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

Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious institutions should not be exempt from federal taxation. The debate on this topic often revolves around the principle of tax exemption being a natural right. However, this argument is not well-supported. What we earn is not inherently ours, as taxes are a necessary part of funding public services and infrastructure. The labeling of religious organizations as charities or corporations is a contentious issue. Churches are not corporations, but they also cannot be considered charities in the traditional sense. The use of tithes and donations for administrative costs and maintenance is a common practice, but this does not change the charitable nature of religious organizations. The claim that taxation of religious institutions is an endorsement of religion is not accurate. The government has a duty to tax all entities equally, regardless of religious affiliation. The argument that taxing religious institutions would lead to a slippery slope of increased taxation on other organizations is unfounded. The government has the ability to tax fairly and without bias. The long-term effects of increased taxation on religious institutions would not be detrimental to the economy. The revenue generated from taxing religious institutions could be used to fund social programs and pay down the national debt. The argument that religious institutions are already heavily regulated and taxed at the state and local level is not relevant to the federal taxation debate. The First Amendment does not protect religious institutions from taxation. The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of the United States, but this does not mean that religious institutions should be exempt from taxation. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of taxing religious institutions in the past. The argument that religious institutions should be exempt from taxation because they provide social services is not valid. Many non-religious organizations also provide social services and are subject to taxation. The argument that taxing religious institutions would violate their religious freedom is not accurate. Religious freedom does not include the right to be exempt from taxation. The claim that taxing religious institutions would lead to a decrease in charitable giving is not supported by evidence. Charitable giving has remained stable or increased in countries that tax religious institutions. The argument that taxing religious institutions would lead to a decrease in religious participation is not valid. Religious participation is driven by personal beliefs and values, not financial incentives. The claim that taxing religious institutions would violate the principle of separation of church and state is not accurate. The government has the right to tax all entities equally, regardless of religious affiliation. The argument that religious institutions should be exempt from taxation because they are non-profit organizations is not valid. Many non-profit organizations are subject to taxation, and

Pro made an excellent response, and I am happy we have made it to the final round! 1.Ah, I was unaware that was the official title of a logical fallacy. 2.Actually, there are two definitions for ‘doctrine' – one is a specific principle, and the other is a broader, encompassing "body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject". So in essence, the sum of the teachings of the Christian Church is a doctrine, and that's what I was referring to. 3.A) My opponent has claimed that I have not cited specific examples of vile, perverse behavior endorsed by religion. To begin with, I'd like to note that the Islamic legal code (Sha'aria) is what governs Iran. Sha'aria is the book of laws Muslims are supposed to follow. Therefore, that stoning is an example of vile and perverse behavior endorsed by religion. While it may seem that the recent Iranian death-sentence was a freak occurrence, the fact of the matter is that, since 1996, Sha'aria law has been carried out on adulterous women in Afghanistan, the UAE, Nigeria, and Sudan, among others. It is not an isolated occurrence. Additionally, Saudi Arabia claims to govern by pure Sha'aria law, in which the "Hadd laws" are observed, including the severing of hands for theft and death sentences for improper sexual affairs. http://www.guardian.co.uk... I will here list some further biblical endorsements for your viewing displeasure (hopefully): From the Old Testament, Leviticus and Deuteronomy (wherein God lays out the laws for His people): -If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. ( Lev 20:9) -If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. (Lev 20:13) -If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people (exiled). (Lev 20:18) -A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them. (Lev 20:27) -If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Lev 21:9) -Lev 21:16-23 forbids any blind, disfigured, sickly, or deformed person from praying at an altar to God -Deu 13 concerns the discovery of a town that worships any other god. It orders that the town be sacked, that every man, woman, child, and animal be killed, that everything in the town be burned, and that the town should remain in ruins forever. -Deu 17 says that if at least two witnesses attest that you believe in another god, you are to be chained to the gates and stoned to death! To comment on this particular group of Bible-endorsed behaviors: They essentially demand discrimination and intolerance. Yes, intolerance, the same thing I'm championing. The key difference is that I'm advocating intolerance of religion precisely because it advocates (and in fact, demands) the sorts of cruel and twisted punishments listed above. In place of these harsh laws would be discussion and reflection in a modern world, where the moral shackles of that terribly dated, discriminatory code are broken and minds are open. Further, it might seem that these types of laws are so dated that they are irrelevant. However, the fact of the matter is that the sentiments of these statements live on. The passage listed above (Lev 20:13) is the most cited passage when Christians are asked for their opinion on the gay ‘lifestyle' choice. The Bible condemns it – therefore, it is evil and should not be tolerated. These people fall back on the Bible as their evidence regardless of how the opposing side frames its view. There is simply no negotiating on this point. That's the danger – deeply religious people cling deeply to the beliefs they find in the Bible, and when laws like those listed above are validated, nothing good can result. My opponent reduces my qualms with religions structured moral code to my relying on the ‘harm principle'. He is correct in stating that this principle simply does not work, but is incorrect in saying that it summarizes my view. All I have ever advocated is the removal of religious influence on the moral decision-making process. The causing of unnecessary harm is the reason that I find religion to be immoral, as my opponent points out, but that isn't the reason YOU should find it immoral. We should ALL find religion immoral because it restricts our ability to use our developed, rational brains to make moral decisions that MAKE SENSE in the context of our modern word, which grows more morally-aware by the day. Religion throws a wrench in the gear and slows the process of moral growth, as there is no room for change. As far as the arguments on the legality of gay marriage and abortion, I don't believe a legal debate fits the theme of our current debate. I would happily debate that with you at a later date, but in regards to religious tolerance, my point in bringing those two examples was to demonstrate the presence of religious ideals in political issues. Religion should have no place in this government, as established by the first amendment to the US constitution, wherein we find that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." My opponent reiterates claims that I would be OK with violent action against religion, which is patently untrue. He is once again using hyperbole. This is intolerance that is very specifically pointed at religion as a concept. The word 'intolerance' has a negative connotation, to be sure, and I was aware of that going into the debate. The intolerance I advocate is nothing more than an absolute refusal to accept religious reasoning as a valid means of coming to a conclusion. You might still be wondering by this point (as my opponent was) why I endorse intolerance even in the case of benevolent chapters of churches who do real good in this world, volunteering and having community dinners, and just being good people. Well, here's why. A mere 2% of the people in the USA call themselves atheist, and these people are NOT the people in the Senate, the House, or the White House. In fact, EVERY SENATOR currently seated is openly affiliated with a religion, in this supposedly secular nation. When a moral code as strict and structured as that found in religious doctrine is seated deep in your brain, you have a much harder time making a choice based on a different set of laws: for example, the US Constitution. Yes, the reason religion of any form should not be tolerated is that it is an ever-growing force in politics, and these politicians are the ones making the decisions that guide the course of our country. It is our responsibility to make it clear to the government that we will not tolerate the influence of religion on the critical decisions that change the course of our lives, and the clearest way to do that is to denounce it outright. By this point, it has probably become clear that my points are directed almost entirely at Christianity and Islam. As previously stated, these are the two major players on the world stage. These are the religions we are being asked to tolerate. And these are religion which pose a great threat to the moral progress of a changing world. Thanks to Lightkeeper for this great debate! Thanks to everyone who reads it for lending us your ear! I hope you will think carefully before voting, and vote based on the content and quality of the debate, not your pre-existing views, regardless of who wins!

My opponent has failed to rebut any of my arguments. Therefore, they stand and Pro's points are invalid. Vote Con. My arguments, that show exactly how religion supports societal progress, have not been refuted. They stand and thus the resolution is negated. Vote Con. Now, for conclusion's sake I will go over the arguments: 1) Religions promote "hope" and hope is scientifically proven to be beneficial, psychologically (as cited above). Proven. ALSO, charity is charity, but the fact remains religious charity is bigger than secular charity and contributes far more to society (as cited above). Proven. 2) My opponent's claim against science surrounded two problems: stem cell research and heliocentrism. I showed the only a few religions officially oppose stem cell research, and that a vast majority have no opposition to such research. Thus, organized religion as a whole does not "actively" seek to inhibit this research because many religions do not "actively" seek to inhibit research. My opponent's claim is false. ALSO, as I stated, religions AT ONE TIME opposed heliocentrism because scientists did not agree with it. The cause was not religious. The Galileo incident is mostly hyperbolized and misconceived, as I stated above. My opponent's claim is fallacious; and false. In fact, it is evident religion supports science even today. They are not mutually exclusive. CERN, one of the world's largest and most renown physics research center, conducts research that is supported by the Catholic Church. [1] The Church supports the research because they believe it will not conflict religion, but reveal the greater divine design. They are incredibly interested in the LHC experiment intended to discover the origins of the universe. Is this religion opposing scientific achievement? Is this religion opposing societal progress? No. I have shown organized religions support both endeavors. The resolution is negated. 3) I have given an example of a renown, secular, atheist who opposes homosexuality. My opponent said without religion, we would not see opposition. Thus, his claim is false. I have also shown that a majority of those in renown religions support gay marriage (cited above). Therefore, organized religion is not the only opposition to human rights; Pro is false. I have shown religions support human rights (gay marriage) Pro thought they did not; Pro is again, false. My opponent's two claims (from his first post) cannot stand. Overall: 1) My opponent cited opposition to stem cell research; not all religions oppose. Pro is false. My opponent quotes the "Galileo" incident; based in science not religion, and exaggerated. Pro is false. 2) My opponent states ONLY religions oppose gay rights; secular, atheistic philosophies also oppose. Pro is false. My opponent states religions oppose abortion; this is not necessarily "wrong" because we have not established in this debate if abortion is a "right". Pro is false. My arguments stand unrefuted: 1) Religions inspire hope and happiness; essential to societal progress. My opponent never even attempted to refute this or the studies I quoted. 2) Religions contribute FAR more charity than secular causes. This is beneficial to society. My opponent never showed opposition that religions result in more charity. 3) Religions support science (e. g. , Islam, CERN, etc. ), and thus societal progress. My opponent never showed disproof of any of this. I thank my opponent for providing my first debate on DDO! I also congratulate him in his endeavors. However. .. With Pro's arguments negated, and my claims valid due to lack of refute, the resolution must fail. It is evident of the debate that organized religions do not actively seek to oppose societal progress because of their faith. Organized religions actively seek to promote societal progress IN good faith. Thank you.

I'll argue that religion, in general, has been and is currently bad for society. Because of the fairly short character limit (consisting of 5,000 characters), I might be more formal in the effort to conserve characters.Good luck. I am eager to have a civil and informative debate.

1. Your argument is interesting, but I find it somewhat uncompelling. The very base of your argument appears to be that marriage has religious origins, and therefore we must adhere to its religious origins and make it a purely nonsecular institution. This argument has, in my view, several problems. Social conservatives in the United States often do give a similar argument from tradition, that marriage "always has been between a man and a woman". Ignoring the fact that the statement itself is not true, both this argument and your argument suffer from a problem common to appeals to tradition: our common morality as expressed today in the United States would find "traditional marriage" (or the religious tradition of marriage) to be abhorrent. Marriage as a religious institution was an institution of oppression against women, having its origins in the idea that the man, in providing for the protection of the woman, could then discipline her as such. Indeed, in Islamic societies today, this still remains the view. We have grown in a society where women are considered, nominally, equal to men; they are able to vote, own property, hold jobs, and generally they are free to act independently of their husbands. Once again, this was not always the case: obviously things such as women's suffrage were extremely controversial whenever they came up. It was because the religious view was rejected in favour of the secular view that these rights were recognised. The religious basis of marriage is abhorrent and we have no reason to affirm that this motivates us to ANY action unless you can provide a rational basis for why specific components of it ought to. By its own, you cannot simply say "Marriage has a religious basis" and except us to take one action or another because of that, as if we do then ultimately we regress to a period where marriage was an institution that took away liberty rather than affirmed it. 2. As you move onto answering your first question, you then cross-apply your logic by saying that marriage, being defined religiously, then must exclude gay marriage. As I have already demonstrated, marriage ought not be defined in religious terms, for the religious origin of marriage is barbarous and incompatible with the world that we now find ourselves in. Thus, to say that we should accept the conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible in prohibiting gay marriage does not follow, for we would also then be forced to affirm a variety of laws that I am sure we can both agree are not appropriate as state or federal regulation. However, you sidestep an important component of the debate: marriage is *not* merely a religious institution. The US government, and the governments of the several states, confer upon married couples certain legal rights and responsibilities. This is a secular benefit bestowed upon by a secular institution. If your view on what "God" considers marriage is correct, then God will not recognise any gay marriages that the US government does. If we were to conflate Church and the State, this may be significant, but the United States is not a theocracy and it has a well-established doctrine to separate church and state. This separation is beneficial to everyone involved, for it prevents the teachings of any one religion from infringing upon the liberty of those who do not believe that religion. It is among the highest affirmations of our liberty, and indeed in US national lore it is among the reasons why the US was founded: there were many who sought to escape religious persecution in the United Kingdom. Given how beneficial and important the separation of Church and State is to our nation and to our liberty, you need to provide an exceedingly good and rational reason as to why this separation ought to be overriden. To merely say "Well, marriage came from religion, and therefore religion should be able to dictate to the State what it will call marriage" is uncompelling for, ultimately, it appears to be an argument that asserts its a priori correctness without actually demonstrating it: you haven't demonstrated how we can go from "marriage has a religious origin" to "marriage ought to be controlled by conservative Christianity". Your conclusion does not flow from its premise, and is thus just another contention that requires logical support. The case of Loving v. Virginia illustrates quite well what I mean: religious arguments were very common in the debate over whether interracial marriage ought to be allowed. The argument given by a trial judge was that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.". Should this view be affirmed merely because it appeals to religion? Of course not - the importance of liberty is so great that it far exceeds any religiously-based argument. The Church (ANY church) ought to never be allowed to dictate government, for that warps the perception of both and inevitably results in the violation of the common liberty of the people. You say that the US is majority rule, but in fact the US is not majority rule! As I mentioned in my opening post, the US has a court system that is able to invalidate majority rule in order to protect the rights of the people. In the US senate, 60% is needed to end debate and pass legislation, not 50+%. The President is able to veto legislation he considers unwise, and a SUPERMAJORITY is required. The Constitution can only be amended by a supermajority in Congress AND a 75% majority of the states. This all shows us that the structure of the US system is not to allow for uncontrolled majority rule, but rather to allow for liberty. Democracy affirms liberty to a great extent, and no other system of goverment could protect the rights of the people so well as democracy, but it is not democracy that we are after; mob rule was decried by the founding fathers then, and it remains a bad idea today. Rather, we are after libety. Ultimately, while your argument is different than that of the person I was wanting to debate against, it falls prey to the same problems: Your argument takes liberty and says "Hmm, that isn't very important" and sets it aside in a blind pursuit of religious dogma, where such dogma has always been recognised to be opposed to the freedom of the people and where such dogma was intentionally restricted by our government so that the freedoms and protections of nonbelievers may be upheld. This may or may not be an issue if the dogma itself was good, but repeatedly throughout history, on the subject of marriage and on other subjects, religious dogma has resulted in great infringements upon what we recognise today to be morally good. Very few would stand up and say that slavery was a desirable institution, that denying blacks civil rights was the Godly thing to do, that oppressing women was okay. Even before the founding of the US, religious-based ideals protected the aristocracies and the kings of old as the people rose up against them. Everyone should be allowed to believe what they please, and if a Christian believes that their religion bans gay marriage, then I would always defend the right of that Christian to not get a gay marriage. However, the views of people's religious beliefs should be confined to the free exercise of their religion individually. No religion should have the power to dictate law or penalty, unless such law or penalty can also be backed up on a rational basis. (My argument is continued in the comments section - read it!)

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. Removing which religion? Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Christianity? 1. ) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal. 2. ) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal. Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion. 3. ) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal. First, this is fraud and is illegal. Second, why would it be legal due to a lack of religion and how would introducing religion stop it? B. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another. " Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ) My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthenasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer. C. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. "The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. " This would certainly be a confict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving. Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off te street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system. 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded. 2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals. . Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again. I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the injusticeness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. 3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled. Just because the victim might get more closure does not mean that the victim is qualified to make an objective decision as to the punishment of a criminal. Pro's contentions have been negated.

This argument contains definitions which clarify my position. If you provide an example of a corporation, agency, institution or other body which does not meet the below criteria (ei, at least one of the three attributes listed are not present), or define "crime" as excplicitly including "arbitrary exemptions" (ie, a "law" that allows the state to violate other laws), then you are arguing against a straw man, EVEN IF such institution is accepted as a "government" using OTHER CRITERIA. When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime). I contend that it is axiomatic - that the very same attributes which I here use to define a government are crimes, even within the scope of the very same laws that same government provides and enforces, and that arbitrary excemptions are necessary to cover up this obvious inconsistency.

Yes, I the majority of the population is religious, but on the subject about creation, you left one segment of that part out. How was God created? Was he just there one day? It seems rather improbable for a higher being to appear from nothing one day and make an entire universe and human kind with powers unexplained. The subject of creation is rather hypocritical on your part if you leave out his creation, and the Bible never states one single fact about it. On another point, you said you've been religious your whole life. Has you parent's integrated the thought of god into your mind? Humans are born and taught what morals to follow, so maybe were taught religion at birth and come to abide with the belief due to lifetime experiences and everyone telling you it is right. To finalize my first argument, if there is a God and he has the power to make Earth and all that inhabit it, then why is there suffering, poverty, starvation, rape? If he has the power, he could make the World a Eden for everyone, but instead he decides to make a multitude of diseases, defects, and much more. If you say it is a part of a higher plan, to teach a lesson, then why not implant the thought into our minds instead of making us suffer and figure it out? To conclude, why would he sacrifice the lives of many generations just for one generation to experience this greater plan? To me a God like that is morally wrong and has conformed religion into a dictatorship of believe or forever suffer in Hell. There's so much to be fixed yet he continues to watch us suffer from his own actions.

Crimes Committed By Religion:My opponent claims that to be a Christian, one must uphold the "Thou shall not kill" amendment, and because the examples I have shown violate this, that somehow they were not real christians. The problem with this? My opponent drops the folowing completely: That anti-semitism was a doctrine in contradiction of this up until the 1960's. But don't just take my word for it, check out the following:" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12) " You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) " Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15) A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19) Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20) Case and point, they are in fact following the Bible, if so much as one person in a village worships the "wrong" God, they are compelled to kill the whole village! They literally are following the bible. Adam and Eve:My opponent commits an abuctum ad absurdum. No I never claimed all criminals are innocent, but rather that only Adam and Eve were. The simply couldn't have had the knowledge to intentionally commit the crime. Espescially when temped by someone like Lucifer, for doing nothing more than giving you and me the ability to critically analyse what we're given. Seems to me logically that satan is more "good" than God in this story as he gives us the ability to think! Hell:"If were going to hell it's because it's what we deserve" But this is simply question begging. How do you know you deserve it? Did God write the bible? If not, how can we trust that the people who actually did write it were actually speaking on behalf of God and not for their own delusions? You have no idea, and what you think you should go to hell for and what I think are two completely differing values. If you even so much as think wrongly about God, your off to hell, which ought to be nonsense! It's thoughtcrime! Why are so many Christians going to be with him? Again, question begging, because neither you nor I can prove God exists or not, but rather if it is good or not. And as I have shown, has exercised a monopoly on knowledge and law, until their crimes against humanity were exposed and now it appears to us with a smiling face, but is this justification to forget their previous greviances? As an atheist, I think not. Not when someone like me years ago would have been put to death for my beliefs!In conclusion:I have shown that not only is Religion terrible for the world, but that the people committing those crimes were following the bible, and that if it were true, it would be an aweful world! My opponent drops several of my arguments, and committs several acts of scapegoating upon others. The problem is with a literalist interpretation of the bible, they were not somehow acting against God, but in his wishes in accordance with the bible. Thank you for the debate, my opponent next round can only post a goodbye of her choosing. I've had fun!please vote for me :DBest of luck to all!

Hello i look forward to this discussion. This is a tough argument because it has no easy black and white answer. Should america have a national religion of course not. Should we require religious practice in schools? Again of course not these are not moral or necessary. But if we look deeper we have to ask the question how far do we go and how far have we gone. I believe the america focuses to much on the establishment clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. We focus on this clause and become clouded with fear of "hurting someones feelings" or oppressing religious or nonreligious vies. Fear clouds our decisions and we often overlook the Free Exercise Clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We must tread carefully we are becoming so scared of religion that we are oppressing it at some levels. Schools are so fearfull they wont teach world religion classes. I believe that the study of the kings james bible is just as important as shakespear if seeking to understand the English language it has arguably effected it equally. We must also look consider the relevence of religion in history. To understand decisions and actions taken by people throughout history we must understand the religious factors of the time.

"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.


Question: Should Religious Organizations Continue to be Tax-Exempt?

Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious institutions should not be shielded from federal taxation.

Summary: The argument posits that religious institutions, including churches, mosques, and synagogues, should be subject to taxation and not enjoy tax-exempt status. For the purpose of this discussion, the term "church" will be used to represent all forms of religious communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A mandatory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on income, profits, or added to the cost of goods and services. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability that applies to others {2} Endorsement: Publicly supporting or approving of someone or something. {3}

Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly...

Proposition II: The burden of proof falls on the opponent, as they advocate for a change from the current state of affairs, are the proponent, and initiated the debate. Furthermore, I argue that all money, when acquired lawfully, should be exempt from taxation until it becomes compulsory. In this sense, being exempt from taxation is the natural order, and the proponent must demonstrate a valid reason to extend taxation to an organization that is currently not taxed.

Counter-Argument I: Endorsement of Religion / Favoring Large Churches Counter: This argument is irrelevant. Permitting people to retain more of their own earnings does not constitute endorsement. Instead, providing them with additional funds would be considered endorsement. The religious organizations are not being given money; they are keeping the money that was rightfully theirs. It would be an endorsement to grant different statuses to other religious groups. Therefore, all religious communities should either be taxed or remain exempt. My opponent cited a Supreme Court decision, but did not provide a source, making it dismissible. Regardless, I will address that it is an appeal to authority and irrelevant to the discussion of what should or should not be done. Regardless of the Court's decision, being allowed to keep more of one's money is not the same as receiving additional funds. The Supreme Court seems to suggest that our money belongs to the government until we are told we can retain it. However, that is not how it works. The issue with the proponent's second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will result in fairness, whereas allowing both large and small churches to keep all their income would be unfair. In reality, larger churches can more easily afford

I hope my opponent is ready for a snack, because I'm going to begin with some concessions. First, I must concede that there is no reason to expect evolutionary adaptation to ensure long-term benefits for the species, so I will discontinue my "seeds of our own destruction" argument. My opponent has gently but eloquently quashed it. Second, my opponent has presented substantial evidence for the tribal instinct. Having Offered no sources of my own, I must concede that point. Having shed that weight, I'm going to refocus my attention on a contention that was present but less developed in my first round: Religions are outgrowths of encounters with the divine, and not just one of many possible outcomes from the combination of instincts that form what my opponent has suggested is the X instinct. Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine. Almost all cultures engage in this activity not because of a common instinct, but because all people are divine. First, people are a part of the world—they are not naturally separate from it. Second, people in a sense create the world via perception (in the same sense that all perceiving entities create the world), and so they are gods of a sort. People seek to explain even phenomena that are of little practical use because these phenomena are of the world—and people are also of the world. In short, people have always sought to explain the world because this is a way of explaining themselves, a way of gaining self-knowledge. Of course, many people today care little about the workings of the world, but this is the result of bad education. Religions, originally designed to ritualize and facilitate interaction with the world, which is divine, were exploited to give people power over others. By teaching humans that they were separate from the rest of the world, these power-seekers made the divine appear to be Somewhere Else, rather than right here and in us, and they gained and continue to gain power by serving as intermediaries between humans and the so-called divine. Despite the admitted weakness of some of my contentions, the essence of my argument remains valid: religion cannot be explained, cannot be reduced to, a phenomenon resulting from the same causes as the quasi-religious situations my opponent has presented. I presented in the first round what I thought was, when combined with the pleasure-seeking instinct, an alternative explanation for why humans behave as though they have a religious instinct. That argument depended on survival needs, trial and error, and peer pressure. Rather than depending on the three instincts that comprise what my opponent has posited as the X instinct, my explanation combines pleasure-seeking behavior (to include survival) with actual divine experience. I maintain this alternative explanation, of learning-driven activity not dependent on instinct, alongside the possibility (probability) of a tribal instinct. Nevertheless, religion cannot be reduced to the outgrowth of a combination of instincts.

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. Removing which religion? Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Christianity? 1. ) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal. 2. ) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal. Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion. 3. ) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal. First, this is fraud and is illegal. Second, why would it be legal due to a lack of religion and how would introducing religion stop it? B. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another. " Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ) My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthenasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer. C. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. "The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. " This would certainly be a confict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving. Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off te street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system. 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded. 2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals. . Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again. I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the injusticeness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. 3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled. Just because the victim might get more closure does not mean that the victim is qualified to make an objective decision as to the punishment of a criminal. Pro's contentions have been negated.

To begin with, religion does not stop "fornication", homosexuality, jealousy, resentment and drunkenness. Surely any capable parent, religious or not, would not expose their child to such things. Also, sin and lack of morals are not necessarily the same thing, from an objective view. You are also proving my point. Fornication or sex, is not a sin, neither is homosexuality, intoxication, jealously or resentment. In fact, they are normal human reactions, some uncontrollable, and some inevitable. By telling children these are sins, you are setting them up for a life of shame and pain, forced to believe there is something wrong with them, rather than being told the truth. They are human. They are flawed. But them having sex, or coming out gay are not "problems". They are facts of life. They don't need to be "disciplined" out of it. They need to be given the room and opportunity to be who they want to be, not to be stunted at a young age by cruel standards that they have been born into. Which brings me back to my point. A child should be kept away from religion until they makes their own choice regarding it. Look how people can be. How can you want a child to be brought into such hate?

Hello i look forward to this discussion. This is a tough argument because it has no easy black and white answer. Should america have a national religion of course not. Should we require religious practice in schools? Again of course not these are not moral or necessary. But if we look deeper we have to ask the question how far do we go and how far have we gone. I believe the america focuses to much on the establishment clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. We focus on this clause and become clouded with fear of "hurting someones feelings" or oppressing religious or nonreligious vies. Fear clouds our decisions and we often overlook the Free Exercise Clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We must tread carefully we are becoming so scared of religion that we are oppressing it at some levels. Schools are so fearfull they wont teach world religion classes. I believe that the study of the kings james bible is just as important as shakespear if seeking to understand the English language it has arguably effected it equally. We must also look consider the relevence of religion in history. To understand decisions and actions taken by people throughout history we must understand the religious factors of the time.

I am a atrong atheist and strongly believe there is no god. i think religion was started a long time ago because people back then simply didnt know any better. science has again and again contradicted religious beliefs. religion started as an easy way to answer earths biggest questions. as science evolved, and some answers came about,religion was turned into a business. for example, mormons have to give up 10% pay. is that really fair? i think it is all jut a way forstory tellers to make money.

"Personally i do not believe religion is a bad thing necessarily as it provides a sense of purpose and meaning and gives humanity a reason to think that everything you do matters because anything you do will effect you in the afterlife. However I myself do not practice religion and here's why. Firstly their is little evidence to in fact support god or any deities existence to be true and I cannot bring myself to believe in something with little if any evidence to support." Actually this is not true, there is a lot of proof of G-d, here are a few links: http://www.divineinformation.com... http://www.divineinformation.com... Secondly religion does more harm than good as it causes and has caused at the very least 60+% of humanity's wars for a variety of reasons such as conflicting beliefs and values, corruption(I.E The catholic church 1520-1630+Modern era) Even odd or unusual practices (I.E beheading animals to cleanse oneself of sin, covering both your hands in hives of tropical bullet wasps to become a man, chanting odd or even threatening sounds even BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE). The Catholic Church was so messed up because #1 They were Christians, and #2 Ob-course your Church is going to have some issues if your mission statement is "go forth and conquer and to conquer," no joke! This was Constantine's (the founder of Catholicism) "revelation" from god that told him to start the catholic Church. #3, Catholicism was founded by Constantine, who raped and killed his sister, yeah. The rest are pagan rituals which really have no relevance to this debate, anyway, I challenge you to prove any of this is true with Judaism or Sikhism. "Thirdly it causes IMMENSE amounts of legal,verbal and social tension causing schools/workplaces/manufacturers to never speak of it or be drowned in lawsuits because it's "Offensive." The same could be said about opposing political views. "Finally religion in many cases has severely halted technological development most notably the middle ages and feudal japan with many more such instances appearing throughout history. Thank you for reading my argument and I hope that you will chose my side." Technology advanced slowly through the middle ages because the Catholic Church made everyone believe in what they believe in, this was a religious institution, not religion itself. Feudal Japan advanced slowly because they isolated themselves from the rest of the planet so new ideas couldn't get in, and the majority of their population was slaves (serfs, it's the same thing though) , and that means that the majority of their geniuses are slaves and cannot advance technology.

"religion" is a term and an idea we grew up with. Amending the Constitution now will not make the term go away. Even if we were to step back in time and rewrite the Constitution (pretend we're at the Constitutional Convention), religion-inspired ideals pervade our having been there at the Convention, given that we had just drafted the Declaration of Independence with verbiage to the effect "endowed by our Creator" and such. The Founding Fathers were grasping with principles to form a new government. One of those principles was "law." And they had to base that law on something. They chose, in the First Amendment, to neither officially recognize any particular religion nor to disallow its practice. So they do recognize the very idea of "religion." BUT, since it was not in the main body of the Constitution but tacked on as an Amendment, although a rather important one, they did not feel that religion was important to the workings of a Republic, especially at the Federal level. The Preamble and basing law on "We the People" perhaps is as good as it gets and is sufficient. Although the Amendments address individuals' rights, the Articles alone are sufficient to address any quarrels we might have when it comes to religion and religious practices. For example, the Supreme Court could delegate to lower courts.

You make some good points, but I engaged in this debate because I am tired of you blabbering on about 'God'. And yes, religions can't give a thought, but, when I say religions, I mean as a whole, its believers. Most people have some deity, but many people only think about it because they are uncomfortable with people such as you blabbering on. You made some good points, but, not everyone is obsessed with God. I barely think about it. I know most atheists don't think about it. How many atheists do you actually know however? You seem very religious, I doubt you would have us nearby you. You said that the Pledge and Oath prove it. They just prove that the people who are religious wrote that. Besides, what is your definition of 'god'? If everyone was obsessed with him, why are there so little churches? There would have to be enough for everyone. If you are going to say anything, at least make sense when you say it. Unlike now.

I'm new to Debate. org, and have been waiting for an interesting topic to debate. You have supplied it, and I express my gratitude in competing with me. Best of luck to you, good sir! Now, to begin, I will present my argument. I will then review my opponent's contentions: 1) Organized religion promotes charity and hope, both essential to the promotion of societal progress (progress being defined as "positive development"). Religious people donate more to charity (and the promotion of welfare) than those who are non-religious. [1] Also, it is important to note that organized religions provide support for the spirit and attitude of these people who perform acts of charity. Realize, as well, that teachings of organized religions spread hope. Hope that all people are created with intrinsic value, and that we have a higher purpose to fulfill in order to make our way into paradise after death. And according to a psychological study [2] having "hope" increases "happiness and well-being". Religions provide self-purpose, a sense of community, charity, and hope. [3] 2) There are many organized religions. My opponent refers to the "Big Three" monotheisms, but it is important to note that even in Christianity, for example, there are multiple denominations. [4] In fact, the founding of one organized religion (Protestanism) led to social progress leading up to the Renaissance when it challenged the Catholic church. Thus, we see organized religions as a whole are constantly improving one another and causing social progression. Now to refute by opponents claims: 1) My opponent states organized religion has restricted scientific and medical gain. This is not true. For example, the Islam culture was perhaps the most intelligent during Medieval times. Their faith revered knowledge and created huge leaps in science, medicine, architecture, literature, and mathematics. [5] Also, through the interaction of Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, this information was spread throughout Eurasia significantly improving trade, well-being of nations, and essentially pulling Christendom out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. [6] Also, it is stated that Christianity disagrees with stem-cell research. My opponent is creating a sweeping generalization of organized religion when he does so. Not all denominations do. In fact many organized religions have no definitive stance, period. [7] 2) Lastly, my opponent touches human rights. He states organized religions oppose gay marriage. Again, this is not always the case. This is a sweeping generalization. Buddhists, Quakers, Reform Jews, and Unitarian-Universalists, just to name a few organized religions, do not oppose homosexuality. [8] Also, my opponent commits the fallacy of "petitio principii" when he begs the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. He does so when he states organized religions inhibit human rights by opposing abortion. We have not established whether abortion is moral or immoral, or if it is a "human right". Because there is a sufficient doubt to this proposition, it is fallacious and should not be considered. In the end my opponent claims that organized religions inhibit science, medicine and human rights. As I have shown, his points are not valid as he would make them appear. Organized religion HAS resulted in huge social progression. Thank you kindly, and now I wait for my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.suite101.com... [3] . http://zelophehadsdaughters.com... [4] . http://www.religionfacts.com... [5] . http://www.ais.org... [6] . http://edhelper.com... [7] . http://archive.uua.org... [8] . http://buddhawat.com...

Yes, I the majority of the population is religious, but on the subject about creation, you left one segment of that part out. How was God created? Was he just there one day? It seems rather improbable for a higher being to appear from nothing one day and make an entire universe and human kind with powers unexplained. The subject of creation is rather hypocritical on your part if you leave out his creation, and the Bible never states one single fact about it. On another point, you said you've been religious your whole life. Has you parent's integrated the thought of god into your mind? Humans are born and taught what morals to follow, so maybe were taught religion at birth and come to abide with the belief due to lifetime experiences and everyone telling you it is right. To finalize my first argument, if there is a God and he has the power to make Earth and all that inhabit it, then why is there suffering, poverty, starvation, rape? If he has the power, he could make the World a Eden for everyone, but instead he decides to make a multitude of diseases, defects, and much more. If you say it is a part of a higher plan, to teach a lesson, then why not implant the thought into our minds instead of making us suffer and figure it out? To conclude, why would he sacrifice the lives of many generations just for one generation to experience this greater plan? To me a God like that is morally wrong and has conformed religion into a dictatorship of believe or forever suffer in Hell. There's so much to be fixed yet he continues to watch us suffer from his own actions.


Question: Should Religious Organizations be Granted Tax-Exempt Status?

Churches across all denominations should be subject to taxation by the government.
It appears my adversary has neglected to provide a counterargument against my points. I will continue with my rebuttal. I. Property TaxThe Walz RulingIn a 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the tax exemption for churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, who identified as Christian but did not belong to a church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax commission over the property tax exemption for churches, claiming he and other taxpayers were indirectly subsidizing churches. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice Burger, stated that the tax-exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofit organizations: "The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups." Source: http://ffrf.org...It's crucial to note that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastor's personal funds earned from book sales and paid appearances worldwide. The pastor is a "rock star" in the community with a congregation of about 14,000 weekly. Although his private home has nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community in the last eight years. This amount dwarfs what my opponent is using as an argument and is far more than the community would have received via government spending. Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. To claim avoiding a sales tax is necessarily bad implies we should also target the boy/g

On your last comment, I just want to make a quick disclaimer. I was shooting for comical arrogance so your not really supposed to take that comment seriously, just you know… laugh and have fun. Anyway back to the debate, there are 2 Major Reasons you lose this debate. Reason #1: You can’t give new arguments in the final round. Even by your own admission the point which your whole case hinges is about all faiths being cults, it was a new argument you decided to just add in the final round. Final rebuttal and conclusions are okay in the final round by flat our new arguments are not. At the very least this is a breach of conduct and should lose you the conduct point and at the most your new arguments in the final round should not hold anymore weight on the debate than had you put them in the comment section, thus causing you to lose the debate. Reason #2: Even if we were to consider your new argument you added in the final round you still lose this debate. By deciding to go as far as say “sure all religions are technically cults” for the reasons you gave that make the JW’s a cult than the term “cult” has now become watered down to the point of meaninglessness. Anything can be called a cult not, Catholics, Baptist, scientologist, Hindus, Congress, the Military, the GOP, lobbyist, the USA, Australia, Unions. Pretty much anything. If we are to follow your case to its natural logical conclusions we could only really conclude that “cult” is a meaningless term, like ahifdyoi and QQQQiiryr. Cult being a meaningless term means that there are no cults, they do not exist. Cult is just a vain word we slap on things we don’t like we slap the word “stupid” or “bugerbrain” on the kid we don’t like in elementary school. Its not that there is anything that actually makes him a bugerbrain, cause the a insult I just made up, theres no rational case for actually calling kid that. That’s really all the character space I needed to use on that. So…. . In Conclusion: 1) Pro needs to give linked sources in future debates that preferably avoid being wikipiedia. 2) Pro needs to give definitions for all the terms of the resolution in his future debates 3) Pro needs to keep his new arguments in the rounds before the final round in future debates 4) Pro needs to have debates with more than 2 rounds in the future. 5) One last piece of advice that might help your future debates; try and package your arguments in the future as if you plan on a extreme skeptic to your side of the case to read it with only a logical line of thought to bias them to see it your way. Perhaps then you will not just put sporadic factoids that come off like a rant but instead are all used in a flow together in the same fashion of the Socratic Method.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . " - This is a clear example of the separation of church and state. I mean honestly, Do I need to explain more? It says so right in the constitution.

That’s not the definition of religion, in fact it’s a horrible definition of religion. It targets theism specifically when there are religions that are atheistic (e.g. Buddhism) this definition is completely biased. But all this aside, it doesn’t matter how we ourselves define religion, the question is what did they mean by the “establishments of religion” and what it’s function was. It’s function was never intended to remove God, it was intended to remove Church favoritism. You need to understand that the authors of this amendment viewed God as a self-evident fact of life, when they were talking about “establishments of religion”, they were talking about churches not God himself. The reason why God is not taught in school is because the intelligent design group were being dishonest in their case. Which was extremely detrimental. It’s not because we are a secular nation, it’s because the presenter’s credibility was destroyed. Just about every debater knows that you can have a perfectly winnable case, but if you lose credibility, you will lose no matter what you do. Also they don’t teach facts in natural science, because they can’t, you would be severely misunderstanding science literature if you think that is true. For example evolution and the big bang are theories, not a fact, theories are popular speculations by scientists, not facts. Just because the universe expands doesn’t mean it exploded, I expand as I get older, but that doesn’t mean I exploded. The way how science works is that they look at the “evidence” that coincides with a naturalist worldview, and try to speculate on how things happen…. When new evidence surfaces they change their speculation in hopes to fit the evidence because that is the rational thing to do. There is no absolute truth (Facts) in natural science, simply because that is not how science works. Well yeah, literary would drop. If the idea is to increase literary, then we can also offer to teach opposing literacy. As in we don’t have to just teach naturalism in public schools, but require to teach creationism as well. That would increase literacy dramatically. Children would have a much more rounded and fair education, one that isn’t being suppressed by secularists. And this’ll enable kids to have a better understanding of American values and heritage, the primary one is belief in God. I just find it absurd that kids can’t learn about the creator in American schools, even when our very own declaration of independence asserts his existence. The kids in school should know their maker. Secular nation? Are you blind? Lets see I could list them out… there is tax exemption of churches, chaplaincies in the armed forces, the "Pray for Peace" postmark, the widespread observance of Christmas holidays, and, in classrooms, singing the fourth stanza of America which is prayer invoking the protection of God, and the words "in God is our trust" as found in the National Anthem, and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, modified by an Act of Congress of June 14, 1954, to included the words "under God". We are certainly a religious nation, most of our institutions presuppose a supreme being. theres a lot more evidence i could list. Seriously, the fact that our very own currency has “in God we trust” is proof we are a religious nation and not a secular one. Yes it does reject the atheist position…. It says “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 is clearly rejecting the atheist position. Atheists don’t believe in a maker. It even mentions God when it says “…station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” The document is more than that, it tells us why we have some fundamental human rights in America, and why the policies are structured the way they are. Why do we have unalienable rights? Because of God. The thing is, if we don’t teach that there is a creator, we might risk raising a generation that will second guess our human rights because they don’t believe in God. This is why Kids should learn about their creator in schools to secure these American values.

Sorry but that is hardly a valid argument. Religion is a part of discipline? By that statement are you saying children need to be disciplined? Instead of treating them as people, you are suggesting they are treated like dogs, forced into submission with fear and promises of an afterlife. These are children we're talking about. If a parent fails to raise their child, they should turn to religion and fear? I do not agree. People deserve choice and open-mindedness, something religion often takes away.

Sorry, I was super busy.... I find fault when you said propaganda, lies and scare tactics made by ALL religion. Religion is NOT about systematic control. When a religion does something wrong, you can't say that is because there is no God. Your entire argument was about the "evils" of religion and has not disproved the existence of God. ISIS kills people because of their religion does not mean that their God and other Islamic people are evil too. You are stereotyping all religions because of a couple incidents and that is not fair. YOU do not deserve God. The debate is called the existence of God and not if it is good or bad. Christianity is not evil and has done good in our world Christ's teachings on love and compassion and doing unto others what you would have others do unto you are central to an understanding of how his people have been such agents for change. His teachings coupled, with the Judeo-Christian belief of man created in the image of God have revolutionized thinking in the world as we know it. For example, infanticide and abortion were common in the Greco-Roman culture and many other ancient cultures. Both of these were condemned by early Christian literature and Bishop Basil of Caesarea outlawed infanticide in 374. Pedophilia was unashamedly practiced by both the Greek and Roman cultures. Today, we call that child molestation, widely due to the influence of Christ's followers. The Roman gladiatorial games were spectacles of horrible brutality. Most people, whether Christian or not, would recoil at watching them today. That is due to the idea of the sacredness of human life, which lead later emperors to ban these once popular games. Also, the concept of the eating of human flesh and human sacrifice was once widespread in many pagan cultures. Now it is almost completely a thing of the past due to the value that Christianity has placed on human beings created in Gods image. The status of women has also been elevated because of the Christian world view. In ancient times, women were little more than property. Wives were not allowed to speak in public in ancient Greece. Baby girls were expendable and often killed or left to die. The New Testament concept of all being one in Christ, as well as the concept of husband and wife being a picture of Christ and His Church have forever altered man's view of woman. Nowhere else, before the Christian Scriptures, would you find the concept of sacrificially loving your wife. Because of the teachings of Christ and how he treated women with respect, he raised the dignity of women to heights previously not thought of. Christ befriended women and even talked with them in public. This was not acceptable for the Jewish man to do. The early church gave women freedoms unheard of in the Jewish and Roman cultures surrounding them. I have already mentioned the early Jerusalem Church and its giving to the poor, widows and sick. But that has continued to this day. The Romans thought that helping the sick was a sign of weakness. The early Christians saw it as doing it to Christ Himself. And they saw the saving of lives as another way to save souls as well. By the 6th century A.D. most of the larger cities of Christendom had hospitals. And they were the first known voluntary charitable institutions. Later in history, the first Protestant hospital was built at Kaiserwerth in Germany. It is at this institution that Florence Nightingale received her training. The story of Florence Nightingale is still, to this day, an inspiration to any person who would pursue the noble profession of nursing. John Henry Dunant was a Christian, who with four associates, founded the American Red Cross in 1864. Dunant also negotiated the Geneva convention for the care and treatment of wounded soldiers and was the co-winner of the first Nobel Prize for Peace in 1901. Other Bible believing Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries were responsible for much good. They tackled a wide variety of social issues such as illiteracy, the abolition of slavery, adult education, treatment of alcoholics and prison reform. It was in 1844 that the Young Men's Christian Association was formed, followed by the YWCA ten years later. And in 1865 a London minister, William Booth left his pastorate to take his message to the streets to reach the poor, the homeless , the destitute and the hungry. Today the Salvation Army is in 106 nations around the world. Jesus was not discriminatory in who he taught. Both men and women came under his instruction. And later in history it was bishops who taught things like doctrine, rhetoric, logic, math, geometry, music, grammar and astronomy. During the Reformation men like Luther and Calvin advocated, universal state sponsored education. It was Luther who told authorities that children should be compelled to attend school. Now the Western world has this concept in their laws. Benedictine monks were the people who started the universities in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. And some of the most respected universities in the world today began as Christian institutions: Harvard and Yale for example. The interesting thing is that all the way up through 1932, out of 182 colleges in the United states, 168 of them were founded by Christian denominations. It is very interesting that modern Science as we know it today would not be possible if not for the the Christian world view and yet many people who espouse atheistic evolutionary philosophy want to use Science to destroy religion. For 1500 years Aristotle's thinking was dominant among philosophers and Scientists. He believed that true knowledge was only acquired through the deductive process of the mind. He felt that the inductive method, used by Science today, required manual work in a lower realm. It was Christian philosophers that linked rationality with the empirical, inductive method. It was their belief that predictability and order could only be achieved in a universe made and ordered by a rational Being. Also, if you look at the pagan world, earlier in history, they believed that there were spirits living in and through nature, controlling it. The Christian view is that God created the universe and is separate from it. They also, took their understanding from the Genesis account of creation that man was given dominion over creation and were Gods representatives to care for the world. All of this lead to the distinctively Christian approach to reality that allowed for the Scientific community to develop Scientific laws. If the universe is governed rationally and predictably, then there must be laws man can discover. The early church in Jerusalem appointed deacons and elders to care for widows and the sick (Acts 6:1, James 5:13), and churches still do this today. In the Middle Ages, the monasteries created hospitals. Burgeoning numbers of pilgrims to the Holy Land were cared for by the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. The noble nursing reformer Florence Nightingale received her training at the first Protestant hospital " at Kaiserwerth in Germany. Swiss humanitarian and Bible-believer Henri Dunant was planning the Red Cross and negotiating the Geneva convention for the care and treatment of wounded soldiers. Dunant was co-winner of the first Nobel Prize for Peace in 1901, and his inspiring Red Cross committee later won the award three times. It was the Bible-believing Christians in England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries " not the government of the day " who tackled the illiteracy problem, adult education, abolition of slavery, prison reform, and treatment for alcoholics. The Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) was formed in 1844, the YWCA a decade later, and the Salvation Army launched its multinational welfare organization based on Christian ethics.

This is my first debate on this site, so here goes... The topic is: that the study of religions should be a part of all schools' curriculum. In this proposition i am not advocating any form of religious indoctrination be including in public or private education. though religious myself i am fundamentally opposed to indoctrination of youth into any religion, including my own. I propose that the study of religions, particularly but not limited to the major world religions, should be included in the curriculum as a matter of the social sciences in order to empower students with information to make better informed judgments about the world around them. it certainly isn't a new development that religion plays a role in much of what happens in world affairs and domestic politics. excluding studies of religion from schools handicaps students ability to understand their world, its people and the issues confronting it at any given time. That same lack of knowledge contributes to prejudice, discrimination and hatred in society.

I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be taught in schools, but any schools that only allow children of a certain faith should be banned. First round for acceptance... my opponent will be for faith schools and against their banning.

I would like to begin by apologizing to my friend Kylar for failing to post a response for round 2. I had some confusion in timing, but I still would like to say I deeply apologize. First off I am generally confused: It seems I have misread the original prompt and thus forfeit this debate by the fact I cannot think of any legal or religious reason against Mr. Kylar's position. I am extremely sorry for misunderstanding you and would like to kindly ask you attempt this debate again with someone against your position. Sincerely, Tanner Jones

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].

"Religious is immoral" is not a subjective moral statement but rather alludes to absolute morality. As an atheist you believe in evolution, an unguided naturalistic process, with the aim of survival of the fittest. Hence, morals are subjective. Hence, to what standard is religion amoral? The atheist worldview cannot make such absolute moral statements. People have committed atrocities in the name of religion such as the Christian crusades which killed Muslims in droves. Now the important distinction is not whether people do bad things in the name of religion, but do their actions conform with scripture or not. Hence, because Christians did amoral things in the name of Christ, does not mean Christianity is amoral, rather they disobeyed scripture instead of conforming to it. From your reasoning because religion had "violent outbursts" therefore religion is amoral. The same can be said for atheism. Do you wish to be held accountable for the atheistic regimes of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and the soviet union? Certainly not. Hence, religion is immoral in so far as people are born immoral. Religion does not have a monopoly on violence as demonstated throughout history.