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

Terminate fiscal privileges for religious entities.
Churches ought to be subject to taxation. Contemplate that for every tax unit a religious group refrains from contributing, you and I compensate on their behalf. Numerous religious organizations are counted among the most affluent in the world: by 1971, the valuation of real and personal assets held by U.S. churches was approximately $110 billion. In New York City alone, the figure was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 projection indicated religious revenue for that year was roughly $100 billion, or roughly five times the combined income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All of this, exempt from taxation. There exist numerous other establishments to which the underprivileged can seek assistance.

Yes, without religion there would be peace in the middle east, or would there? Without religion we you have fewer moral values, many of the things you think of morally wrong today would maybe accepted because religion made those laws over the years. Also, i don't see how religion has slowed stem cell research. The reason people are against it is because their pro-life. They think that conception is the beginning of life, which it scientifically is. So it isn't religion, it's pro-life people, like me. You say intelligent design is being taught in schools. This is only sometimes true. most schools only teach evolution, unless you take a Christianity class. The schools that do teach it in their science class are trying to show both sides. In 6th grade I was taught and let us choose which one is right. Yes contraception would still exist. Because I think that people would think that a fetus is a human life no matter what. So you can't blame that all on religion, especially my catholic faith. Why religion? In the face of pogroms and pedophiles, crusades and coverups, why indeed? Religious Americans have answered the question variously. Worship is one answer. Millions gather each week to acknowledge their higher power. The chance to experience community is another. Healthy congregations are more than civic clubs. They are surrogate families. The opportunity to serve others also comes to mind. Americans feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless largely through religious organizations. Yet as important as community, worship and service are, I am convinced that religion's greatest contribution to society is even greater. Religion prevents us from being carried away by the tides of the times,because a true religion has an eternal value-system. Religion guides our actions in life, putting a check on criminal tendency in human nature. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value-system for human existence. As this is a philosophy debate, I will refrain from using sources like I do in political ones

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.

Thank you for taking my challenge, Cody. You'll notice, if you look up agnosticism on dictionary.com, that there will be listings of the word with and without the word religion in it. Simply naming dictionary definitions of the word is not enough, and we must ask ourselves what religion really is. What do you define as your "religion"? If you are Christian, you will probably have no problem, because Christianity is wrapped up in a neat little package. For me, a non-Christian believer, I have to think a little harder to discover what it is. Religion definitely involves your beliefs in the metaphysical, and often deals with a deity. But I would resist the notion that a deity is absolutely necessary to qualify religion as such, as hinduism and, generally, atheism attest to. Wikipedia defines religion as "a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Wikipedia also states about agnosticism: "...Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one." Dictionary.com has this to say about religion: "1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Now we could throw definitions out of books and websites at each other for this whole debate, but it is clear that a precise definition of religion should probably be general enough to include each person's beliefs. Every person necessarily has some, even if it is insignificant, idea about something metaphysical or pertaining to the existence of God or lack thereof. Given the spirit of why our country was founded, and the strict protection of religious rights, I therefore postulate that everyone should be entitled to their own religion. Christians are easily recognized and respected in regards to their religion, and everyone should share this right even if they aren't Christian, muslim, etc. By denying any person a religion, the government is in effect establishing its own concept of religion, which is a clear and present violation of their first amendment rights. I was told in a past debate that my religion, agnosticism, is not viable and therefore should not be recognized by the government. I had a problem with assertation, so I am expressing it now. Let me explain to you what agnostic means to me. It means that I believe that the universe is the way it is, and I believe that I don't have the essential capablilites to apprehend it. I look at theists and atheists, and wonder why they invest so much in ideas that really have no logical foundations in reason. At best they are decent guesses. I've read philosophers that attempt to prove the existence of God, and the arguments are so weak that my best guess at why they wrote them is that they were expected to. The penalties in past centuries for opposing Christianity have been brutal, and I can certainly see how they ended up at the conclusions they did. I guess my point is that using pure thought to probe the depths of the universe is simply not enough to find answers, and there aren't any answers for us in the physical realm either. Since there is no good evidence, I believe that we are not meant to know the deepest answers; not in life anyway. My religion is as real as anyone elses, and I think it would be nice if my system of beliefs were as respected as someone who calls themself Christian. I don't care if one other person in the world actually believes that I am right; all I am asking is that the first amendment protect my religious beliefs in the same way as it protects Christianity's.

Introduction: Agreed with my opponent's definition of religion. To clarify the resolution, my opponent has asserted that religion benefits modern society. In order to win this debate, I will either have to show that religion harms modern society or simply that it does not benefit it. My opponent's argument thus far consisted of the following sentence: "Religion benefits modern society, as it creates and enforces moral laws which all in said religion are forced to follow." This makes the following assertions: 1. Religion creates moral laws 2. Religion enforces moral laws 3. All those in a religion or forced to follow the moral laws laid down by said religion My argument for this round will consist of showing that each of those contentions is false. Contentions: 1. Based on my opponent's definition, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe creates moral laws. Why would such a belief create moral laws? It does not logically follow that a religion would cause moral laws to come into existence spontaneously. If it were somehow true, than what would happen when two religions proposed contradictory moral laws? A religion may propose an idea about morality, but these ideas are not universally accepted and they often directly contradict moral ideas that are derived from logic and reasoning. Simply because religion proposes moral ideas does not mean that it is beneficial to modern society. In order for this alleged moral contribution to be relevant, my opponent would have to show that the moral ideas proposed by religions are logical and beneficial. That fact that many religions would directly contradict each other would also have to be reconciled. 2. In modern society, religions do not have the power to enforce their moral laws. I really don't see how this could be contended. Though people may attempt to make their religious ideas into law, religions do not directly possess this power and in any case it is unconstitutional in the United States. 3. No one in a religion is forced to follow its laws in modern society. Again, this is hardly a contentious issue. Murder is not allowed in Christianity but Christians commit murder. The religion does not force its followers to obey moral laws. Conclusion: I could go into a number of arguments that morally does not come from religion and I could provide many examples of the negative influences of religion. However, the argument that my opponent has provided does not make this necessary. My opponent's only argument has been that religion creates and enforces moral laws, but it clearly does not do either of these things.

1. my point about the funding of private schools had to do with the first amendment and the separation of church and state clause. take your own example (from the forums) of the government funding the boy scouts. it was deemed that the boy scouts should not be publicly funded, because in addition to their private policies (like discrimination against homosexuals), they also endorse a deity. the christian god. people should not have to pay taxes to an institution that endorses or imposes something they don't believe in. 4. ok, the civil rights act defends against things like racism and sexism and discrimination based on religious affiliation. this means our government as a whole opposes them. therefore, our government funded schools should uphold discrimination based on these things. like i said, i concede this debate, but we'll meet again :o)

To be honest I was expecting this to attract trolls like flies on Mabogi (Obviously I use comedy to deal) I'm excited! ! Round 2 Fight! !! "it has impacted billions of people's lives and given them an amazing sense of community"-pro Too bad they needed an Absolute Totalitarian Dictator to get there! Not to mention the friction caused by other "communities"! If it gives them comfort that's great! If you want to believe your mailman is an undercover FBI agent, you can do that to. The issue we face is that believing in that doesn't start wars, cause mass genocide, or warrant discrimination! Bottom line is their little club is not innocuous. Not even on a personal level. Ever had your father tell you there is a Demon inside of you? You may have seen this: "and has allowed them to live life believing that in the end they will spend the rest of eternity in endless bliss. "- pro Sounds great! I use to love believing in eternal life! I get the hype! Do you know what price we pay for this magic? A very high risk of eternal torture beyond our imagination! "I know what your thinking! I don't believe in hell. Well it's too bad it's still there and your still going- Every Christian ever Come on children! What you know for sure is that you die! No need to spend your entire life waiting for the next! Maybe even try to keep this place looking good for years to come. . together as one "community" without the silliness! Can I get a Hallelujah! ! Amen! ! " it allows them to live a higher quality life as they don't have to live in such an intense fear of death. " Maybe they just need to chill out a bit! Do you freak out about it? On the level where you are willing to stake your own sanity on it? I made my peace like 16 years ago! In fact. How the heck am I still alive? lol Either way I do know that Religion has a lot to do with fear of mortality! Its unhealthy to make up stories! The whole point of this is we all need to grow up and get off the tit! For the preservation of our health and safety! "Buddhism teaches people to not hate, but to love life and live their lives trying to find their true happiness. Buddhism also teaches people to not sink to the level of greed and lust and simply be happy with what they have. " I wont argue with Buddha! Ha! I have no problem with moral teachings from any source! Its the magic and monsters that people need to forget they "know" exists! I wish that I could fly and shoot fireballs doesn't mean you need to give me money (Yes I think the church is a business) "So if we can manage religion and keep it to having a positive effect on society it really isn't a bad thing at all. " Uggh Fine! Its not like anything is going to ever change anyways*storms out pouting* . .. .. Hey, yeah sorry about that, I got off a little bit on the low blood sugar high! Yeah lets keep an eye on them! If they are happy! Yay! Lets have a party for each and ever person that has been negatively affected buy these "happy" morons! (I told you i'm not polite) You may need to broaden your horizons! The Westborough Baptist church isn't the only blemish in Religious history! "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " Steven Weinberg watch starting at 5:45 I love it! ! "Think about it like salami on a sandwich" Whoah! ! haha. . Whoah there buddy! You leave the analogies to me! ! haha You even went with a sandwich Haha1! ! No I'm sorry! The salami is actually a turd "You're right" "Your Right" This is why I got excited! ! Would you like to use this section to brainstorm a revolution? :) "Become aware. Take power. You can make a movement to make it to the top and stop the corruption. .. ." Let the revolution begin! !! All of it! ! Yes we are on the same page! ! Are you a leader? I'm a prophet! Been looking for a leader! Never really saw it till recently! The one thing we have to do is voice our complaints! Along with everything else you said! Remember when people use to say "If you don't like it move? " They are the enemy! They do not want to help! They want the government to do it for them while complaining about the government! I call for global participation! No more looking out for your own unless you recognize your own is EVERYONE! ! That will be our slogan! ! I am waiting to see what you come at me with! I have lifetimes more! ! Hope you are having as much fun as me! !

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. ..

So, let's get right into it..."Ok and thank you for being so organized! Ok well to continue it seems you have taken the view atheism is a belief there is no god and then said I was confused. As I said someone can say they believe there is not one but that at he heart is not what atheism is, again it is the not guilty verdict not the innocent one. I know you think this is strange but again even up to the point of Webster dictionary the misconception is there that atheism is "I BELIEVE..." this again is not so. I am concerned how you asked "everyone" if this makes sense it seems society is really caught in this trap of believing atheists are making a religious claim."When we debate.. It is imperative that you address the audience with your informal opinion. This means including evidence (sources). Also, I still feel my view point on this topic (and on the authentic definitions) I presented are in fact accurate. __________________________________________________________________________________________________"If you are an agnostic you are also an atheist. This point has been made by not just Dillahunty (who you brushed off as confused...?) but Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denette, Sam Harris and other reputable atheists."To be blunt, I only was addressing you and Mr.Dillahunty, no one else. Now, if you want to present your evidence to me, and the rest of us these people made the exact same point as Mr. Dillahunty... By all means, please do so. _____________________________________________________________________________"I can say I am fairly certain that there is no god but will always have to be in theory agnostic about about but in practice will go about life as though there is not one. Again to clarify you used ONE definition that does not fit what the actual group, nor many scholars say it is and you completely ignored the point made at the beginning when I said agnostics are atheist and just don't know it."Ok. So, before I go on to constructively criticize you, please know this.. The topic of this debate is "Atheism is not a religion". This being said, since there is more than one authentic definition of religion, I have the choice of which definition I wish to use to rebuttal your opening statement. This being said, I am not claiming atheism is a religion based on this definition... 1 : the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods(Which both of these definitions are pretty much the same thing in the sense of "a belief in a god or gods" )but on this definition... 3 : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or ggroup. Now maybe you feel this is unfair, but there was no rules set up we use a specific definition for atheism. This being said, I am not breaking any rules here. ____________________________________________________________________"Again I already explained that Atheism is in no way demanding you believe there is no god and yes many non-atheist thinkers/scholars etc have made the fallacy (as you have) of saying that."It's odd you make this claim, but to be honest, if you want to try to attack the credibility of these non-atheist scholars, go right ahead. Just present the evidence. _______________________________________________________________________ "I am sorry but you just asked an atheist if they were an atheist.... you really cannot repeat this fallacy again I do no want to bother to repeat this I can go find a dictionary that says what I am saying and that still isn't the point. Please stick to the topic as I am. Not wishing to sound crass I just can't be bothered with people who have to be corrected twice. Atheism=I do not have super natural beliefs. Is that a religion, YES or NO and why? Please stay on topic this time, if you do not I will have to leave this debate."This issue I address earlier on this post. ____________________________________________________________________________ "Since you asked I will. Those of you reading lets think here, if the atheists are saying atheism is not having any religious or supernatural beliefs and there are as well dictionary definitions along with that and you know actual atheists disagree with my opponent is there a point to arguing definitions or should my opponent actually give an answer to the actual topic?"Here my opponent argues atheism isn't a religion in the sense of this definition; 1 : the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods(Which both of these definitions are pretty much the same thing in the sense of "a belief in a god or gods" ) When I am in fact, arguing atheism is a religion in this sense; 3 : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.This being said, my opponent has failed to defend the notion that atheism is in not a religion. Before I finish up, I have one more question for my opponent,.. Why is atheism based off of a theory of materialism according to the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus?Theory - : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proved to be trueFinally, I thank everyone for observing this debate and hope you enjoyed reading it. Most importantly, I thank my opponent for debating me on this topic. Much respect from Haroush. Side note: My opponent and I both have spelling and grammar mistakes so I ask everyone to not give either of us points for spelling and grammar. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It is the basis for the Separation of Church and State in the United States. While it does not expressly prohibit the separation of the whole of the state from religious practice (only congress), that is the way it has been interpreted as long as it has been a debate. What it prohibits is the recognition of a national religion as well as government bans on any religion. I argue, however, that it does not expressly prohibit religious displays on public property so long as all faiths are elligible to do the same. By opening it to all religions as well as atheism, it finds a comfortable middle ground that neither specially recognizes nor prohibits the display of any particular faith. As a matter of side-stepping any assumptions, I feel it necessary to mention that I am a neo-pagan, and not a Christian. Not that it makes my argument any more valid, simply that I don't want this to be a discussion on any particular religion, but on religions as a whole. Without stating it, the assumption may be that I am christian and that I am arguing for the manger scene or the ten commandments, which I am not.


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

Resolved: All religious institutions in the U.S. should lose their tax exemptions.

Throughout the debate, my opponent's sole argument has been that small churches should retain their tax exemptions due to financial need. This stance is devoid of substantial evidence or credible sources. Despite agreeing with the majority of my points or engaging in semantic games, my opponent has failed to present a compelling counterargument. I reiterate my position: All churches should lose their tax exemptions. I firmly believe that any connection between an individual's faith and the government is perilous. Government-provided tax exemptions to churches open the door to various forms of manipulation. For instance, if a political party pushes for increased exemptions, it can lead to churches leveraging their influence to sway voters. When religious leaders instruct their followers to vote a certain way, many blindly obey. My opponent concurred that many churches accumulate excessive wealth. Instead of setting arbitrary thresholds for tax exemptions, I propose abolishing all exemptions and encouraging churches to support each other financially. Why should one pastor own multiple million-dollar homes while another church struggles to maintain a congregation of ten? Since they all serve the same deity, shouldn't they share their resources? Establishing financial thresholds for tax exemptions would merely encourage churches to exploit loopholes and manipulate their finances to stay below the cutoff. This practice is rampant in American businesses, and religions are no exception. In summary, I have substantiated my arguments with credible sources, while my opponent has offered none. I have stayed true to my debate stance, while my opponent has resorted to semantics and largely agreed with me, providing little to no support for their position beyond the notion that impoverished churches in disadvantaged communities receive insufficient offerings and donations. When casting your vote, please consider the entire debate and not just your personal beliefs. Thank you for your attention.

I’ll begin by thanking Pro for his compliment. You might be surprised to know that the great anti-religious commentator Sam Harris apparently did not agree with your thoughts in the previous incarnation of this debate. Seriously though: on to my arguments, which I’ll split into three categories. 1. There is no proof that religious people are ‘better’ than nonreligious people. In fact, some of the only proof is that it makes people worse. The late great Christopher Hitchens said “Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made. Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two. Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved. ” I apologize for the long quotation, but as Oscar Wilde said “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. ” 2. Religion destroys logic My mother is a long-standing Christian, and as an atheist, it greatly disturbs me to think that by her Baptist doctrine, she would rather hear that I had an inoperable brain tumor rather than hear that I don’t pray to the same god she does. Her doctrine, that is, the doctrine of Christ, says that anybody who doesn’t accept Jesus is destined to burn in hell for an eternity. This is a small example of the terror and complete suspension and disregard for logic that religion brings. Take that small example and blow it up and apply it to geopolitical events. The result? Terrorism, intolerance, genocide, wide-spread female genital mutilation, condemnation of birth control, corruption in government, and plenty of other problems. Of course, I’ll be the first to criticize the West’s nearsighted attack on Islam, but the idea cannot be ignored. What makes the Jihadi detonate a bomb strapped to his chest in the playground of a Shia school? It’s certainly not a logical choice. Those who say that they don’t represent Islam are just plain wrong. Who is to say that their interpretation of the Quran (which makes ample justification for violence) is incorrect? This violence among the religious isn’t new. Take for example, the countless massacres under the Ottoman leader Selim I, who spread the Sunni Islamic empire by sword, just as his de-facto religious leader, the hotly debated Muhammed, had done for his lifetime. He once ordered that 40,000 Shia should be killed, and said ”the killing of one Shiite had as much otherworldly reward as killing 70 Christians. ” This kind of logic-less slaughter is found chiefly in religious circumstances. 3. History shows that religion is a primary source of destruction and intolerance. Just glance through the history of most religions. They are packed with hatred, violence and war. The Catholic linage is literally stuffed with wars and acts of blatant terrorism – all approved by the church. The crusades are the obvious example, but take for example, the Christian tradition of anti-Semitism, under which the grounds for Nazism were paved. Jews have been long persecuted in the Christian tradition, being banned from work, separated and placed in ghettos. Or take the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, a meeting by the Pope to make Jews wear different, distinguishable clothing. It was long decided that Jews drank the blood of Christian children, and therefore, a Jew could at any time be blamed of ‘blood libel’ and be put to death. The Jews, historically, were forced out of their homelands numerous times. It’s a legacy of unbelievable brutality. Christianity, in the general context of its history, has only recently changed how it treats holy war.

I accept the weakness in my argument in the previous round, it is because of the way I presented it. I would like to make up for it now. Most religions has the history of not less than 2000 years like Christianity,Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism etc.. According to CIA's World Factbook 2012 estimate there are only 9.66% non-religious and 2.01% atheists in total population of the world. Proportionately we can assume same percentage of religious population for the past( with slight changes). " Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles ...." " Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty ...." " Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in ...." With the grand history each religion has; with the majority of population being religious, there is slaughtering of man by man( most significant number which cannot be treated as shortcomings ) in the name of war and significant number of people are living in absolute poverty. so your argument religion upholds morality and fight poverty is invalid. If 2000 years is not sufficient for a religion to uphold morality, to fight poverty, then it can never do it. As far as my relation of terrorists and women rights to religion is.... If a person with the lust for power, misuse religion then that person should be blamed. But if millions of people agree with him and they are ready to die and kill others with morally taking support from scripture, then religion should be blamed. In some nations, the administration and judiciary is completely based on the scripture of their religion. In one such nation women is restricted in every thing to such extent that they cannot be considered as a witness to the rape committed on them, they need witnesses from males; they cannot marry of their wish. So, don't I have the right to blame religion as human being with some humanity still left after witnessing these incidents. The human nature has divided human beings into two-- man and woman. But religion has divided human beings into Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and many many other. But it didn't stop there, Christians are divided into Catholics and protestants; Hindus into shaivists and vaisnavites and many other; Muslims into shias and sunnis; Buddhism into four ; and so on. There is constant conflict between different sects of a religion often killing each other. Instead of bringing unity among people, divisions are created. This does more harm than good to humanity. There is every need in the present hour to develop ethics and morality separated from religion which can induce unity rather than divisions. There is significant contributions going on in this field from the philosophers across the world. Hope they succeed and these divisions created by religion fall apart before the strength of humanity.

Thank you for that enlightening argument. I will now attempt to rebut your points, and then move on to my next constructive speech. Now for my rebuttals. I would like to ask you how it is morally wrong to teach your child your religion? If a child is supposed to be a reflection of the adult then it should be the adult's choice to teach the child. I would like to ask that if the parent teaches the child why a religion states what it states then it would not teach the child to accept things without thinking about them. It teaches the child to always ask why. As long as religion is taught in a loving and kind way to inform the child, and the child responds to the teaching then it is fine. I would now like to move on to my constructive speech. I would like to first ask the question, Would you like to teach and parent a child that challenges the very core of your being and every word you say? No I would not. I would like to teach my child my religion, and take him to church with me. I would then have him/her critically examine everything within it and critically evaluate it. Religion is not hard and fast. Everyone should have their own reason why they have their religion and why they follow it. If religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, where you are taught certain morales and values ascribing to said religion. This means that religion is directly ascribed to morale values. Now I would like to again ask a rhetorical question, Would you like a child without the same morales as you? No I definitely would not. I would like my child to understand and follow my morales and values. All of these facts and reasons are why children should be only taught the religion of their parents, as it is the parents decision what to teach their children. I look forward to your concluding round.

I would consider myself a respecting anti-theist, which means I believe religion should not exist, HOWEVER I fully respect the right of others to worship at their leisure. I believe religion has its merits, however, the negatives seem far more numerous. In this debate, I will be trying to argue that religion does not -overall- positively effect a developed society and only hinders its progression forward. Religion can cause friction among members of society that, otherwise, would be just fine alongside one another. There is an old adage that 'the two things you must never discuss with an acquaintance are religion and politics'. I believe communication is very important among any relationship, be it personal, educational, or work related. A topic that creates friction -often becoming derogatory or violent- that is both so taboo to discuss and so widely spoken of and displayed seems very opposed to a smoothly functioning society. Religion can also cause far more serious problems, such as the Crusades(1) and Jihads(2) of times long past. While in developed societies these are infrequent and rare, it is evidently seen today in the spread of ISIS in the Middle East, and in the burning and pillaging of churches in Africa. Religion is a faith, an idea, that is based in belief. Beliefs that can turn violent, even genocidal, have no reason to exist in a society that is focused on the progression of equality. I will concede that religion does have its finer points. Religion can bring an individual peace and self-happiness, which is a pivotal part of life. It can also bring communities together, centering themselves around their shared faith. But of course, that also means these same communities will clash with others of a differing religion, or lack thereof. The same faith that binds together is the same that clashes against others, and especially for larger societies, this seems horrific. Society at large should be focused on progression, be it matters of social issues or science, of developing economies and eliminating poverty. Religion seems to be just a thorn in the side of that society, hindering it from taking the strides it must to ensure a safer, healthier, more educated society for everyone to enjoy. (1) http://www.history.com... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org...

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

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

Thank you for joining me. A. First, allow me to detail that which I agree with in your first statement. 1. Parents are responsible for their children. 2. Parents are responsible for teaching their children anything they don't learn in school. 3. Religious teaching is the responsibility of the parents. B. Now, I will detail two other points. 1. I am not arguing that a government should tell any parent how to teach their children. I am in favor of parents having the ability to homeschool their children. Although, I do recognize that a poor teacher is a poor teacher regardless of their relation to the student. 2. Also, I do not care if a religion has a process to confirm any of its maturing congregation. That is beside the point I am attempting to make. C. My point still stands. 1. Parents should teach their children critical thinking. It is the obligation of a good parent to ensure their children know basic decision-making skills. They should do this regarding all decisions, but especially questions which do not have absolute answers. 2. It is morally wrong to tell a child an absolute statement which in reality is a mere belief. 3. I think that it disintegrates the child's ability to make coherent decisions because the child learns to accept things without thinking them through.

I will take this point by point. For the sake of space I will only include the 1st few words of the con"s argument followed by: "..." Each part of the counter is separated by: "____" > I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds " Human nature and society are two different things. Though both are man made expressions, one exists as a means to oversee the other. Society is mankind's attempt at regulating individual human nature among a mass of differing mindsets in order make sure one doesn't inhibit the other and that there is at least some form of control or general order. Individual human nature on its own en masse has proven to be disastrous. A defining social structure combats this. I've already stated this myself that separation of church and state exists for a reason. "These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse." There is no misunderstanding. At its initial stage, human nature weaves religion. Religion comes from man. Just as society comes from man. Man is his own worst enemy. And human nature can infect every one of man's products. You seem to deter yourself from the idea that I strongly support the lack of religious involvement within government. ______ > Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that ... Again. This is conjecture based on an externally developed personal opinion. [I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time.] Once again, it is not. To emphasize this let's do an experiment. If I take your metaphor and replace the word belief with authority/power. What happens? "I find that the baseline state of authority/power could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow addiction or tolerance to it. - This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name." Does this statement still make its case with the words replaced? Yes. Yes it does. In fact this statement shows itself to be accepting of a wide range of examples. To cling to a particular, various different stories illustrate the effects of the social "megalomaniac". Gaius Julius Caesar for instance is one such case. And in his dominance, military might and status were his drug, not religiosity. What does this mean to show? It means that if your argument can still accept differing concepts and remain consistent means that there is an even simpler unifying concept that can't be broken down any further (one with no known substructure) which connects any two initially different concepts together. I say that this unifying concept, one that connects all the contexts of all observable misuse (be it power, faith, or money) is fear. What your observational inference tries to do is make a special case out of the state of belief and it cannot be seen in the same light as any of the other abusive positions. This thinking can only work if one keeps hold of their own perception and it only can exist if one starts with the assumption of observed guilt. Theists do the exact type of mental justification that you did within your mind after making those observations. One professes the ills of atheism while the other professes the ills of theism. A generalized inference of either of those ills that separates any unifying role leads us to why we are debating this right now. All I am saying it that your metaphor can be used to describe ANYTHING that can be seen as potentially addictive. Because of this, it isn't at all effective in making a point against any one particular thing. Medical drugs can be used in your example. On their own they are just a chemical substance. But depending on the user they can become either beneficial or detrimental. The exact same thing is true with authority/power. Depending on the hands it"s in, it too can become either beneficial or detrimental. This is not me disregarding your personal conviction as unconvincing. This is me saying your approach in trying to expressing your personal conviction is unconvincing. ______ > I have reviewed your points for how human nature ... Yes. You are wrong. I mentioned separation of church and state for a reason (plz refer to the 1st part of the post about society) but when I say you are wrong I specifically mean your last point. > You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith" No. I said nothing at all about false diseases and fake cures. What's more, FEAR induces the process of non-thinking. Not faith. Fear. It is the universal monolith and all withstanding instinctive law that governs non-thinking. If non-thinking had its own God that it fervently worshiped day and night, that God would be named Fear. One can have faith that God(s) exist One can have faith that their partner loves them enough to not cheat on them One can have faith that their parents will be back to bring them food On their own these are all indifferent emotions and perceptions which are hardly of arguable consequence. But what is it that causes someone to mutilate themselves and others as an offering? What is it that causes someone to constantly monitor their significant other for signs of mistrust? What is it that causes a child to murder an adult just so they can steal some bread? This is fear. The same fear that halts one in their steps, unable to move and unable to think whenever confronted by serious threat. Fear that the God(s) one placed so much value and hope in won't be able to return them any tangible favors. Fear that one's partner has a dismissive love that can turn against them at the single pass of a better prospect. Fear that one just might starve after their parents promised them they wouldn't. Fear is what creates what you see and yet you adamantly believe, Even to the point of argument, Even to the point of debate. That the state of belief is the problem at hand. That the state of belief is something of a true enemy. Are you afraid of someone believing in God(s)? Or are you afraid of how that person can possibly behave in reaction to their belief? Your answer to this determines why you think the way you do. I applaud any stance of atheism that does not seek out to make an enemy of theism. Likewise, I applaud any stance of theism that does not seek out to make an enemy of atheism. To initiate any form of ethical confrontation between the two falls below my sense of respect. ______ > Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because " Remember when I posted this? [ - And to attempt to distinguish a particular instance from all other religious instances shows bias.] If you wish to call out a specific denomination then challenge the denomination itself. Challenge what you see to be documented as potentially unjust. But first know what you are actually challenging. To feel potential error in the ways of a denomination and to jump to the reasoning that all the state of belief is at fault is a textbook description of inexperience. The full hardy nature of the eager intellectual. If I see that a business is stealing from its employees do I reason that all forms of business are inherently bad? Or do I challenge that particular business with respect to what it has done? If the latter then why would religion be any different? Remember again what I said in Round 2: [Other men have the potential to not produce a chain reaction of fear after examining their own source at their beginnings. Because there are many differing sources which mean many Differing things to many different men. ] Know who you are actually combating. ______ > Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected ... EVERYTHING you just said here is the aftermath of abuse of a system. I do not condone this at all. I know what you mean. I feel what you mean. I have even fought for trying to get others to understand what you mean. I have heard this same exact plea more times than I can conceivably count. We both know that this is not right. What I know and what you show struggle in realizing, is the CORE of WHY this isn't right. Not the observable aftermath effects of why. The core of why. 'The absolute core of why' has no particular relation to religion, or power, or greed, or violence, or anything. The absolute core of why has everything to do with how humans abuse their fears and desires. This is what radiates to create the situation you find so uncomfortable. That is your actual enemy. The antidote to fear is understanding, not just education. Because education has the potential to be misused also. Understanding takes a reaching between two sides and it knows and feels the heart of another person. That is the bottom line. > This is issue of human nature and religion both equally" - and I do wish you to prove me wrong. Fear takes advantage of our flaws. Not blaming humans themselves allows for humans themselves to continue and abuse whatever other means that comes along. Discrediting religion is not going to appease whatever ails you. And only you can prove you wrong. All I'm capable of is showing how I feel things are and hoping that what I say at least causes you to think about the negative potential your argument carries. You may have the most upstanding, and glowingly beneficial goal that ever existed. But if your argument for the means to which you want to reach that goal are in error, then I will debate you each and every time.

This is a continued debate which started here. . http://www.debate.org...Although this is a contentious debate, The Debate has moved into a matter between the debaters. Voter's should take into consideration each continuation separately. Please vote and comment on any considerations you have. An Opinion section has been started on this issue and is linked back to the first debate. . http://www.debate.org... As this is a follow on debate, any information from the previous round may be included in this Debate, but should not be used by voters to determine the outcome of this debate. Some predetermined points of this debate can be found in the Comment section of this debate.

You are correct, I am saying human nature and society are two different things but society does branch of human nature just as religion does. And the two have always been connected in many civilizations around the world. Even in America, it is obvious. What I am saying which I am sure my opponent misunderstands -whether the blame be on me or him is irrelevant- is that yes, human nature, society and religion are offspring's of it, but that does not exclude religious faith being a part of society at all, it very much is. Whether it be a corrupt society or not, religion still is in the societies, misuse, corruption, evil, does not exclude the idea. But I shall go over the arguments of my opponent nonetheless. ---- Yes, opinions and claims are all about debates, to prove my opinion wrong. Your entire next argument here is partially true, I give it that, human nature loves authority whether being in it or ordering it is up to the person. But again, this does not prove how religion is not a part of society. Religion has made laws and bills pass. Such as Arizona's recent bill that allows people to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs. Showing religious authority is a popular thing among the people of the society. Separation of church and state is sadly irrelevant, because it isn't respected. Or enforced. I was using false diseases and fake cures as a metaphor. Fear may induce it, but faith uses that fear as an arrowhead. And like I said, this again does not prove a separation between society and religion. And just to quickly point something out off topic, if religion appeals to our fears and not our rationality, then why respect it? I make no enemy of theism, I simply see it as something society to go without. Am I an enemy of my friend Nate because I think he could do well without cigarettes? No. Your last 3 paragraphs warm my heart and I thank you, but do bear in mind, don't drift off the subject. And I agree with you fully on human nature. Thank you.