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

Debate: Churches should maintain their tax-exempt status

Thank you, Hayd. I was taken aback by Hayd's utilitarian framework, bypassing higher principles like the separation of church and state. If I can demonstrate that religion is beneficial and the resolution would harm it, I win. Due to his framework, if religion is good, we should promote policies that support it.

I. Religion as a social good

According to a Pew survey, Americans attending religious services weekly are more likely to maintain strong family ties, report happiness, and volunteer in their community (1). There's no metric where the nonreligious outperform religious individuals. Religious people are 9% more likely to donate to charity (2). Religiosity correlates with positive health outcomes, as a Duke Medical Center study found lower blood pressures among the religious (3). A Harvard study of 75,000 women over 20 years found religious women live longer (4). Remarkably, the most religious women were 33% less likely to die than the nonreligious, even after controlling for smoking and depression. This proves religion's powerful impact.

The sense of community in religious settings benefits humans. Interestingly, while church attendance correlates with lower blood pressure, viewing religious media does not (3). For many, especially the elderly, church is their only social outlet. This is the institution Hayd wants to tax. Churches are often used as community centers for secular organizations. Under Hayd's plan, many local churches would close.

I contend that the government should let organic social goods flourish. Hayd should concede that the government shouldn't harm religion since religious people are happier, healthier, and less likely to die. At this point, he can only win if he proves that taxing religious institutions will somehow strengthen them.

II. Economic effects

Hayd claims taxing churches would bring in $71 billion a year, citing a Council of Secular Humanism article. However, an analysis by DJ Clayworth dismantles this claim (6). The article estimates churches take in $100 billion annually, then claims taxing them like "everyone else" would bring in $71 billion. Nobody else pays 70% of their gross revenue in taxes. Clayworth notes the biased authors know nothing about taxation law and get their estimate through tricks like denying churches the ability to deduct expenses from their taxable income, overestimating the value of church property, and counting government subsidies to religiously affiliated homeless shelters or hospitals as grants that provide no value to

O1: Negate means to deny the truth of something[1]. This means that my entire job in this debate is to deny the truth of pro. This means that the BoP is on Pro. If I can refute his argument that should be sufficient to win as that's my job by definition of negating the resolution. O2: Because the resolution doesn't specify what kind of involvement we're looking at here, that means that any kind of involvement is within the scope of the resolution. This means that I can advocate for any kind of involvement that I'd like to. Pro's argument functions syllogistically meaning that everything is a natural flow of logic that relies on the previous premise being true to support the following premise. This means that he needs to be able to defend every link in the chain in order for his argument to stand. And this is his sole argument presented, meaning that if I refute this argument then I win the debate. So let's look at it. Response to 2.1:First, this is blatantly not true. Not everything that a church does has to be motivated by religion. To say that this is true is to say that a church who supports a mission to rebuild storms after a home suddenly isn't a church anymore, but rather some other kind of organization. Second, this argument misunderstands what it means to be a church, i.e. to be a group of followers of a religion/faith (this is definitionally true[2]). This means that action is irrelevant to being a church or not, rather it's belief that's the determining factor. Third, even if you're not buying either of my arguments saying that churches can still be churches without acting with religious motivations, he provides zero warrant for why this part of his argument is actually true. His only attempt to warrant this is that people don't call charities and stuff like that churches, but that only begs the question of why that's relevant or why that's a necessary distinction to make. He's not putting anywhere close to enough work into this part of his argument to warrant that, and you should hold that against him.Response to 2.2:First, the jump in logic required to substantiate 2.21 makes no sense. There's no warrant for why God can't be comprehended in his entirety if he's infinite. Second, even if God exists outside of the realm of reality, that doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of reason. Clearly we've had plenty of theologists and philosophers contemplate the issue of god's existence and come up with plethoras in favor and against. None of it would actually be possible if God was outside of our ability to reason. Response to 2.3:First, this is entirely unsubstantiated. There's literally nothing but his own assertion warranting this part of his case. Until he provides some kind of warrant for why faith requires the absense of reason, there's no reason to believe this part of his argument. Second, this isn't true at all. Reason and faith can go hand-in-hand all the time. Think about sitting down in a chair. If I'm trying to decide if the chair will be able to support my weight, it's kind of hard to determine outside of actually sitting down on it to see. I can check to see if it's broken anywhere or weak structurally, but at the end of the day none of that will definitively tell me if it will support my weight, meaning that to sit down it requires faith that it won't break on me and spill me out on my a**. But I can be reasonably sure that if there's no flaws in the chair then it will probably be able to hold my weight, meaning that I substantiated my faith in the chair holding my weight with reason as for why this is probably true. Think of the reason why we elect people to be the president. We can reason out why one person would be better for the country than another person and while, and how the country would be better if this person was elected. But none of us can actually know that these things we reason out to be possible will actually come to pass if we elect this person. It, therefore, requires faith to elect the person we reason out to believe to be the best person for presidency to actually be that best person, meaning that faith and reason go hand-in-hand in our decision making processes. This train-wrecks his argument in three different places. First, I'm showing that churches don't always have to act through a religious lense, meaning that even if the rest of his case is true that it can prescribe to reasonable principles for the sake of participation in politics.Second, I'm showing that religions aren't inherently based around solely faith, that we can use reason to come to religious conclusions and that people have been using reason to discuss religion for forever now, meaning that churches can use reason when participating in politics and be consistent with pro's argument. Third, I'm showing that faith and reason are both principles we use in conjunction together, meaning that churches are capable of being consistent with pro's argument, thus leaving us with no reason we should deny them rights to participate. This means that each of these reasons are independently sufficient reasons for negating the resolution. If I'm winning on even one of those arguments, then that's sufficient to refute the aff case, and thus win the debate. But even if you don't like all of those reasons, time for the neg case.The negative plan text is this: All members of a religious church will have the right to vote in elections for political office. I reserve the right to clarify. There's a number of reasons for this. First: Denying the right to vote denies people to be able to make their own choices on who they would like to lead them politically. This is a harm to people's right to autonomy and ability to make their own choices. There's two reasons why we ought to value autonomy[3]: "Firstly ... autonomous choices deserve special respect because persons, as capable of self-determination, are entitled, all else being equal, to be self-determining without interference ... autonomy functions primarily as a side-constraint which forbids paternalistically-motivated interference in the self-regarding, minimally voluntary choices of others, ... Secondly ... autonomous choices deserve special respect because ... such respect conduces to desirable ... consequences ... autonomous choices are not to be respected merely because they are autonomous ... but rather because doing so will lead to the most beneficial prudential results ..." Second: Denying the right to vote for religious members is the death of the Republican party. The vast majority of religious groups (protestant, evangelitical, etc.) voted overwhelmingly in the Republican's favor[4]. These groups that vote Republican are the vast majority of the population, meaning that it's the largest demographic of the population[5]. Denying their right to vote cripples republican candidates and turns the country into a de facto single party system, where Democratic nominees are the only ones who can get elected to offices. With a single party system of only Democrats, there's no one to contest their ideas, no counterpoint to creat discussion. It's the seeds of totalitarianism, a free reign to do as they wish with no accountability. There's a number of reasons we should fight against totalitarianism:First, totalitarian regimes are bloody and brutal. Hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of of 20th century Russia, Germany and China's totalitarian regimes. Second, totalitarian regimes are a denial of all rights, a desecration of human worth and intrinsic value. And, third party people running isn't enough to avert the disaster. They're never successful at winning any election, virtually ever[6]. This means that if the Republican party dies, we're at critical mass for totalitarianism.Sources:[1] - http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] - http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] - http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] - http://www.pewforum.org...[5] - http://www.pewforum.org...[6] - http://www.washingtontimes.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.

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

My adversary might be slightly confused and may be trying to piece together what is left of his arguments. Con yet to reply to my first initial 4 contentions of how religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity. I’ve taken his 4 points apart and backed each of mine with sources,statistics and research his point’s actually further proved the motion that religion is not overall beneficial. Contentions that Con dropped and never mentioned. 1. Religiously restricted Equal rights. 3. religion undercuts our science and education 4. Religiously motivated Oppression. I’ve shown thoroughly , and extensively how religion has caused,inspired and supported such things and thus Nearly all of Cons arguments are in my favor. "The Mind's War" and “Genetic Codes” Con’s point again goes in my favor I’ve easily shown how religion increases stress in so many ways again a point in my favor. I already addressed in the round above. Studies show that they also have a higher quality of life compared to religious ones this negates Con’s second point as well as his first. They also have much lower crime therefore even lower stress. Religiously inspired and motivated violence. Cons only rebuttal to this was that we can’t quantify the wars that religion prevented I have addressed this issue and have stated that we can. Cons entire argument is without evidence’ve stated that religion has caused many wars and he states the Halocaust and Hitler as a secular movement I’ve provided evidence against this false premise again a point in my favor clearly showing how religion not only did not prevent this war but on the contrary fueled it and inspired it. Con suggests that religious conflict is useful to society and humanity an absurd point which actually further goes in my favor as I have demonstrated. I sufficiently demonstrated that this is a point in my favor even con says. “. .. he wins society. At best my opponent wins . .. " A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2] Thus I have backed that religion is the motive for a lot of aggression and violence and therefore is not overall beneficial to humanity and society. Therefore without religion we would have less societies that are predisposed to violence and aggression. I will reiterate that it is because of religion that we have a greater amount of societies that are predisposed to aggression and violence. “The World. .. Sans Religion:” Surely voters will notice that this point has more than been addressed again is my favor, as I have sourced and shown that we can observe the impact on society without religion. “Wars, wars, wars. .. ” Con again resorts to vauge empty statements backed by nothing. “unquantifiable of wars that have been avoided” Clearly I’ve shown that if anything at all religion created many wars thought history and the Haolocuast a point brought up my Con just furthermore proves mine. . Mine are backed up with evidence Cons evidence is no evidence a tall. Con resorts to taking quotes of mine out of context. “Logically if we want to quantify the non-effects of something we would look where it is overall the least such as less religious communities and nations. The crime rate of secular communities is far lower VS mostly religious ones. [2] In the us 0.209% of the prison population are atheists. ” And one more. secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations. Zuckerman also reports studies show that, during the Holocaust, the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews. Numerous studies, show that atheists, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian. “Cause and Effect:” Con again in blatant denial of logic. I’ve backed up each of my statements with statistics and evidence Numerous of my sources indicate that religion is the cause for,motivation for and inspiration for countless atrocities , crime and war. For example.1. The church assured listeners that God wanted them to exterminate Moslems that Christ commanded it and assured that God wanted them to participate in Holy War, masses pressed forward to take the crusaders' oath. They were guaranteed place in Heaven for themselves. Con claims that this was not a cause? clearly we see his disregard for logic.2. Was it not the sole intention of the terrorists on 911 to get in a spot in heaven by honoring their "god"Of course it was and countless more atrocities are caused by religion. Simple brief examples show that Con's assertions are empty and unfounded. Conclusion. I have thoroughly shown how “Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity. ” I’ve taken apart Cons contentions mine still stand we see that Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

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.

Religion was a way to explain life and things happening in and around it, before Science. However, now because of Science Religion is no longer needed. It fails in every aspect of giving answers on just about every thing. It makes smart people into beings that choose not to think for themselves and set all rational idea aside for a hand me down belief..

This is an argument proposing that if you believe the words I speak are true then I wish for your assistance. Just as the church or government needs resources, so do I. I didn't want to ask this because all I will hear is"so his true colors come out." Anyone is free to prove me wrong, but if you speak against it without doing so then I will eviscerate you for your ignorance. I say that it is a coward who accuses without substance. Do not be foolish enough to try me you hypocrites! I'll take whatever you WANT to give. I can no longer work with people in a job. I will always know what they do wrong, i will always know their thoughts and I will always be scorned for it. Most people are afraid of the truth, I'm asking those who are brave enough to help me. Please help me. These are all the debates I've had to prove my worthiness. Believe we can finally change the world now. Remember I'm autistic, so I will only speak in truth. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Matthew 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.[a] 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don"t follow their example. For they don"t practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. 5 "Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels.[b] 6 And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. 7 They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called "Rabbi."[c] 8 "Don"t let anyone call you "Rabbi," for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.[d] 9 And don"t address anyone here on earth as "Father," for only God in heaven is your Father. 10 And don"t let anyone call you "Teacher," for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be a servant. 12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. 13 "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people"s faces. You won"t go in yourselves, and you don"t let others enter either.[e] 15 "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell[f] you yourselves are!

Religion has been holding us back as a society and it interferes to much with the decisions we make in government and advances we make in science. Chrisitanity has also been seen as the basis of all american government. Our children have to stand up every morning and say we are one nation under God. There is no evidence for religion so there should be no reason to implament it in our decisions as a nation.

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...

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.


Question: Should Religious Institutions Continue to Be Exempt from Taxes?

Debate: Churches should be subject to taxation

Certainly, churches should pay their fair share of taxes. However, let's address the arguments raised by the opposing side and analyze their implications.

I. Religion as a social good

The opponent claims that religion is a social good and that taxing churches would harm their operations. They argue that forcing churches to hire tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties could negatively impact their activities. However, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of this argument. Churches, like any other organization, should contribute to the public good by paying taxes. The opponent's argument that the benefits of religion outweigh the need for taxation is subjective and lacks empirical evidence. Moreover, the claim that taxing churches would lead to a decrease in religious involvement is speculative and unsupported.

The opponent also argues that the tax burden on small churches would be too high, citing an average property tax burden of over $26,000. However, this figure is misleading. The tax burden would vary depending on the size and value of the church's property. It is also important to note that the tax revenue generated from churches could be used to fund public services and infrastructure, benefiting society as a whole.

II. Economic effects

The opponent argues that taxing churches would harm their operations and reduce charitable donations. However, this argument is flawed. Churches, like any other organization, should be subject to the same tax laws as other businesses. If churches are exempt from taxes, they receive an unfair advantage over other organizations. Moreover, the claim that taxing churches would lead to a decrease in charitable donations is speculative and unsupported. Churches could still receive tax deductions for charitable donations, and the tax revenue generated from churches could be used to fund public services and infrastructure, benefiting society as a whole.

III. Church and state separation

The opponent argues that taxing churches would violate the separation of church and state. However, this argument is misguided. The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of American democracy, ensuring that religious organizations do not receive preferential treatment over non-religious organizations. Taxing churches would not violate this principle. Moreover, the tax revenue generated from churches could be used to fund public services and infrastructure, benefiting society as a whole.

In conclusion, churches should be subject to taxation like any other organization. The arguments raised by the opposing side are speculative and unsupported. Taxing churches would not harm their operations or reduce charitable donations, and it would not violate the separation of church and state. The tax revenue generated from churches could be used to fund

I will not cease to say, that personality of my own calibre has been mocked, i have been cornered at a spot by my co-debater for some certain reasons..my co- debater has committed fallacies in cost of this argumet. Let me start by one of the fallacy my co-debater committed. 1.that i keep using nigeria as a point of reference, do not mean that i can't use other examples, i use nigeria as example because their government sponsor pilgrimage and besides, it is not even in their constitution to do that..talking about fraud, some of the government officials there i.e nigeria, uses this as means of looting public fund and this is never what we wanted.. I acknowledge the rebout of my co-debater but clearly look at his rebout, he has no argument..he kept on emphasizing on tradition..indeed i agree but what am saying is this, that government should not sponsor it.. Readers of this motion will bear me witness that i never said going for pilgrimage is a bad thing. What am saying is that government should not sponsor it.. Talking about the economic point of view, you asked a question, who will take the money is it not the government? But then in my second outing i asked you a question which you never answered..that is, at the detrement of who? Another government? You talked of the host city, i am glad you mentioned that, since nigeria as a nation has been going for pilgrimage, how many times has any country come to nigeria? Atleast so that their own economy will rise just as you rightly put it? Talk of isreal, how many times have they gone to other country for pilgrimage? Or you want their own economy to be rising at the detrement of others? Vanguard you said is a local newspaper and all information there is irrelevant, lol and behold, it is a newspaper that covers almost the whole African story but that's not the main point..all you outing, you keep saying that why should we end tradition? But then let me answer you this by asking you this question, what tradition? Is u.s.a government sponsoring pilgrimage? If yes tell me when, date and source! Readers, do you know that government sponsoring this pilgrimage is not even in the constitution? Even in u.s.a constitution or any constitution so why should government be doing it? More over, do we know that going for pilgrimage is not compulsory? So why must government sponsor millions of people to pilgrimage? Do we know how much nigerian government has spent? Over billions of naira don't misunderstand me why am using nigeria am doing that because they have spent alot and yet gain nothing..this money, they can use and solve the pressing needs which is retarding the pace of their development like the strike, corruption issue not to mention but few.. I equally beg to disagree that prophets are God ponder on this, we chritians don't go for pilgrimage to worship profects rather God.... Why go for pilgrimage if i may ask when you can pray in the mountain and be heard? Even in the church or your bedroom? Answer my question, what will you say about people who die there? Ponder on that.. Please, answer all my questions even that of economy...in conclusion, my stand still remains, since it is not in the constitution for any government to sponsor pilgrims, then it should not be sponsored..thank you all.

>>Marriage is not an institution of the state, it is an institution of the Church. That is not true. Are you saying that Atheists cannot marry because they are not religious? Marriage is not exclusively Christian. Other people of other religions can marry, and if marriage was an institution of the Church, you would be saying that all of those people are actually not married, even though the government recognizes that they are. >>The Church has religious freedom, and the State cannot force it to perform marriages for homosexuals for that very reason. Not all marriages are conducted by the Church. You do not have to have a Christian marriage to become married. >>Homosexuals simply cannot have religious marriages because homosexuality is against the values of the institution that will perform those marriages. Again, not all marriages have to be through the Church. >>Civil Unions were created to provide homosexuals with rights similar to those given to married, heterosexual couples. If the homosexuals find the rights given to them by civil unions are inadequate then change civil unions; don't change marriage. If civil unions are basically the same as marriages, which they are not, then why can't we let homosexuals marry? Civil unions do not always give homosexuals the same rights as a marriage does. You are making a 'separate but equal' argument, and history has told us that 'separate' is never 'equal.' Therefore, we should not separate between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. >>One could also argue that homosexual couples do not contribute as much as heterosexual couples due to the impossibility to create offspring essential to maintain the US population. With modern technology, it is in fact possible to create offspring. (Sperm donors, etc.) Also, our country is already vastly overpopulated as is, and I don't see how this is such a bad idea. If the couple does not want a child, whose choice is that? Not all hetrosexual couples have children, yet we let them marry. There are people in the USA without the ability to have children, yet they are allowed to marry. The only people in the USA who do not have the freedom to marry whom they want are homosexuals. You have not answered any of my arguments, so I have nothing left to say. Thank you

I will be using the term "corporation" to refer to organizations and institutions which may or may not meet the criteria of "government", as the term "corporation" literally means a "body of people". This can include any type of corporation - municipalities, nation-states, for-profit, non-profit, state-chartered, etc... (ie, all governments are corporations, but not all corporations are governments). This is to more easily compare institutions which do not meet the definitions above, and to clearly demonstrate the myth of legitimacy, and the problem with arbitrary exemptions. Also, If you have an example of a corporation which meets the criteria provided, please provide these examples in the early rounds, so that I may address them. At the very least, I would request that no examples be provided in the last round, as that would not leave me the opportunity to address anything I find to be incorrect.Please do not confuse "society" with "government". Before I begin, I would like to state that I accept the necessity of society, community, and of many of the services that these corporations labeled as "government" provide. If a corporation issues a "law", it is making a rule and promoting the obedience of that rule with "law enforcement" (both attributes are listed in the definition of government that we have accepted for this debate). Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:The use of violence an intimidation, without arbitrary exemptions, is the core principle behind criminal law. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression.If a corporation claims a "monopoly right over a geographic area", it is claiming that, on some level, it "owns" the land, and, if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals. We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave.The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:Claiming a monopoly right is inherently an exemption. It is the statement that the corporation can engage in X, but any other corporation who engages in X on their "turf" is subject to the same violence and intimidation described earlier. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression, racketeering, or uphold the property rights of individuals.If a corporation collects "taxes", we must assume that it is not voluntary. Any "voluntary" payment of services would simply be called a payment, and any "voluntary" contribution to society would simply be called "charity". Taxation is based exclusively on where you reside or do business, ie, if you reside or do business within the geographic area that the institution claim, this amounts to "tacit consent" (ie, not consensual) to pay for products and services. We can not accept this as "voluntary" because people choose to stay in that geographic region any more than we can accept the Mafia's collection of "protection money" as voluntary simply because a shopkeeper chooses not to move out of the neighborhood. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:To take, under threat of force, the product of somebody else's labor, against their consent is "theft". To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting theft.The myth of legitimacy and the paradox of exemption:The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law. The myth of "legitimacy" is itself an example of "arbitrary exemptions". In essence, it is a matter of faith. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to use violence against you or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to take the product of your labor against your will or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has a legitimate claim to a geographical area or you do not, but the claim itself does not make it true, and the fact that this belief is held by so many also does not make it true (democracy itself is an appeal to the ad populum fallacy).In fact, faith is REQUIRED to accept such corporations as legitimate, because, as I have demonstrated, the attributes of these corporations are inherently inconsistent (ie, self-contradictory), and a concept must, at the very least, be internally consistent for it to qualify as 'legitimate'.

If you don't care then why are you having this debate ? And you never provided any evidence that marriage is religious. All you did was copy and paste the entire Constitution.

Huckabee just took Iowa, and I am severely disappointed. It looks like Republicans will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels. The constitution says that the government "shall not establish religion" for a good reason. Christians maintain that this should only be interpreted to mean that, as long as Christianity does not become the absolutely official religion, they can pass as many laws as they want that are completely and utterly dependant on a Christian ideology. I disagree. I will argue, in this debate, that by passing laws based on Christian ideals alone, they are in fact establishing Christianity as our official religion. Let me clarify a few points, because I know some of your mouths are watering to put me in my place without an adequate disclaimer. 1) If a policy is set, that agrees with Christian ideology, that does not mean it is unconstitutional. I am only concerned with laws that agree with Christian ideologies AND are generally immoral or unjust AND are not generally shared by non-Christians. 2) Christians are not inherently immoral. Individual practicing Christians are a very beautiful part of our culture, In my opinion, and I would like to see them continue to be a workable part of our community. My argument is with Christians who enter politics and gain power, and use that power to force non-Christians into a Christian life-stlye.

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.

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.

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

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.

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