Question: Should Religious Institutions be Granted Tax Exemption?

Churches should not be exempt from taxation.
Despite my opponent's concession, I will still analyze her arguments. She failed to differentiate between churches and non-profit organizations, and didn't provide any reason to support the Pro position. Churches are similar to non-profit organizations, providing community benefits without being taxed. Taxing churches could discourage them from serving the community. Individuals working or volunteering at churches are already taxed, so taxing churches would amount to double taxation, as noted by Professor Dean Kelly. This could lead to churches spending less time helping the community, either increasing government involvement and taxes for all, or leaving the gap unfilled. My opponent's complaints about church assets are irrelevant without a valid reason. Churches remain tax-exempt if they follow specific IRS guidelines, and those that don't follow these guidelines are not tax-exempt. If churches were making millions, they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption. The resolution is negated. Citations(s): [1] http://www.opposingviews.com...

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.

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.

Thanks for responding Lightkeeper! My opponent raises a few interesting points that at first glance seem to weaken my argument. However, I do not even need the full amount of characters to explain why his arguments are invalid. My opponent's first point is that I have engaged in what he calls "hasty generalization". However, ‘hasty' does not apply, as I have spent a good deal of time considering this issue. ‘Generalization', though, is accurate. I am stating the general practice of tolerating religion is not morally correct. As it appears that I was not clear enough in my original contention: Tolerating religion of any kind is immoral because religion itself has proven to be extremely dangerous. As I stated in the second round, I decided to focus and use examples from the two religions that are currently most impactful on our society. To further clarify: Religion tolerance is immoral because every religious doctrine I have encountered (and especially those of Islam and Christianty) validates and authorizes vile and perverse behavior. Even one of the most palatable religions ever to exist, Buddhism, has had violent sects. This content MAY or MAY NOT be followed by every member of that religion. However, the simple fact that religion permits such behavior means that people can do horrible things and feel perfectly fine about it, because their religion says it's OK. Because of this, entire empires and nations have committed and continue to commit atrocities because their religion endorses them. As I stated, I'm sure that there are religions based entirely on peace and love with no evil content in their texts or preaching. But these are not the religions we are being asked to tolerate – these are not the religions with the most followers worldwide. These are religions small enough that I have yet to hear of them. They are, to a realist, insignificant. In the real world, tolerating these peaceful branches of religion is an endorsement of religion as a concept, and because religion is such a dangerous thing, it is immoral to tolerate even these religions. In a perfect world, where everyone had each other's best interests in mind and only formed religions that further the best interest of mankind, I would not only tolerate it, I would endorse it. However, this world is far from perfect, and the religions that imperfect Man has formed illuminate and encourage some of the darkest, most divisive and manipulative facets of our psyche. My opponent rightly claims that there is no such thing as a universal scale of morality in regards to certain issues. However, I am simply claiming that religion should have no part in determining what is and is not morally correct. After all, the morals found in religion are simply someone else's ideas attributed to a God or other religious figure. These morals should be considered no more universal than my own are, but because of religion, millions of people share them. Without religion, society could think more critically about what actually is and is not moral, rather than simply accepting what a text written by a human being ascribes to a deity. My opponent points out that Poland and Australia have different ideas about what is and is not moral, and that is demonstrative of the beauty of individual thought as opposed to religious espousing. Imagine the intelligent discussion we could have about morality if everyone thought for themselves! The fact that we are able to hold this debate without involving a religion's idea of right and wrong means that we can openly debate even the definition of morality, something that would be nearly impossible if our religion defined it for us. In response to my opponent's utterly ridiculous claim that I am advocating a literal war against religion, I would like to state my absolute opposition to this idea. Endorsed violence is one of the major reasons that it is immoral to tolerate religion. Therefore, it would be totally hypocritical of me to advocate war. For my opponent to put such foul words in my mouth is in poor form. In fact, the debate at hand does not concern an actual solution to the problem of religion – rather, it is simply a discussion about whether or not it should be tolerated. I would be very interested in debating solutions at a later date, however, so please let me know after this one concludes if you are interested.

They trust people so much that when they figure out their trust has been betrayed (acts of pedophilia) what they do is hide that person and his wrong deeds to trust him even more, oh they are such good people, good people or corrupted bastards, lets ask the molested children for their opinion. So, the fact that they hide child molesters is an opinion, and not a fact. I guess molested children are just an idea, not a reality haha, it's like yo are trying to ignore that fact, you only talk about the priests and use the word molestation without mentioning the children. There are victims in this crime, which you are continuously ignoring in your texts. You used your extreme, now let me use mine, your only donates 6 million? aww that's so cute http://abcnews.go.com... 13 million dollars worth of home, who knows how many spent on everything else, yes, so much donations, so so so many. Church is a structure designed to be a worshiping temple, it is still a structure, it can easily made into something else, it is not made out of holy elements, it's just concrete and iron. Also it's not that easy? Look at all the churches in america that are now skateboard parks, yes, it's that easy They don't express their dominance? in my town, 100 k cortices max, here are 8 huge churches, at least 15 mini churches, they are empty all the time except Sunday and who knows how many chapels,when something only serves as a display and it's everywhere, it's a sign of dominance. I almost convinced you ? aww, key word almost. This debate that we are having doesn't mean that whoever wins that this decision will be sent to some Cort to vote, it's an internet debate where we express our opinions and preset or sides of the debate. if this was real, my entire text would be full of 8k characters full of links pictures and more aggressive arguments that would attack mosques and Jewish temples as co-arguments

In Reply to 'Gay Marriage not being discriminatory towards religious beliefs': You said that 'Robert is a vegetarian so therefore people who eat meat are discriminating against his belief', This is a bad example. A practicing vegetarian does not belong to a church or organization. Saying that people who eat meat are discriminating against their belief is wrong, they are not discriminating against them until they, for example, force a Sirloin Steak down their throats. That would be a good example for the gay marriage case as they are asking a church, which is openly against homosexuality, to join them in marriage. This is discriminating against Christian's or Muslim's or any religion's beliefs because they are being forced into doing something they aren't comfortable with and that they could ultimately be frowned upon for by their God. In reply to Civil Unions: A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people. In my point of view, if a gay couple really want to be joined in marriage but aren't prepared to be in a civil union just because of benefits or taxes, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Sounds absurd that I think gay people should have to give up more to be in a marriage rather than a straight couple, but straight people can get a civil union as well so it is hardly the case that a civil union is just for the gay people to 'get what they want', it is a completely open thing. Also it is a more sentimental union, seeing as the couple don't wish to bring such things as religion or money into their relationship, it is just love. In reply to the subject of gays forcing the church into allowing gay marriage: The word marriage, although it is a roman word, is that of a religion. It is the bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God. So a gay person (who is an atheist per say) asks the state if him/her and his/her partner can get Married, they are asking if they can get married under the eyes of a certain religion's God even though they do not believe in that God. That is offensive and making a mockery of a religion just like religion makes a mockery of homosexuality. If they want to be married under no religion with all the legal stuffs that a 'normal' marriage would have, then why not ask that a civil union could have more legal stuffs, why ask if they can just get married under a religion they don't agree with?

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. 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). 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". 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.

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.

The argument will be over whether religion is good or bad for society, whether it hurts or benefits civilization. My opponent may choose which side he/she would like to argue.

Before I being I would like everyone to know that I was of the understanding that 2nd round would be for presenting opening arguments. Pro said that I also have a burden to prove, which implies I have to have my own case, which means that round 3 would be for refutation and rebuttal, so please do not consider any of my points conceded. I would like everyone to understand that plagiarism is Not against any rules here on DDO, and it only makes sense as an arguing tool. To say that every time someone debates they have to make new arguments that have never been said, is absurd. I clearly said that “I will defend the following arguments from[1]”….‘FROM source 1’, meaning I am using their arguments, I told everyone that these weren’t my arguments and I gave credit to the source, that doesn’t even fit the definition of plagiarism anyhow. Are you going to say that if you use the Kalam cosmological argument in support of god, then you have plagiarized the creator’s work? No, or course not, because that is beyond crazy. I have presented arguments and as I clearly stated, I would and will defend them. There has been no error on my part and any voter who thinks plagiarism is against the rules, please find me some quoted evidence from the cite rules, you will not find it. In any case I had no other option but to use someone else’s arguments because the opponent submitted their own arguments when it was about 1am and I refuse and should not be forced to stay up all night to craft a 10k response to this case, I also have a life and a job you realize. So, this is going to be unfortunate for Pro as she must now lose the round automatically. She has not refuted all of my arguments, only a few and thus she concedes them because, as in any debate setting, silence to an argument is compliance with the argument. Thus even if the judges consider most of the arguments I presented as “redundant”, Pro herself has admitted that she will not refute the argument on ‘Religion influences economy’ nor on ‘Religious influences political systems’ nor on ‘Religion promotes welfare’….and thus, because these are conceded I must win the round automatically after I provide my refutation to her own arguments. But first, to defend my case. i)Religion provides mental peace, explains suffering, and strengthens self confidence I will deal with C2 here shortly. The only argument pro gives here is that because religion starts wars that it actually causes suffering, but this argument uniquely forgets that suffering and happiness are not mutually exclusive, in fact that’s one of the whole points of religions, that in times of suffering someone can explain their pain. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is the cause of those listed wars or any major war is a common and widely accepted idea, that is simply untrue. Pro provides no evidence in support of that conclusion. In reality most wars have never had a religious tag attached to them and what’s more, of the ones that did, religion was not the actual motivating factor for starting the war. If we look at what is really going on, in any major war you could cite, we can see that the cause is always political in nature and never religiously motivated. “Pope Urban II let the knights of Christendom loose on the Muslim world to extend the power of the church eastwards and create a papal monarchy that would control Christian Europe. The Spanish inquisition was a deeply flawed attempt to secure the internal order of Spain after a divisive civil war, at a time when the nation feared an imminent attack by the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the European wars of religion and the thirty years war were certainly exacerbated by the sectarian quarrels of Protestants and Catholics, but their violence reflected the birth pangs of the modern nation-state.”[2] These are just a few examples, but other things directly suggest that war is political and almost never religiously based, such as the fact that the 100 years’ war, supposedly the last war of religion, was fought between two catholic nations, or the fact that Protestants and Catholics have repeatedly fought on the same side, against Catholics. Now, is it true that those in power could use religion as a catalyst? Sure, but even if religion didn’t exist the political problems would still arise in almost the exact same way and thus getting rid of religion would not decrease suffering because the same amount of wars would happen due to inevitable political conflicts, yet those who fight those wars would surely experience suffering from lack of an explanation of suffering, and the idea that what’s dead is truly dead, that there is no after life…ect. To support this point further, I would like everyone reading this to step outside of their comfortable 1st world lives for just a second, and imagine the great mass of those who live in poor nations. It is no doubt that most people do not live comfortably. Most people on this earth are impoverished without escape, ignorant of most of the world, starving, and abused by government and disease. For these people religion is a fundamental part of their lives. Religion is not just an idea that someone magical is watching you, religion is quite literally culture and identity, and even as an atheist I can recognize this. The resolution at hand basically asks whether or not culture and identity are necessary in a modern world, to which the answer is a shockingly obvious yes. ii) Promotes social unity, keeps social peace con’s statement here is overtly offensive, to assume that all people within a religion are in a cult shows a supreme amount of ignorance and blatant stupor. Other than her offensive statement here, pro merely cites her C5 to which I will address momentarily. But as a note, to state that religion divides us, even if true, would not apply to this contention because it means that within a certain religion there is unity, not everyone in humanity, I thought this was apparent. Thus this argument itself conceded, please add it to the conceded bucket. iii) Religion instills social virtues In what way does learning calculus teach you not to kill? Education is solely the acquisition of new skills, at best you can learn from education offhand, by developing your own morality, but education in no way teaches morality or social virtues. This will be confronted more in your counterplan below. C1.) Archaic laws Right off the bat let me make it clear, the only contentions with any relevant or plainly stated impacts are C4 and C5; the rest are basically meaningless. This contention for example has no impact…What is inherently bad about having archaic laws? Once the constitution of the United States or the UK becomes too old should we throw out of system of government for being ‘archaic’? Of course not. The only thing pro brings up is homosexual exclusive from marriage, which she never even establishes as a right. Sorry but that’s a different debate. That was her only impact to this contention and it is now null. She makes a few other, unrelated, claims as well. This is another claim from ignorance about religion, that those who are religious commit unethical activities in the name of god, first point, being that pro does not believe in god, where does he get the right to declare anything as universally immoral? Second, this is clearly wrong, 84% of the entire world’s population has a faith, yet where are all of the crazy and immoral actions being taken out in religions name? The best you can give is outlier examples. Refuted. C2.) Comfort There is no such thing as false comfort. Comfort is comfort, and it is perceived as 100% real by those who experience it. Your second and final point is basically that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, nope. This idea probably comes from those first world issues, like when you pop your tire on the side of the road and you locked your phone in the car so your stranded and no one stops to help, sure after your vigorous 2 mile walk to auto shop you may well feel stronger, but I don’t think this applies to real issues. Issues like having your husband and children killed as a fatality of the Iraq war, in a predator strike. Or having your leg shot off, or being politically oppressed by your government, forced to work in a sweat shop...ect. These things are real issues, and it is simply cocksure to state that because they didn’t die, they have somehow become stronger. Religion helps people like this in a tremendous way, and prevents absolute loss of hope. I know it’s a hard idea for us to get, but there is a breaking point to all people. God serves to eliminate human suffering and dramatically extend the ‘breaking point’ if you will, as well as provide identity, culture and morality to specific groups of people and is thus dramatically necessary, even in a modern world. C3) This operates on the assumption that what is illegal is good, and that the original wording of a given religious ‘policy’ or scripture is bad, really people use religion secondarily. C4) Even if we got rid of religion these practives would still be there, ingrained in culture itself. You agree that what is legal is good, it has been legally agreed that churches shouldn't pay taxes, if you think this is incorect, then it still goes to show that religion is a large force in politics. C5) This has no impact, because religion hasn't started any modern wars since the 100 years' war, so clearly even if it divides us this has no harm. Besides there are other things which truely divide us such as ethnicity, gender, attractivness. If anything religion serves to mend current division like those I just mentioned and getting rid of it causes their resurgence. Science This operates on the assumption that science and religion are at odds, when in reality they are not. So the answer? Do both. You operate under the false dilemma fallacy here, these two are not competing ideas. So, increase education and keep religion, culture, identity, and unity. Thank you.

Thank you for your argument, and for a great debate. I would first like to rebut some of my opponents points, and then I will end with a conclusion. Why is it morally wrong to teach a child to accept one religion? How is it wrong for you to not accept all religions. I accept all religions but I only FOLLOW Christianity. It should not be morally wrong to accept one religion nor to follow or practice one. Even when children are told not to touch a hot stove, they often do. This demonstrates that children are not even as close to dumb as you think they are, and are more then able to think for themselves to a certain extent. Since this blind trust is, as I have proved, not there then you cannot manipulate a child based on blind trust. One example of this is my friend, brought up a Catholic and sent to catholic school, who is now an atheist. Even though she was forced and only taught one religion she still turned out as an Aethiest, so this just shows that you can follow whatever religion you like, even though you were only taught one. Now I agree that the decision to follow a certain religion is individualistic, but it is not the RIGHT nor the RESPONSIBILITY for the parents to take their child to all places of worship, in order for my 6 year old son, to think he knows about all religions, so that he can go to the mousque while I go to my church, and have one of us take him. NO! He will go to church with me, until he is no longer in my house. (This is a hypothetical situation, I am a student) If young children cannot make this decision, why should it not be made for them until they can decide for themselves. Contracts are like this. Is religion not a little like a contract? ! As long as it is not harmful and deemed for the minors benefit, church and religion is a good thing! I would like to point out, due to the new T. V. Shows and other things on television and that we see in society, it is not the greatest way to gain a morale code. I would now like to unprofessionally scream at your last point. "Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the judgement of the parent". SAY WHAT NOW! ? So now, I cannot raise my child the way I want him to be raised, because why? Not really a reason, just people think that I am not fit to raise my own child. That nobody is fit to raise their child. If nobody raises the child then does the child not get raised? Will we have 50 year old babies as the population of the world, with no religion, and no thought? I say NAY! I should teach my hypothetical child any religion and morale code I like, as his/her upbringing is left for me to decide! In conclusion, I as side con must firmly state that I would encourage a con winning vote because every parent should have the right and responsibility to freely bring up their child in any way they like, allowing them to practice the religion with the parent, until they can practice what they wish!


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

Churches should not remain tax-exempt.

Background information: To understand why churches should not be exempt from taxes, we need to examine the taxes that churches do and do not pay, and the reasons behind their current tax-exempt status.

1) Federal Income Tax: According to the IRS, churches and religious organizations are exempt from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3), and are eligible for tax-deductible contributions. However, this exemption is conditional upon the organization meeting specific criteria, such as being organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or charitable purposes, not benefiting any private individual or shareholder, not attempting to influence legislation substantially, not intervening in political campaigns, and not engaging in illegal activities or violating fundamental public policy.

2) Property Tax: Churches do not pay property tax based on the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). In this case, the court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on an 8-1 decision. Justice Douglas justified the decision by stating that while religious groups and the press are not exempt from all financial burdens of government, taxing a preacher for the privilege of delivering a sermon is different from taxing the income or property of a preacher. The court provided four reasons for their decision: the First Amendment does not permit governmentally established religion or interference with religion, the legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not to establish, sponsor, or support religion, the tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and the freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion but has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.

3) Other Taxes: Churches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but as these vary by state, it is difficult to outline each one.

Should churches be tax-exempt? In my opinion, no. While churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes, the reasons for tax exemptions for non-profits do not necessarily apply to churches. Churches are often viewed positively in the United States, with Catholic nonprofit organizations being praised for their benefits to non-members, wider communities, and the public at large. However, as an atheist, I acknowledge that churches can bring together a community of generally good people, but this does not necessarily mean they should be exempt from taxes. Imposing a tax burden on churches would not necessarily discourage future good work, but rather encourage them to be

Here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t. Who knows? I may give you a strike 3 and you are out. We shall see. "Let's start off with discussing how the U.S views religion. The U.S was based on Judaeo-Christian beliefs." That"s an automatic strike 1. Really? According to what? You? How would you know? What grade of hand waving to cover your mouth from yawning from a jesus jiujitsu documentary service using sign language while speaking in foreign tongue so that nobody can understand a single word of cow giblets love songs pulled from the bank of He-Man and She-Ra vocal chords to form a new opera, do you really think so? "That said,..." bat crazy nothing. Continuing "the U.S has its laws based on beliefs of both religions." Really? According to what? You? How would you know? What grade of typhoid sing-a-long-johns have you graduated from to put your pj"s on so that you know the difference from nighty night and bedtime stories? Um nope. Name the laws that the U.S has is laws based on beliefs of both religions? Continuing "Both religions have very strong ties to each other," Really? According to what? You? How would you know? What grade of totally lacking any knowledge whatsoever except for maybe a yeast infection, overbaked of course, does judaism have ANYTHING to do with christianity? "and believe in the very same things to some extent" Oh really? According to what? Yu? How would you know? Nice laughable of NOT KNOWING as once again judaism has 0 to do with christianity. "With that said," There you go again pretending you know something about nothing. This chambers is wearing thin. "the U.S separates Church and state, meaning that you must not belong to those two religions to be in the U.S," What? There are plenty of households that the wife was christian and the daddy was jewish as an example. That really should be a strike 2. "but you must believe in those shared beliefs," Really? According to what? You? How would you know? I get it so we all MUST believe in what YOU believe in or else!!!!!!!!!!! Continung "which come in the shape of our laws (because our laws are shaped on our ethics)". But hold onto your horsey, you said "the U.S has its laws based on beliefs of both religions." Ethics and beliefs" hmmmmmmmmmm which is a more powerful strangulation? "you just need to believe in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution," Well garsh golly in a caped crusader sneeze rag, the Constitution NEVER mentions that slab dirty word "god". "and have our "morals" which most certainly does NOT include your god. 1."I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not worship Gods before me: This applies for almost all religions," A HUGE STRIKE 2. Absolutely in no possible way does it. Nice invented excuse and it shows you, being a teeny bopper, clearly without an edumacation, has to invent an excuse for something in which he clearly knows nothing about and yet he pretends he does. First of all, nearly all other religions known have more than one god = plural, god"s. Secondly, all other religions do not worship the same way as christianity or judaism does. In fact its not even a close call. Third in other religions there were many gods, so "thou shalt have no other gods before me" kinda falters before your blubbering knees deep in blile. "That is what religions are for, the collective morals and moral lessons learned through the ages put into a nutshell." That"s strike three IN A HUGE way. I told you I REALLY hate it when people make stuff up as you clearly undoubtedly just did. I mean are you THAT stupid to have come up with THAT pathetic of an excuse? Religion has caused more wars than those who do not have religion BY FAR. "More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin and he"s right. And yet you cannot even prove that this god of yours even exists. Not only that but religion, since it has caused so many wars, especially with your god riding high of his reigns and deliberately causing so many genocides, as lifted from YOUR bible, there"s no such a thing as your god being moral at all. And no that"s NOT what religions are for "he collective morals and moral lessons learned through the ages put into a nutshell." Religions are created to explain the unexplained. Its that simple. And then once that"s occured and happened, a religion rules through power then comes fear and then comes control. "When you start making excuses for atrocities you have removed yourself from ANY valid discussion on morals. When you say "yes the bible says you can own slaves but" well now you"re contradicting yourself because before I was asking if you thought the bible was accurately representing the mind of god, the will of god. You"ve got this conflicted mess of contradictions and you"ve found a way to rationalize them. You"ve gone and looked at them and said "boy that one really sounds bad, BUT that"s what Israel was doing that"s not what god was doing. So let me ask you this" do you believe that there"s an all knowing all powerful fun loving god who has an important message for humanity and he is so completely inept that his best attempts at communicating to people managed to convey the exact opposite message of what you think he meant? Now like are you the one who got it right? And all the people who authored the holy book and got you started that they managed to get it wrong? Is your god such a bumbling buffoon that he cannot state "thou shalt not own somebody as another human being?" or "please don"t rape the people and pillage the villages around you"" and he managed to communicate so poorly that it got written down as "Thou shalt be able to own other people as property and oh by the way go over there and kill everybody kill everything except for the young virgins." Its asinine. You cannot reconcile this." Matt Dillahunty I"m sorry but I cannot possibly carry on with this debate with your invented excuses.

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.

I will construct my case by first examining the nature of Separation of Church and State, then exploring the de jure status of the separation in the U. S. , and finally by exploring the de facto status of the separation in the U. S. --------------------The 1st Amendment of the U. S. Constitutions reads, in part [1]:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " -------------------- ARGUMENTS Point One: The Nature of the Separation of Church and State, and the Establishment ClauseThe phrase "separation" can be defined as the state of being apart. Thus, when religion is apart from government, separation of church and state is attained. This does not mean that people cannot hold and make decisions influenced by their own personal moralities, but rather that the government is not theocratic in nature. "Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. " [2]In this way, it seems like separation of church and state is definitionally part of the U. S. Constitution. It is an inseparable part of the foundations of our nation. Inasmuch as we cannot be a theocracy, we have assured ourselves a comfortable separation from religion. This is a prima facie reason to affirm because definitionally, we have separation of church and state in the status quo already. Point Two: De Jure SeparationWhen we talk about "what is" we can look at it from both a formal and an informal perspective. For instance, it is illegal in the Netherlands to smoke pot, but, because those laws are not enforced, it is effectively legal to do so. Therefore, I shall examine both de jure and de facto aspects of the separation in the U. S. There are several key Court Cases I will cite that illustrate that the Supreme Court has interpreted the laws so as to ensure a distance between religion and government. 1. McCollum v. Board of Eduction: Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. [3]2. Burstyn v. Wilson: Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs. [3, 4]3. Torcaso v. Watkins: Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. [3, 5]4. Engel v. Vitale: Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. [3, 6]5. Abington School District v. Schempp: Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional. [3]6. Epperson v. Arkansas: State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions. [3, 7]7. Lee v. Weisman: Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. [3, 8]8. Church of Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah: City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. [3] These rulings go to show 3 key things: A. A clear distance is being maintained between religion and state authority B. Government is unable to enforce religious doctrines or to impose religious laws upon its citizenry C. Government is unable to actively oppress certain religions and promote others. Thus, from a de jure perspective, the topic is affirmed. An, we can also see this de jure separation in the Treaty of Tripoli, which declares, legally, that the U. S. is not a "Christian" nation. [10]Point Three: De facto SeparationThe U. S. is a majority Christian nation, yet many of the policies our governments have enacted have been counter to Christian philosophy. Several prominent examples include abortion, gay marriage, and contraception covered by insurers. While not all Christians hold views opposing the liberalisaztion of these issues in U. S. politics, it is important to note that many do, and that they do so on the basis of moral and ethical beliefs informed by their religion. The fact that the U. S. can overcome such barriers and move towards a more secular society shows that, at the very least, there is some de facto separation. One excellent exemplar of the Government taking real, positive action in the status quo toward separation of church an state can be evidence in a recent case regarding a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky. "Displays of the Ten Commandments have become a flashpoint in the religious right's campaign to inject more Christianity into public life. .. [the] Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed its commitment to government neutrality toward religion. It rejected the argument that the counties had a secular purpose for the displays. They were promoting religion, the court held, and violating the Constitution by doing so. " [9]It seems then that there is too a distance in de facto governance between separation of church and state, affirming the topic still further. Before I close, I would like to make one final remark about the intent of the Establishment Clause. Jefferson himself said about it: " I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. " [10]SOURCES1 - . http://www.usconstitution.net...2 - . http://definitions.uslegal.com...3 - . http://infidels.org...4 - . http://everything2.com...5 - . http://www.answers.com...6 - . http://www.oyez.org...7 - . http://www.bc.edu...8 - . http://www.oyez.org...9 - . http://www.nytimes.com...10 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...I would like to apologize for the brevity of my arguments--I was rushed and would have been more fulsome in my points had more time been available. Regardless, I do believe the topic has been thoroughly affirmed. I now turn this discourse over to Con. ..

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.

Plain and simple, yet again! Society can do wonders if it didn't have the religious community holding US back! Christians still don't want stem cell research to go through! Who would you rather live; a few day old embryo or a 30 year old man or woman who is dying who could benefit from that and get better with stem cell research? If any religion is holding us back, it would be the christian religion... ALSO, atheists will more likely support legal gay marriage than a religious person. That is a huge setback in society. They believe it is a sin for a man to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman. They say that these individuals deserve to, "burn in hell," which is quite childish and WRONG if you ask me. I know that this doesn't deal with science but it is a HUGE example of how religion is holding us back as a society. You can say, "Oh the new pope says he doesn't care!" Wrong!! He said, "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill." Emphasize on the word, if. So, if they don't believe in the lord (God) than it isn't okay if they are atheist or a part of another religion. That is still wrong and lurid! So you tell me; is religion holding us back? Answer that correctly and HONESTLY. My answer? Yes, OH YES, religion is definitely holding us back.

As a start I wish to clarify this subject, I am not against religions. I think the positive aspects of religions do not weigh up to the negative aspect of them, which would make them removable from society. In other words, religions belong to the past and will not be needed in the future. As a first argument I would like to point out that in the last 32 years, religions have been the cause of plenty of murders, mass murders, ethnic cleansing and more. Most of these crimes could have been avoided if religions were not take so seriously and would have been taken as an extra. I would like you to look at this collection of a few murders that have been commited in the name of religions. . http://imgur.com... You could of course say those would have happened if there were no religions, or for some other reason, but that is a potential situation and thereby not correct. Religions were not always negatively tainted, I would agree that in the past, religions have been useful and were actually necessary for the people to unite under one name and idea. With the uprising of nationalism, religions are fully replaced by patriotism, the leftovers of the religions are (In Europe's case) quite accepting and do not see their religion as a way of life but as an extra, this is how religions should be seen overall. If I were to take christianism as a example,(same applies to Islam) you surely have noticed how people are completely brainwashed by the idea of there being a god and a superior truth, this would be totally fine if they would not try to kill everyone who does not believe in the same values. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where a Christian threatened to kill atheists or gays in public because of their orientation. This could have been avoided if religions were admitted to being unnecessary. Religions are a creation of the humans, and like all other creation of humans, they are subject to time. Religions were not there at the start, they were not here until they were created by humans who made up fictional stories to explain facts they could not explain logically, with other words, describing the unknown. As evolution went on, this unknown was being unveiled, thus removing the primary goal of a religion. This goal evolved to bringing people together in churches, mosques and so on. Yet again, as evolution went on, people did not need to go to church to see one another, yet again the primary goal of religions was being stripped by modernity. Briefly said, religions are, in this period and at this time, not needed anymore. They can be removed or reoriented.

From an early age, most children are raised in religious families. Those families have been part of that certain religion for most likely decades. It should be a parents right to choose whether or not they want to expose their children to religion. We force other beliefs onto our children anyways and religion is not a huge deal. We force our kids to believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, and plenty of other things. We force our kids to go to school and to do certain things, because children at that age are not mentally mature enough to make certain decisions. Parents are supposed to make sure their kids are grown up correct. If a parent wants their child to be religious, then they should have the power to choose that. It's like abortion, who is the government or any of us to tell people that they can't have their child be told to believe in god at a young age. Especially when we "brainwash" our children to believe in Santa and other fictional characters. Another point that I would like to make is that schools are not supposed to use god in school, so therefore the point that religion is brought into schools after being taught at home is a fallacy, so therefore that point is not true.

Rebuttals: Pro is yet to affirm his resolution and demonstrate exactly how religion is not "needed". Because no definitions were provided in round one, I'll state once again that all I have to do is show that religion is in fact needed by some people and can be a benefit to society; which I've clearly outlined and used evidence for. The financial benefits argument has been completely dropped by Pro, as has the argument of religious charity contribution. Both of these contentions prove that religion fulfills a purpose and that it's more than possible for it to be a positive thing. Pro again [as with round one] argues that the primary reason for religion was that it was used to explain the existence of mankind and the entire universe--however, this isn't exactly the case. That was merely one thing that religion has given answers for. The primary purpose of religion was [and is] in fact to give provide people with moral teaching and an understanding of God. This is particularly correct with the examples of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The are many purposes that religion can fill; once again, there is also community and maintaining personal identity, and the connection to culture has continuously remained a deep one--this is just another contention that Pro has dropped and failed to respond to. The fact that religion has significantly helped shape the laws of our society has also been entirely ignored by Pro. If religion was that useless, why does still continue to remain relevant through our laws today? This is simply another area where religion has in fact been used in a productive way. I'll reiterate that three of our most basic laws are explicitly based on the Mosaic commandments. These include: Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not Steal, and Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor--which can be taken in the context that people *can* be prosecuted or face legal action for such an offence depending on the circumstance[s]. So if religion was to "go way", something that Pro argues it should do, are laws that are inspired by religion to be eradicated to? This is exactly where the bias and lack of objectivity in Pros argument becomes even more apparent. Before moving to the next round, I'd also note that Pro has made a number of accusations without including any sources to verify them whatsoever. Pro cannot just simply ask me, as Con, to Google what they're referring to. Rather it's entirely on them to provide a direct source and support each assertion that they put forward. The less than one percent statistic of atheist inmates is, thus far, not to be taken a valid contention. As for religion in helping people, the simple answer is that if religious does help people [which is clearly the case, as it still exists] than Pro isn't in a position to state that they do not need it. Moreover, believing in a religion does in no way mean that people cannot "control their future". Once again, the only arguments here are personal opinions and unsupported claims.

My Final Refutations and ArgumentsReligious AspectsCon states my argument about religion is invalid. I strongly disagree. The point I was trying to make was that the majority of people in society that discriminate agaisnt homosexuals were due to religious reasons. In fact, the reason why laws are established to ban gay marriage are because of people who vote against gay marriage on referendums. The reason why gay marriage is banned in some states is becuase of some Christians (78.4 % of Americans) disagree with gay marriage just because of their sexual orientation as that is what their church teaches them.[1] Washington state actually passed a law that allowed businesses to discriminate gays for religious reasons. Read this: "Republicans in Washington state have proposed a bill that would allow businesses to openly discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation if they want to do so because of their religious beliefs. SB 5927 carves out a specific exception to the state’s nondiscrimination law that says only federal protections — which don’t include sexual orientation — apply when a person’s religious belief is “burdened”: Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."[2]These same people are against gay marriage because of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs.The Majority of States deem Gay Marriage IllegalNot only do some states discriminate gay's rights to marry, but some cities like Cincinnati actually allow discrimination. Read this: "the U.S. Supreme Court also let stand a lower court ruling which upheld the Constitutionality of an amendment to the Cincinnati city charter which prohibited legal bans on discrimination by sexual orientation.So, in Cincinnati, it became quite legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. If you have gay man working for you, you can fire him at will. If you have a lesbian as customer, you can refuse to serve her if you wish. None of it would be illegal.[1]We can see that people are extremely discriminatory to gays just because of their sexual orientation. This is the kind of mentality people have on voting against gay marriage. It's sad that gays can't get married in some states, but it's tragic to make it actually legal to discriminate against gays. As I mentioned in my previous contention, states like Washington pass laws to actually discriminate against gay's sexual orientation, and is the same rational for denying them marriage.The Federal Government doesn't officially recognize gay marriageThe federal government is still discriminating against gay marriage by deeming marriage legal under a man and a woman. If the DOMA defines marriage between a man and a woman, they're discriminating against homosexuals right to marry by differentiating homosexual marriage fom legal marriage: between two heterosexuals, a man an a woman.ConclusionFrom states and cities specifically passing laws to allow discrimination against gay's sexual orientation, we can see that the United States is discriminating against homosexuals right to marry. . The definition of discriminate for this debate was to recognize a distinction; differentiate negatively. Under the DOMA, laws that allow discrimination, and states that declare homosexual marriage illegal, we can see that the United States is discriminating against homosexuals rights to marry. I thank Pro for an excellent debate, and may the best debater win. Sources:http://atheism.about.com...[1]http://purpleunions.com...[2]

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.