In my view, This is a profound cognitive immorality. Morality is about making choices based upon independent judgment, And any belief system that undermines that core responsibility is immoral.

Closing ArgumentI'd first note that a dictionary definition of the term "religion" is absolutely not needed; though perhaps Pro should have included the definition in round one if he/she thought it was necessary. Outlining any kind of definition[s] is round three only serves to show poor debate structure. So essentially, Pro has just wasted characters on something with no valid reason to and is simply playing at semantics in order to compensate for their own lack of argument. In no way does this definition actually disprove or negate my own case--it merely gives a description of what religion is, if anything the definition actually affirms my own statement that religion is also there to "give people an understanding of God. ", which corresponds easily with the last sentence of the definition. Most people would acknowledge that another purpose of religion and another thing that it fulfills is bringing people together in a shared belief[s]. Additionally I'd remind voters that Pro has only just started to use sources in the final round of the debate. Earlier assertions come him have still gone unsupported. And I provided a source in my opening argument that technically counters Pros own sources that proclaim secular people have the same morals and have stronger emotional bounds. However, there's other alternative sources that I can use that again contradict this. Now onto Pros third point, my argument of religious charities was to demonstrate that another net benefit of religion. Pro essentially argues that these particular charities are not needed on the basis on them being religious, however, the billions of people in the world that specifically gain from these charities would naturally argue otherwise. Pro is evidently just not able to let go of his/her bias in acknowledging that religion [regardless of whether you believe] can be beneficial. Moreover, religious and spiritual practice can also have a number of psychological/health benefits [4. ] . http://spirituality.ucla.edu...This article here goes into all of the economic benefits of religion, in fact the U. S government is said to profit 2.6 trillion a year from religion [5. ] . http://www.forbes.com...So, if religion was made to "go way" as Pro outlines in his resolution, these kind of benefits would just not exist. Christmas [being an integral part of religion] would not be celebrated and thus not appear on the consumer market; which means a huge amount money for business, both small and big, would be lost. This source includes other historical and societal benefits of religion [6. ] . http://www.biographyonline.net...Research has also shown that religion can be linked to a happier and more fulfilling life, as is shown in this BBC article: [7. ] . http://news.bbc.co.uk... Alluding further to the benefits of religious practice, this IONA Institute again highlights exactly what they are: [8. ] . http://www.ionainstitute.ie... Moving To Pros statement that I have somehow been "stuck" on the opinion that religion has shaped laws, their points of mine have received equal if not more attention. More importantly, religion has helped shaped the laws that we uphold today, thus showing that it's been of importance to society and that it does in fact have relevance. Pro incorrectly states that any person can understand that things like killing and stealing are "immoralities" and "wrong behaviours", but my question is: how so? There's in fact nothing to say that this is universally understood by people or things that they can somehow immediately understand as "wrong". The point with religion is that it directly teaches people about these behaviours and the general consequences of them. Pro appears to be unaware of the fact that America itself was founded on religion by people who were escaping religious suppression in Europe. [9. ] . http://www.loc.gov... Pro incorrectly states that only two things that are explicitly outlined as laws in the First Testament are punishable offenses, but "bearing false witness", especially when taken in the context of a court of Law, can absolutely be a punishable offense. Pro attempts to argue that certain *things* have that he/she *claims* are a part of religion [keeping in mind that religion is an extremely broad sphere] are not associated with the laws we have now. However, things such as child molestation, enslaving/beating people, raping young women, etc. are not even religious law anyway. A look at some of the 613 Mitzvot--Mosaic commandments upheld by Judaism, easily affirms this. For example, you have laws such as: "Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger. " (Lev. 19:16)"Not to cherish hatred in one's heart . " (Lev. 19:17)"Not to leave a beast, that has fallen down beneath its burden, unaided. " (Deut. 22:4)"Not to afflict an orphan or a widow. " (Ex 22:21) "To leave the gleanings for the poor . " (Lev. 19:9)"Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs . " (Deut. 15:7)"To love the stranger. " (Deut. 10:19)"Not to wrong the stranger in buying or selling. " (Ex. 22:20)"To be fruitful and multiply. " (Gen. 1:28)"Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him. " (Ex. 22:24) "Not to break a vow. " (Num. 30:3)"Not to defraud. " (Lev. 19:13)"Not to covet what belongs to another. " (Ex. 20:14)So once again, Pro is entirely incorrect in his/her assumption that religious laws telling people to rape, molest, and kill, actually exist. To summarize my concluding argument and the debate itself, Pro started off with a poor resolution and only really gave an argument that was more in-depth in the third round. Whereas I began with using clear arguments [that were sourced] and used the same method until round three. Overall Pro has failed to affirm his/her resolution and conclusively show how/why religion should "go away" and no longer be a part of society.

The opponent keeps states that my rebuttal has no argument; in that case, I would like to request you to read it over again, and then think; is that really an argument? The opponent has clearly ignored most of my arguments by saying that I have no argument, and I really do think that the opponent should halt all these accusations, as I feel that they were shallow accusations with no proof whatsoever. Ignoring that, I would like to continue with my points and rebuttals. My opponent says that he agrees with my on my traditions argument. That only propels my point: stopping government sponsorship of religious pilgrimage or the banishments of all forms of sponsorship would destroy traditions of the country, because religion and pilgrimage is inherently the traditions of some religion; I have stated the example of Islam, but there can be many numerous examples; in Buddhism, every able bodied man is suppose to become a monk or enter monk hood at least once in their lives. Government sponsorship of this has enabled monks to encourage the teachings and passing on of ancient Buddhist texts to younger generations, making them morally and religiously aware of their belongings and their cultural identity. I would like the opponent to read the debate topic carefully: governments should ban the sponsorship of religious pilgrimages. The opponent says he never stated that going on a pilgrimage is bad, but by banishing all acts of sponsoring religious pilgrimages, government or private? That, right there, is too much for any person to bear; where is the liberty of supporting your traditions, culture and identity? There is none! This resolution (and the opponent) wants to ban the act of monks, who make their living by teaching morals to the younger generation, from talking about the "Great City of Mecca", "The Holy City of Jerusalem" or the "Ancient City of Sukhothai", as that would encourage them to go. Apart from being too rash, it also violates Article 3 and Article 18 of the Human Declaration of Human Rights, as the liberty to promote religious believes are outlawed and the freedom to practice religion has been banished because the government would ban all sponsorship of it. The opponent also thinks that government support of pilgrimages should be in the constitution: I can only say that not everything the government does has to be in the constitution. The opponent states that religious pilgrimages are unsafe by stating that "do you want the economy to advance with the determent of others?" Let me say two things: 1. The opponent has clearly ignored the fact that we live in an increasingly global and international world, where transnational transportation are given a priority. Albeit these might not be 100% safe, we can safely say that going on a pilgrimage in the 21st century is a different experience than going on a pilgrimage in the 13th century. 2. The opponent keeps using Nigeria as an example; it is a bad example. Nigeria's government is very corrupt, and it can be no fantasy to see that government officials taking bribes. But is Nigeria the only country sponsoring pilgrimages? No, there are many other countries whose sponsorship brought so many benefits. The opponent brings us one example, of chief Abomege, but there is no evidence of his story anywhere on the internet. Abormege is a road in Nigeria, and the opponent seems to be accounting and taking evidence from a fictional story. The opponent says what traditions: ending sponsorship of all religion would end the act of orally passing on information to our younger generation, who are already ignorant of religion. Ending all sponsorship of pilgrimages would severely limit the masses of Muslim going to Mecca to pay respect, to the masses of Hindus going to the Ganges to respect the dead buried there, to the masses of Buddhist going to respect the many temples in India and Burma, to the masses of Christian going to Jerusalem to pay their respect to the Holy City, and to the masses of Jews going to the New Temple. All of this would result in the complete eradication of cultural respect and would result in the limiting of religious interactions; a monk from Thailand who is denied the right of going on a pilgrimage will not be aware of the other types of Buddhism out there. All I will have to say about all the people who died while attending a pilgrimage in the 13th century is that they died going to the home of their faith. Since my opponent has given me no examples, other than a fictional story that doesn't seem to have existed, of modern pilgrimage deaths; I can only say that modern day pilgrimages are much safer than those pilgrimages of the 13th century. I will now answer all the questions that the opponent has asked me: 1. How many time has any country come to Nigeria? I would only reply that that question is so irrelevant I would like to answer with another question: is encouragement of going to pilgrimage the same as sponsorship of receiving pilgrims? 2. Or you want their economy to be rising at the determent of others? No I do not. But the opponent has not stated that at whose determent? The Jews? Muslims? Christians? Answer me, clearly and carefully; who is affected negatively by a pilgrimage to Israel? 3. Is the US government sponsoring pilgrimage? Then how do we account for the 10 billion dollars that US pilgrims have spent in the tourist market; it is because the US of A is a country of liberty, where the freedom to choose free will is present, is why the US does not need support. The opponent wants to ban the act of sponsoring pilgrimages altogether; that is no free will. 4. do we know that going for pilgrimage is not compulsory? So why must government sponsor millions of people to pilgrimage? Because there is always a steady flow of pilgrims coming to a holy site; that, itself, is an almost guarantee of steady income for the government and the people, what Nigeria needs. The opponent lastly that going on a pilgrimage is useless because you can do so in your room and your prayers will still be heard. I would like to answer by saying that going on a pilgrimage gives you a understanding of what your prophets had to go through, and some places are just holier than others, and some places gives you a deeper understanding of the world and your religion. In some religions, it is also mandatory, like Buddhism and Islam. In conclusion, the economic benefits of pilgrimages, along with the preservation of tradition and the violations of human rights that this would violate would bring in implications that the world would never know the solution. Implications like the loss of religious and moral identity, and the eternal hatred of humankind's eternal guiding light. Religion is important and it should never be forgotten; our ancestors and forefathers lived and died by it. Why should we be the generation that bears the shame of losing our identity? What if some religions are right? What if religion is actually a moral guide to society? Religion must be kept in place, and the government should sponsor all types of acts that would enlarge one's understanding towards religion. It is for these reasons, and many more that I am unable to present here, is why I urge you to vote con in the following ballot. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate, and I would like to thank the opponent for participating in all rounds of this debate. Thank You and Have a Nice Day Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.un.org... http://hrcak.srce.hr... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Aside from the fact that I don't believe Huckabee will actually win the election based on the nation's disgust with the Republican party and the recent partisan tide in congress.... I'll argue this point... Let's take a look at your first paragraph with one substitution: "It looks like DEMOCRATS will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels." The substitution for Democrats represents Kucinich, who argued for bombing Mecca and Medina if there was another terrorist attack on US soil. The point I make here is that it is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, but rather an issue of Christians vs. Non-Christians in political ideology. Most of the politicians in the United States are Christian (or claim to be - there are undoubtedly a number of closet atheists in Congress). So it would make sense that laws get passed that reflect a Christian ideology. The problem I believe you're trying to identify is that the Single Member Plurality District model we currently use disenfranchises the non-Christian members of the population. I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. On the first point, the laws congress passes reflect the opinions and desires of the representative's constituents. It just so happens that these constituents are of a Christian PLURALITY - not majority necessarily, but still probably a majority. On top of that, these laws are not dependent on or reflective of Christian ideology - they simply agree with it in much the same was as "The enemy of the enemy is my friend." The laws I believe you argue against have to do with morality. Morality is not a religious construct - it arises out of biological tendencies and basic social contract theory. So in the end - the laws do not in and of themselves benefit a religion - they benefit society. On the second point, this by no means establishes a religion. It simply means that this is the most common religion. In a democracy, the laws will follow the will of the people. The United States is a majority Christian nation - thus, the laws reflect this. It is not establishment at all. In any event, the clause regarding the establishment of religion is to prevent religious persecution. So in order to use that clause in your argument, I think you need to show the persecution of a (major?) religious group before that's a valid argument. And by major, I mean that I don't consider the illegalization of marijuana to be a persecution of Rastafarianists. For your first disclaimer, I think you should provide an example of such a law before I attempt to figure out what you mean by that... As far as a religious president like Huckabee goes... I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. Granted, I believe the best president for this country would be an atheist president... I would much rather see a religious president like Huckabee in office than a religious president like Kucinich. On average, I believe you could say that religious persons are generally good people. I would view a religious president as less likely to be involved in a scandal than a non-religious president. Historically, the United States has always had a religious president (again - or one who claimed to be). If you can honestly say that the past 43 (I think... 42, 44?) presidents have FORCED or COERCED the nation into a religious lifestyle, I challenge you to provide legislation that proves this. I believe the United States needs a religious president, but not necessarily Huckabee. Actually, from a religious view, I think Obama is a much better choice (even though I'm conservative) because it's hard in the international arena of religion and politics for the Arab world to demonize someone like Obama - he has an Arab name, Arab features, was raised partially Muslim, etc... But that's beside the point. Provide me some evidence that a Christian president is bad. Your move.

"I. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits."There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]"Yes, there's benefits to marriage, There's benefits to robbing a bank too, as long as you don't get caught and you aren't the owner/employee of the bank, just like there's benefits to the person getting married...but not the religious organization that had to give up it's religious rights because it now has to marry gay couples even though it's against their beliefs. Once again, a civil union that gives someone the same benefits as marriage is a better option than legalizing gay marriage."II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust."Firstly, your source number 5 contradicts itself."Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and presidential hopeful, recently apologized for a statement in which he said being gay is "absolutely" a choice.""Since then, he has apologized for the divisiveness of his comments, but hasn't backed down from the notion that being gay is something people choose."One of these quotes claim that Ben Carson apologized for the "divisiveness" of his comment, and one claims he apologized for the comment itself, both of them are from the same source (5) you provided.Secondly, what mainstream psychologists say means nothing. At one point mainstream scientists thought the earth was flat, mainstream psychologists used to practice trepanning because it would allow evil entities to escape. If we relied only on mainstream techniques or beliefs we would probably still be throwing people in the water tied up to test if they are witches.Also, please check the definition of a word before you claim what it is or is not. The definition of "discrimination" is "the act of making or perceiving a difference" is not unjust.I'll also provide you with these quotes from a previously homosexual man"Lastly, I am left with my own life story. I can't change it. I went from being in the gay lifestyle to marrying a woman, having a daughter, and living a happy heterosexual life""You couldn't pay me to have sex with a man at this point in my life. I don't feel the urge""III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages."Yes it provides some revenue, but at what cost? Also at 1 - 5 percent of the population (I'll provide links with those statistics) and even less considering not all of them would like to get married, is not a very high rate of marriage licenses. I doubt we're going to see a decrease in taxes paid anytime soon because of the revenue from marriage licenses of gay marriages."IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion."Let's read all of the first amendment."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."allowing gay marriage prohibits the free exercise of religion. It requires them to marry gay couples. Respecting an establishment of religion would be instituting Sharia law, requiring Americans attend mass every week, or making it illegal to participate in gay sex.Sources. https://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.americanthinker.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.usnews.com...https://www.law.cornell.edu...

school vouchers are essentially tax write offs for families who choose to send their children to non-government, or privately funded and parochial schools. the reason for this tax break according to supporters is that families should not have to pay taxes to help schools that their children do not attend. i stand in firm negation, and will expand on the four main arguments in opposition of these vouchers. 1. since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st amendment separation of church and state. if parents want to send their children to a school that incorporates faith based teachings into their curriculum, that's fine. but why should my tax dollars support a school that teaches christianity if that is not what i believe in or want my money being spent on? supporters of the voucher are hypocritical in this regard. they don't want to have to pay for school that their children don't attend (and therefore support), but they want other tax payers to have to fund a school that they do not support. i think this is a huge flaw in their argument. expecting the government to help fund public schools makes sense; they are not incorporating religious teachings and therefore are open to anyone. they are public schools with public goals: the teachings of reading, writing, etc. leave the religion at home where it belings, i'm all for that. but shouldn't schools exist that are open for everyone regardless of income? if not, an even greater separation of class exists, literacy in the united states goes down (and history shows us that non-literacy leads to disaster like serfdom and other hierarchies). plus, what if these people who can afford private school are no longer able to? should their children suffer? how would a class system ever be able to be overcome? 2. vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. there is already a huge discrepancy between the success (college admission, eventual income, etc.) of children who attend public school vs. private school. taking away government funds to help children who can't afford more expensive ("better") education is doing a great disservice not only to the individuals to society. you are stifling some potential great minds and perpetuating a rigid class system. it's already bad enough; the government should be concerned and trying to fix the education system - not break it even more. 3. private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight; thus, they may not act responsibly. parents could be paying a lot of money for a school that does not comply with adequate academic standards. the united states protects children's rights to a certain extent; that is, ensuring that they are able to receive a decent education. if a minor wants to attend a public school, but his parents want him or her to attend private school with less academic credential, the student is being robbed of his right to an education that we grant in our constitution and bylaws. furthermore, a minor may be forced to pray, worship or learn about a religion they may not believe in or want to participate in. again, this comes down to an issue of why private schools should receive funds for inadequacy instead of funds supporting an academic standard that ALL people of ALL faiths and economic backgrounds can agree to. 4. public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. public schools provide equal opportunity for all regardless of class, race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. schools that can discriminate based on admission create stereotypes, rigid social and social class hierarchies, etc. public schools must exist to prevent rule by a small minority. that would cease and destroy democracy, the founding of our nation's beliefs. without government funded schools, many institutions would be destroyed. families who could not afford schools, or pay teachers decent salaries, will have school-less children, or youth being taught by inferior educators. vouchers would take away money being put into schools, and our schools are already considered inferior compared with the schools in other nations. again, this would do a disservice to not just individual families, but the entire nation. the prestige of the united states will suffer. school vouchers are a bad idea. they do not consider the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism, which is a maxim that makes sense. i defend the principle that the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure is optimal amongst society; to combat this, my opponent would have to be con on the position of why utilitarianism is not the best moral maxim. if they cannot, you must except my maxim, and therefore my stance that being con on the issue of school vouchers is morally preferable because school vouchers inhibit utilitarianism. thank you. source: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...

First off, I have point out that grammar in debates is extremely important, and if you misspell more than one word, the contender may not take is as seriously than if you had better spelling and grammar, but just to keep it going, I will ignore those errors and carry on. You say that "As per Edwards"s v Aguillard, Creationism teaching creationism is illegal and not allowed in public schools in the United States' but you fail to spot your ignorance in this passage, the US isn't the only country in the world, there are several schools where you have to say a prayer (or say grace) before eating. How do I know this? Experience. In my old primary school (the UK's equivalent of elementary schools) we had to either sing a song or silently pray, even though I explicitly said that I was atheist, we were also told that we didn't evolve from monkeys, and that the first people where Adam and Eve, bear in mind that this wasn't a Christian school. Next I will go onto the next rebuttal. You say that I present 'Two impossible tenants to follow' but they are NOT impossible. You see I do not want all schools to be religious free zones, but I want regular schools to let people express their religion without being pressurized to convert, whether you're an atheist or a scientologist and schools which are for atheists, so if you are a catholic, you cannot go to those schools. Like I said, I don't want ALL schools to be religious free zones, just to be able to express your religion. OK, now onto the third rebuttal. Yes, I admit that I used the wrong words in the wrong time, but think about it this way; if you were a Christian, and a Muslim man came up to you, said that Allah is great, read from the Quran and said that you will go to heaven with 72 virgins, you would more than likely feel at least uncomfortable, and maybe even offended. To be fair, I cannot think of anything to say to rebut that, so you win that part. Onto the fifth rebuttal. Once again, the ignorance bug has bitten you. You point out that ALL public schools up to high school at least are essentially atheist, but like I said on my first rebuttal, I had to say grace in my primary schools, and that was a public school, and in my high school, there are plenty of religious people, whether Christian or Jewish. Next, you say that there are no atheistic schools, and that there are plenty of Muslim, Jewish etc. and I accept that, and the only reason why I didn't know that is because I live in a rural house far away from big cities with lots of schools. Finally, you said nothing about the stress of teaching a religion that condemns homosexuality could have on homosexual pupils, so I may be detecting a hint of homophobia, just saying. But I am glad you didn't go all religious saying things like "God did it" and "It's in the bible so it must be true" I was excepting a lot of that.

Much is being made of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. The president and other proponents argue that the right to build the community center is protected under the constitution. This is a perfectly valid, reasonable argument, and I agree with it entirely. As a result of the debate over this issue, supporters of the mosque have stressed that Islam as a religion, and the millions of Muslims that follow it, should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 or any subsequent attempts. Again, a true statement. Those who support the construction of the mosque argue that the nation should embrace 'religious tolerance', that we should view all religions as being equal, and none should be explicitly discriminated against or restricted from having the same rights guaranteed to other religions. However, religious tolerance is not a viable solution to the problems that religion itself imposes on society. I will argue that religious tolerance is not only impossible, but immoral. --------------- This will be a five round debate. The first round will be used solely to establish background and state opinions without elaboration on arguments. The second to fourth rounds will contain arguments and rebuttals. The fifth and final round will be used for closing statements and summary.


Question: Should Religious Institutions Continue to Be Tax-Exempt?

Churches should be subject to taxation.
If we consider Churches as Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs), they should be taxed similarly to other entities. Typically, organizations, including for-profits and non-profits, are required to pay taxes on various fronts, such as profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, and payroll tax. Churches, being substantial entities in American communities, often consume considerable community resources without bearing the tax burden. They occupy significant land and real estate without contributing to property taxes. Given the vast property holdings of churches, comparable to any major corporation, taxing them solely on property would notably reduce personal property taxes for individuals, potentially lowering municipal property tax rates, and significantly increase government revenues. Churches, while utilizing extensive land without taxation, also benefit from taxpayer-funded services like police, fire departments, and schools, without contributing their share. Although one might argue that churches operate as non-profits, they generate revenue through various means, including donations, events, fundraisers, sales of merchandise (the sales tax status of which may vary), and trips. Successful churches, often run by denominations like Baptists and Catholics, amass millions of dollars, funding amenities like gyms, libraries, daycares, and swimming pools, and financing lavish trips and camps. The source of these funds and the lack of economic contribution are questionable. One might argue that these funds are utilized for the benefit of church members, but what about non-believers or those from non-Christian backgrounds? Tax exemption for religious organizations is contingent upon government recognition of the religion's legitimacy. Ultimately, taxing churches would benefit society as a whole, given their significant role in American life and the substantial revenue they generate (regardless of their intended status!). All other entities are required to report their earnings, and there is no valid reason for churches to remain exempt from this obligation.

Religions have a powerful role in that they influence individuals' values and behaviors. Through constant preaching and inspired actions, most religions shape different communities' civilization and how individuals interact with their fellow religious mates and with the rest of the world. The following are ways in which religions shape individuals' behavior and thought patterns, collectively or not, to positively work on making this world a world that everyone finds comfort and pleasure living in. 1.Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles. It injects discipline in an individual's character and it helps individuals from diverse backgrounds; with or without the same religious beliefs, to live at peace with each other. -Research paper about "Why religion matters even more" by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. - http://www.heritage.org.... In the article http://www.zenit.org...; the article by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D is further summarized and looks at an applicable approach of this issue in Rome. It bases more emphasis on the higher levels of sustained motivation and progressive achievements of religious students in high school and college with relative contrast to non-religious students. The first argument, mainly about peace and discipline, relates to the second argument (below) in the following ways : a) For two individuals to live at peace with each other; there has to be a mutual sense of "standardized and acceptable behavior" between the two individuals and b) How religious groups treat others in time of need is reflective of their own values. Any religion with peace as one of its central themes willingly takes the responsibility to try and restore peace within the whole world, without taking into account any religious boundaries. 2. Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty and other world-problems-restorative-measures. - http://www.vancouversun.com... highlights the positive contribution of religion with respect to fighting poverty in Canada. It argues that, with the aid of Canada Statistics, religion in Canada is the leading "structure (for lack of a better term)" in terms of fighting poverty. An insignificant yet relevant page promoted by different religions from the Middle East with the purpose of helping individuals who got injured in a natural disaster: http://www.uri.org... Brief Conclusion : Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in a world that has been through recessions, racial fighting and currently still fighting 3rd World issues. It reduces the crime rate and racial killings that would otherwise do more harm to the world. Religion intervenes in the lives of the poor and offers financial and emotional support, more efficiently that most government organizations. These kind and considerate religious acts reduce the impacts of poverty to society.

Thank you, Con, for the timely response. I will begin by addressing my opponent's contentions before developing my own further. 1) My opponent has pointed to religious support for charity and "hope" and while it is true that many organized religions support charity work, the religion part of the equation is not necessary; it really comes down to actual people donating time and money. There are many secular charities [1] that do excellent work with no religious association whatsoever. This proves that it is people who contribute to charity and not religion. There are also examples of discrimination within faith-based charities where individuals have been dismissed due to their religious beliefs [2]. 2) The second point my opponent makes is about particular denominations within the major three monotheisms "constantly improving one another and causing social progression". I will touch on this issue further in my own contentions later, but would like to point out that this is only societal progression within the framework built by organized religion in the first place. It's like if a convicted murderer were to assault someone and then be praised for his progression to the point where he no longer kills his victims. My point: 1) I am going to condense my own contentions to one major point here because I feel like the rebuttal of my earlier claims also focused on only one argument. My opponent has responded to my points about the way in which organized religion has sought to stand in the way of the advancement of human rights and science by saying that not all religious denominations do so; only a few take this position and therefore I am making a generalization. While it is correct that not all religious denominations oppose the major issues within these topics, ONLY religious organizations oppose them. There are no secular groups standing in the way of stem cell research or gay equality. Without the intervention of organized religion, these issues would not be issues and our society would be better off for it. [1] http://www.freethoughtpedia.com... [2] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk...

im confused to what you mean ? religion should be taught in schools ? i would like to point out here in scotland it is a subject called religious , moral , philosopic studys or as we know it R.M.P.S which is required to be learnt as long as this pupil is still in highschool education. religion is taught in most first world countries at school from a young age it always has been im not sure about where you live but it is in the vast majority of schools. but heres why i think it shouldnt anyway i was taught it in school when i was young and my teacher was a very serious christian. She would ask me if i belivied in god or jesus or what religion i was . when i told here i didnt belive in religion i was an atheisit , i belive the theroy of evoultion . she screamed at me and tryed to get me excluded from school. i Thought to myself why? when kids learn about the religion they are suppose to be in school the vasg majority feel pressured by a teacher as if they were doing something wrong by not beliving in christainity and other religions. even in this day and age the teachers still say things like " if you commit a sing you WILL go to hell and spend forever there " now this is often told to young children etc forcing them to belive religion is the true meaning, if they wanted to teach them she could start off by saying something like " the christians belive ... " most teachers teaching religion are very biased because they are reiligous themselves , i accept a great amount are not but a large amount are. i know this world is full of hatered etc and people should learn respect . but have you ever stopped to think that religion is the main cause of death and vilionce in this world and in this worlds history excluding disease .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" --Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence. Already the Affirmative has proposed ideas contrary to that of our Founders' and in violation to basic human rights. To start off, I will organize the arguments my opponent made and then respond to all of them in order. I will conclude with some questions. Here are the arguments my opponent presented: 1. Christians cherry-pick only the verses out of the Bible that suit them. (Probably in response to the verse I used). 2. If we let religion dictate, any person can come up with any religion they like and say there can't be laws opposing it. 3. If a person's beliefs are violated, that person should change their job. Let's talk about the first point, that Christians cherry-pick verses. I agree that some other people who call themselves Christians like to choose only some verses out of the Bible, but not me. It just so happens that I used the verse in perfect context and in keeping with my point about Christian beliefs. See for yourself that I did not just "cherry-pick". https://www.biblegateway.com... I challenge my opponent to find any verses that I have overlooked. On to the second point, that of the dangers of religion. This is kind of a no-brainer. According to LifeSiteNews, 61% of Americans do not want gay marriage. https://www.lifesitenews.com... I challenge my opponent to come up with any statistics on how many people don't support heterosexual marriage. So far, TrumpetTrain, in the real world, such a religion does not exist. The last point the affirmative made is that if the flower shop owner felt his beliefs were violated, then he should quit his job. Forcing a person to either conform to things opposing their beliefs or quit their own job violates the Constitution as can be seen in Amendment 5 and the Declaration of Independence! This man owns a flower shop! You can't force anyone to give up their beliefs or their livelihood. That is basic human rights. No person should have to live avoiding all situations where their beliefs will be offended. Anyway, 83% of all people are Christians and it's not just flower shops where these new laws are infringing on their beliefs. Again, I have sources supporting all of my arguments. Finally, I have a few questions for TrumpetTrain, the first of which being: Do you believe humans are entitled to certain unalienable rights, as defined by The Declaration of Independence? Do you have opinions? (haha but we already know the answer to this one) Do you want to be free to defend your opinions? Do you agree that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people? Would you be happy about giving up your job or the thing you loved to do most because of a government law standard?

Hello and thank you for joining the debate. I appreciate your input. I agree on a few points in your argument. I agree that America should not have a national religion, as we are the "home of the free and the brave". And I also agree that required religious practice in schools is not acceptable, as we are a free nation. But these points also lead me to points in my own argument. That, as a free nation, we have decided to separate religious practices in public schools in America. This only supports our rights as American citizens to practice, without penalty, our own set of beliefs. I understand that an argument could be made that the Separation of Church and State suppresses our rights to practice religion, or that teachers cannot freely share their beliefs with the class. My rebuttal to this would be that The Separation of Church and State does not suppress anyone's right to their religion, as religion does not need to be advertised to others. A more typical example of this is the belief in the Christian god. Their religion is centered around a strong faith and/or relationship with their lord, and most Christians would say (and they have said) that their relationship with god is a very private one, and that they enjoy a special bond with their creator that does not need to be public. This goes to show that a persons religious practices do not need to be known by everyone, nor do they need to be advertised throughout the day. The important part of one's religion is upholding their beliefs, such as kindness, godliness, etc. Returning to your argument, I feel that we are not really afraid, and fear does not cloud our decisions. The Separation of Church and State is to protect the rights of every citizen in school, so that they may come to their own personal conclusions concerning religion and their beliefs. I also enjoyed the point you brought up about the study of the king james bible. Though not every school does, some do. The high school that I attended had employed an English teacher who taught a whole unit on the king james bible. Although many people object to this because of their beliefs, it was still being taught throughout my high school years. Which brings me to another point: many religious people are uncomfortable with studying religious books outside of their own faith. In a class that studied the Quran, many Catholic and Christian students were uncomfortable, and refused to partake in the class activity. This shows that, not only are non-religious students uncomfortable with being told to study religious texts, but religious students are also equally offended. However, history classes do in fact teach about the religious groups throughout history, and I was personally required to write about a randomly selected religion in my world history class. I believe my main point is that it is not the studying of the relevance of religion in history that should not be forced on students in public schools, but the beliefs and laws of religious groups. It is not about the fear of hurting someone's feelings, but the violation of the right to freedom of religion, or lack thereof.

well, since this is my last argument, i will not type any long text except this: Human emotion is a terrible and wonderful thing at the same time, it is never connected to logic, a critical thing that runs describes this world and the way that it functioned, humans get emotionally connected to any subject and it can get confusing. When you get emotionally connected to something, no amount of logic, reasonable thinking or evidence can make yo think otherwise because your emotions make you feel good on that subject. In this case, the churches. We are emotionally connected to them, they size and majesty wow's us, their uniqueness attracts us and give us comfort, it is the house of god in which we are welcome, there is plenty to get connected to and that is why it becomes a problem. Church should be demolished, i have presented plenty of evidences and logical examples during this debate that prove that i make reasonable arguments, but no matter how much sense i make, it wouldn't matter to the emotional people because, yeah, it makes them mad that i would make such a statement because it makes them feel bad. The terrible deeds that church has done during the history and we still worship it, why? emotional connection, because every person that critically thinks of it will realize that church is terrible, but they will never leave it, for reason they won't know why, i have talked to plenty of people not knowing the answer to a question . Lets leave the emotional connection on stall until logical things that have to be done

" even though it was a very bold move, sadly, it is not what the topic is about. " It has implications for what the topic is about. It is a premise of an argument from which the conclusion related to this argument is logically derived. Therefore it is relevant. " without taxation, we cannot pay those people who help america every day. ex. police officers, firemen, elected officials, teachers, etc.." As a matter of fact we can. Simply replace taxation with a law enforcement user fee for the purpose of police, the military, firemen, and officials (why "elected" ones? That doesn't have a great track record). Btw, it is impossible to "help america," america is not an evaluative entity. It is only possible to help individuals. As for teachers, I presume you've heard of private schools? Naturally, without public schools, the market is bigger for private schools, allowing for production at a cheaper rate, especially relative to the newfound growth of incomes due to lack of taxes. " although confusing, the last statement he made was supposed to be allowing the existance of MP3 players in them is clearly not... he made a mistake, and clarified that in the comment section. " Yes, I corrected it to what it should have said. You haven't addressed it. " ragnar-rahl, I respect your odd approach on this topic, but sadly it does not even slightly have anything to do with the topic. I am sorry." The topic states that mp3 players should be allowed in public schools, i.e., that allowing such is part of what should be. It follows from the premise that public schools should not exist that this is false. To prove your statement that it is irrelevant, you would have to dispute my deduction, which you have not done-- or to otherwise defeat it, you would have to disprove the premise, which again you have not done. If Q follows from P, and Q is a position on the topic, then P is relevant to the topic. Indeed, it is you, not me, who has not yet made any substantive argument relevant to the resolution thus far.

I see much misinterpretation with some of your arguments. Let us see my last argument! I am also delighted to see you being such a challenge for my first debate, and congratulate your respect. Now on to more pressing matters. ******************************************************************************************************* #1 I understand; we should be discussing school prayer and not debating over the "under God" statement. Originally is was used to prove the point that in that sense allowing school prayer is similar. As a conclusion, school prayer is just as unconstitutional. Take a look at this statement from a certain website cited below. "The Knights of Columbus " a Catholic men"s group " led the lobbying effort to add "under God." Now the Pledge is twisted, with divisive religious language that implies true patriots must be believers. With "under God" added, the Pledge is not a statement of patriotism. Instead, extremist preachers and politicians point to the language to validate their view that those who don"t believe in God don"t belong." People had to meddle with the law to get what they want. Anyways that is not the main point here. In its same respect, allowing school prayer is unconstitutional. ******************************************************************************************************* #2 I never changed my argument. I was pointing out that the population should come to a consensus in respecting each others beliefs without anyone overly favoring one view than the other in which is removing any favor of a religious institution such as school prayer. ******************************************************************************************************* #3 I never admitted defeat. Should I give false statement and faulty evidence to prove a point? No, which is why I agreed with a certain statement, but I also did not say that school prayer should be allowed because that will be favoring a religious institution regardless of what the founders' beliefs were. Even one of the old rulers of the U.S said that the future does not belong to the dead. At this moment, it seems that allowing school prayers would allow for some radical bigots to use it as a source of justice for being like that "because the majority is Christian". ****************************************************************************************************** #4 Usually people feel good without even knowing why and usually it is for what society considers "good", or maybe even something else instead of listening to other people. Also , most people are born with morality in the first place with the added fact that being pleasing to your morality usually gives a good pleasure which is in fact the release of dopamine. So whether or not kids believe in God(a god, or gods), they have their own respective views in which they do not need the government allowing school prayer to drive them to doubt what they should believe in. ******************************************************************************************************* #5 The majority and minority should have their say be just as effective. In the early days of the nation they established freedom of religion because the minority was being oppressed in the west. It did not matter if many people said that "we should kill non-believers" because that violated many rights and in its own sense it is just wrong in which school prayer might be allowing a gateway to keep pressuring bigotry in this nation. ******************************************************************************************************* Sources -http://www.dontsaythepledge.com... ******************************************************************************************************* Having a non school prayer zone will be respecting everyone's views creating a tolerant and harmonic society. P.S. You have some misspellings in your arguments, but all is good.

Much is being made of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. The president and other proponents argue that the right to build the community center is protected under the constitution. This is a perfectly valid, reasonable argument, and I agree with it entirely. As a result of the debate over this issue, supporters of the mosque have stressed that Islam as a religion, and the millions of Muslims that follow it, should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 or any subsequent attempts. Again, a true statement. Those who support the construction of the mosque argue that the nation should embrace 'religious tolerance', that we should view all religions as being equal, and none should be explicitly discriminated against or restricted from having the same rights guaranteed to other religions. However, religious tolerance is not a viable solution to the problems that religion itself imposes on society. I will argue that religious tolerance is not only impossible, but immoral. --------------- This will be a five round debate. The first round will be used solely to establish background and state opinions without elaboration on arguments. The second to fourth rounds will contain arguments and rebuttals. The fifth and final round will be used for closing statements and summary.

However, in many instances, religion does affect others [ri] because many extremely religious people try to influence the behaviors of others and even governmental policies [s]. Two major issues that they fight against are gay rights and abortion [q], which gives millions of people struggles everyday [i]. Now to address your second point, there is actually evidence to justify believing in religion [ri]. to quote Allen Wood, "You should believe what evidence or rational argument justifies you you believing, and with the strength that evidence or argument justifies it."[s]. In this case, that evidence would be the Bible [q].


Question: Should Religious Institutions be Granted Tax Exemption?

Churches Should Contribute Through Taxation
Churches should be subject to taxation, akin to other profit-driven enterprises that contribute to the national treasury. Churches generate revenue, and all income-earning entities are required to pay taxes. By imposing taxes on churches, an estimated $71 billion could be raised. This substantial sum could be channeled into initiatives aimed at improving the global community. Although churches do engage in charitable activities, the proportion of their income allocated to philanthropy is relatively low. For instance, the Mormon Church devotes only 7% of its annual revenue to charity. In contrast, the American Red Cross allocates 92.1% of its income to assist those in need. As an example, Wal-Mart provides approximately $1.75 billion in food aid to charities annually, which is twenty-eight times more than the total charitable contributions made by the United Methodist Church and almost double the amount donated by the LDS Church over the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012) Source: https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

I for one see the question of whether or not God exists as a scientific question. I think that this question should be taught in science classes using a scientific approach. That faith based or religious arguments should not be allowed to interfere with science. In brief, religious arguments and faith based arguments should be kept out of the science class room while simultaneously the question of God existence should be looked through a scientific lens.

Hello and thank you for joining the debate. I appreciate your input. I agree on a few points in your argument. I agree that America should not have a national religion, as we are the "home of the free and the brave". And I also agree that required religious practice in schools is not acceptable, as we are a free nation. But these points also lead me to points in my own argument. That, as a free nation, we have decided to separate religious practices in public schools in America. This only supports our rights as American citizens to practice, without penalty, our own set of beliefs. I understand that an argument could be made that the Separation of Church and State suppresses our rights to practice religion, or that teachers cannot freely share their beliefs with the class. My rebuttal to this would be that The Separation of Church and State does not suppress anyone's right to their religion, as religion does not need to be advertised to others. A more typical example of this is the belief in the Christian god. Their religion is centered around a strong faith and/or relationship with their lord, and most Christians would say (and they have said) that their relationship with god is a very private one, and that they enjoy a special bond with their creator that does not need to be public. This goes to show that a persons religious practices do not need to be known by everyone, nor do they need to be advertised throughout the day. The important part of one's religion is upholding their beliefs, such as kindness, godliness, etc. Returning to your argument, I feel that we are not really afraid, and fear does not cloud our decisions. The Separation of Church and State is to protect the rights of every citizen in school, so that they may come to their own personal conclusions concerning religion and their beliefs. I also enjoyed the point you brought up about the study of the king james bible. Though not every school does, some do. The high school that I attended had employed an English teacher who taught a whole unit on the king james bible. Although many people object to this because of their beliefs, it was still being taught throughout my high school years. Which brings me to another point: many religious people are uncomfortable with studying religious books outside of their own faith. In a class that studied the Quran, many Catholic and Christian students were uncomfortable, and refused to partake in the class activity. This shows that, not only are non-religious students uncomfortable with being told to study religious texts, but religious students are also equally offended. However, history classes do in fact teach about the religious groups throughout history, and I was personally required to write about a randomly selected religion in my world history class. I believe my main point is that it is not the studying of the relevance of religion in history that should not be forced on students in public schools, but the beliefs and laws of religious groups. It is not about the fear of hurting someone's feelings, but the violation of the right to freedom of religion, or lack thereof.

Actually, marriage IS an institution of the Church. By "Church," I mean the religious institutions performing the marriages, not necessarily only Christians. Other religions besides Christianity frown upon homosexual marriages as well. Also, some atheists have been turned away by some churches due to their lack of belief. If they can find a preacher that agrees to do their marriage, then they can be married, no problem. However, homosexuality is expressly condemned in the religions writings like the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Koran to name a few. In the eyes of most religious persons, marriages are degraded by allowing those obviously against the teachings of their faith and unwilling to change to participate in the same religious marriage ceremony as those of the faith. I challenge you to find a legitimate religion that would happily marry a homosexual couple. "If civil unions are basically the same as marriages, which they are not, then why can't we let homosexuals marry?" Marriages are religious. They are designed to be a covenant between partner and partner to declare before their religious deity that they are forever one. Civil Unions are contracts made with the state to ensure the same economic and civil rights as those with marriage. They are not basically the same, civil unions have no religious significance. The reason "separate but equal" didn't work was because the African-Americans were in very small minority and did not know how to stand up for their rights for a long time. However, homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers are not in a very small minority and they certainly know how to stand for their rights. Civil Unions can be changed to provide all the same rights as a marriage would. If they are given the same economic and civil liberties through civil unions, why do they wish to have marriage on top of that? As for my last point about homosexual couples contributing less, I concede that it is possible for them to reproduce with the help of technology. I realize it was a long shot argument and I didn't expect it to be an important point. It doesn't affect my main points anyway. And since you say I didn't respond to your arguments, I'll do so expressly now. Why is it that just because a gay person is gay, they cannot marry who they want? Because marriage is not controlled by the government, and many religious institutions do not wish to perform homosexual marriages. Since when did the government have to right to limit our liberties and freedoms that do not matter in homeland security? The government does not have this right. It can't force you to be straight. It also can't force you to accept homosexuality. The government has no say in the matter, but they did provide a nice compromise by creating civil unions that are supposed to give the same economic and civil liberties to homosexuals as marriages do for heterosexual couples. Why do we discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even though we don't discriminate based upon race or gender? Unfortunately, you cannot change what people think. Some people are racists, and there is absolutely nothing you can do legally to change that. Acting on your racism to break a law, however, is illegal. The same argument can be applied to the homosexual debate. You cannot stop religious institutions from condemning homosexuality as a sin and withholding their ceremonies, but you can prevent them from actively pursuing the end of homosexuality in violent manners. Homosexuals are not discriminated against except in certain social environments, and the government does not have the right to interfere as long as no laws are broken. Homosexuals have the right to a state-recognized civil union that should grant them the same rights marriages between heterosexuals do. I ask you, why do Non-religious homosexuals wish to be married by a religious institution if they have the same rights as the heterosexual couples? You argue that they don't have the same rights, so I also ask you this: Why not just change civil unions to be equal to marriages in all legal matters?

Please try not to change the subject. Your 'extra' burden is like saying I have to prove what happens to a box if I suggest it needs to be moved from the doorway. I only need to prove it is in the way and needs to be moved. Not where it needs to go or why. As far as our debate is concerned the religious marriage can be privatized, or abolished completely, it does not matter.Because you have chosen to change the debate to 'Marriage should be privatized and religious only', your arguments are irrelevant.I am going to merely clear up any confusion that my first round may have caused.1. I believe in separation of church and state, which is essential for religious freedom in the United States. 2. I believe 'marriage' is a religious unity.3. I believe the national government should have a non-religious unity only. (Civil unity I believe it's called)4. States have these 'additional' civil union laws, which my second source shows is unequal to marriage.5. I believe a contract with the government helps keep people together, which is good for children. Source number one was the evidence for this.6. I believe the objectors of gay marriage have a leg to stand on because of their religious beliefs.7. I believe sexual orientation is personal and is no business of the government. I would like to address your disadvantages simply so you do not have to waste your time with them again.1) Insurance - As you put it, it is a legal spouse. Because the government unity (no longer being religious) can be 2 males or 2 females, the wording would allow for the 'spouse' to be any sexual orientation.2) Name Change - Is a simple process. Like a common Law marriage, some states (not sure about national government) even allow you to change your name with a signed and notarized affidavit.3) Non-religious people marrying - this is void simply because they want to be lawfully unified, not religiously. They will not get married, because it is religious. They will get a civil union with a ceremony they organize.The clear advantage of removing 'marriage' from government is that religions get their word the way they want it. As well as separating church and state just a little bit more. It is now on you to provide some real disadvantages or prove my advantages are wrong. I look forward to your second round.

Religion is intended to bring peace, morality ,unity and whatsoever required for mutual existence of one and all. But the history and the present happenings suggest a contradicting picture. Is there is no religion when there are more than 100 million casualties in the two world wars? Is there is no religion when 1.29 billion ( world bank report 2008 ) people of the world living in absolute poverty? Of course there are many religions and few has a history of more than 4000 years, witnessing the bloodshed and cries of hunger. The most saddest part of the religion is the solace a present day terrorist, responsible for 9/11, Mumbai attacks, violence in Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan, middle east etc, find in its scripture. Con, your instances about the goodness of a religion in Canada and Middle East offer a drop in the ocean. A 11 year old girl Malala was attacked for supporting education to girls in a country called Pakistan which owns a religion as a state religion. The present picture of that country where there are no rights to women depicts a perfect example for saying religion does more harm than good.

Wow that was an incredibly weak argument. Just because it does not endorse a specific religion like Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. The concept of god is a religious concept and according to the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The reason God should not be mention in our money is because some of us believe in more than one god, and some of us don't even believe in a god like myself. The Government is supposed to represent all of its citizens irrespective of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. By respecting a religious stance the government misrepresents and fails to acknowledge those with different beliefs by upholding one religious view over others. This is a form of religious oppression because those of us with different beliefs are forced to use money that displays views we don't believe in This is why it's illegal to have religious symbols on public property, and why public school can't endorse any religion or religious view. The US government obeys the establishment clause in most cases just not when it comes to our currency.

To restate my old argument use the word plague as in definition 1 (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The subject is inferred as society and the human species.Negative losses caused by traditional religion are the Crusades of the Catholic religion (http://books.google.com... whole book quote), The jihad (http://www.merriam-webster.com... ,look at war http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and calls to war by extremist of a traditional religion such as westboro Baptist church. These events all create oppression of one other people/people which is against peace (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and utopia (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) a state of perfectness.

Taken from http://churchandstate.org.uk... The assumption of truth. Most of our world"s major religions each assume that it is their faith alone that is the "absolute truth" and refuse to concede that those traditions may be mistaken. Instead, they discover ways to force conflicting information to adapt to their own doctrine; no matter how effective the evidence is at actually disproving the rationality of that particular religion. Many religious adherents have no problem understanding the irrationality of others beliefs, but are unable to apply the same logic when observing their own doctrine. Instead, every effort is made to justify why it is their " and only their " religion that is void of any fault. If they were to observe their own faith with the same set of scrutinizing eyes that they see through when evaluating other"s faiths, they would understand what many of us have already concluded " all of our religious texts were written by people, not gods. They are the stories and traditions that we created in order to explain our world in the past. For instance, the majority of Christians would agree that the idea of Mohammad riding a flying horse into the heavens is an impossible fairy-tale; while simultaneously, they are unable to see how their own story of a talking snake or a man living inside a fish for three days is also impossible. We know that horses can"t fly. They are not airborne animals, they are land animals. We know that snakes can"t speak " they lack the vocal cords to produce the sounds necessary for speech. We also know that the digestive mechanisms of the fish would make it impossible for a man to actually live (let alone breathe) inside of a fish for three days. These stories, some of them with deep and purposeful meanings, cannot be understood, let alone correctly interpreted for beneficial use, when they are assumed to be truth, rather than for the allegories that they are. The problem with this is that by insisting that (an obviously fabricated story) is absolute truth, the opportunity of arriving at the actual truth is greatly diminished. It creates a world where stories are placed above reality and reality is never within reach. It creates a mental mindset in people that is driven by misinformation and then passed on to future generations where misguided concepts are perpetuated. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.

If you believe in freedom of expression, you believe in freedom of expression for views you don't like. "A world would be a better place without a religion"??????? Religion is an expression, so by disregarding this basic expression(religion) We are disobeying the Rights of others. ***** please limit to 10 sentences for every round.

"Religion is not a huge deal." I would respectfully disagree as religion has unfortunately been a major aspect of our society for years. I believe that the comparison between religion and fictional characters such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is inaccurate. These are childhood legends/myths that represent a child"s innocence. Apart from feelings of excitement on Christmas Eve or Easter, they do not, unlike religion, tell a child what is right and wrong, that there is a higher power and what God they should believe in. They are harmless legends, and once children reach a certain age, they cease to believe in these fictional characters, and they lose their innocence. Adults don"t believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but can believe in God. Meanwhile religion is likely to stay with a person forever as they have been exposed to it from such an early age. When we are young, are brain is developing and it is the best period to learn crucial skills. Exposing children to religion at this age is why people still believe in God today. I see that you live in America, and I don"t know what the system is over there, but in Australia, religion is used in schools all the time (and I assumed the same of America as well.) From the age of 6 in Primary school I was "indoctrinated" into Catholicism as I attended a Catholic school, and this continued into High School. However since then I have reverted to atheism. Yes it is true that parents teach children their beliefs anyway, but religion is not needed to do this, people can form moral values without belief in a hypothetical higher power that MAN created. Children should learn the basic skills and once they reach a mature age when they are able to make critical decisions, they should then choose if they want to adopt a religion or not. It should not be forced on them, as unlike other things they learn in school such as maths, writing etc., religion is purely hypothetical. Lastly Richard Dawkins, fellow atheist and a person who believes children should be taught the theory of evolution, not that the world was created in 6 days shares a similar view, stating that: 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child therefore that is what you believe." Children should not be taught that if they are bad they will burn in hell, and if good promised heaven. They should learn, form their morals and mature without religion controlling them, and telling them what to believe.