Cyberwheez,
you are obviously passionate about your religion (and I very much admire passion), which blinds you to certain things. I have been on both sides of the fence and even when I was religious, I was against the role religion had in our society. That being said:
1) Schools are an institution of learning, LEARNING FACTS...we don't teach our kids that unicorns exist and you probably would be pretty pissed if they were. Are you seriously telling me that we should teach kids how to believe! It's funny because everytime I have a conversation with a religious person they tell me "Belief has to come from inside you, I can't make you believe"...HA! but you sure can try hard enough to. I don't even get why, it is so important to someone who is religious, that his neighbor believes in god also! Sometimes it seems like that is more important than the "morals and values" that religion preaches. Schools are filled with many different types of people who come from many different types of religion. What the population of this country is now, is nothing what the population was during the time of the original 13 colonies. You CANNOT have any kind of bias towards one type of religion over any other (or the lack of one). This is why we have private religious schools. Who cares? you say...the need for an understanding fair society cares. Now...if you want to offer religious historic studies in a public school...then I say fine (so long as all religions as well as the lack of one is accounted for). But, if you want to use public schools as a way to brainwash children to believing in a certain specific religion, I say no way! BUT, I do feel that the only way to be fair to ALL, is to have religion out of our schools and out of our government. Kids can go to CCD or other organization after class...or a private institution that preaches you specific religion. And yes, I would EQUALLY be pissed if teachers were telling children in public schools there is no god. That would be equally hypocritical and those teachers should (and have been) be fired. But, taking religion out of public schools IS NOT being bias...let be clear about that. Now, maybe you are for creating second class citizens (and if you don't think that religion doesn't do this to those that don't subscribe to the primary religion in this country when implemented on a governmental scale, I don't know what else to say to you)...that is your prerogative and thankfully will never prevail in this country. We are seeing more and more Supreme Court cases that are pushing out these antiquated religious beliefs that has had a stranglehold over public institutions which hold a diverse population base. Now, I understand and respect where your passion comes from. I do not...I repeat DO NOT wish for those whose lives are made happier because they have religion, to not have the right to pursue that. I am simply saying, that the only way to remain fair in the public arena is for it to be separated.
2) I am so sick of hearing about our founding forefather and what they believed in. It is SO irrelevant to anything. Most of our forefathers would be disgusted with the role religion plays in our government. They were pressing for freedom of religion, and yes many of them were religious at the time. But, this has no bearing on what they were looking for when they developed this country. They wanted a system that allowed room for change and a system where no one person had power. They wanted a system where all men were created equal regardless of sex, race, religious choice, etc. We are the same. YOU CANNOT HAVE A SOCIETY THAT DOES THAT WHEN ONE RELIGION IS FAVORED. Having a lack of religion is NOT being biased against those with religion. I'M sorry, IT IS NOT the same! Religion is a private institution. Our forefathers did not have to deal with other religions like Muslim, Hindu, Atheists etc. During that period, like today, deciding what a politicians belief is, is impossible to know because they pander to the people so they can be voted into office. Thomas Jefferson was a known atheist, but in order to function in the political spotlight, he had to use terminology that would be found acceptable to the primarily Protestant population. This is the truth about our leaders. Now, you will argue that and say "look, it says god here". And I can't argue that god is mentioned in the constitution. But if that is your main argument, it is very shaky. And certainly not progressive thinking.
3) Finally, I fail to see how my argument was not a well reasoned debate, unless you believe that anyone who has a different belief than you is an "unreasonable" debater. So please explain that statement?
PVT, sorryman, but not only did you imply that Christianity was the root of morality but you said that EXACTLY...read here:
Our societies morals and values, whether people like it or not, have been defined largely by a single religion, Christianity. By saying that what religion says in terms of morality is irrelevant and irrational you ignore this fact and thus I would challenge you to provide a source of modern morality that is completely separate from religion.
If you don't mean what you say, you should re-read what you write.
Again, I am disagreeing with you that morals and values are stemmed from modern religion....they are not. Not at all. Morals and values stem from a need for humans to work together. We are social creatures and in order to create civilized society, rules (morals and values) needed to be established. Religion did not bring these ideas to mankind, they were built in by a need to survive. And these rules we shaped and re-shaped over time. Now, they were modified by religion over time, and in that sense, yes...religon has modified some of what are morals and values are. Murder for example, the idea of murder being immoral goes all the way back to the Sumarians, (the first known civilized society), by the way...they worshiped a sun god and did not have organized religion. No offense, but religion tries very hard to make themselves legitimate, and much of that comes from people making assumptions about what religion is responsible for (i.e. "the thought that without religion there will be no morals").
And yes, I will say it again, religion must be irrelavant because it doesnt represent everyone AND it offers no proof that it is real. We can not run a society based on a superstition. (when I call it a superstition, I call it that because it can neither be proven OR disproven. You just CANNOT run a FAIR society on that basis. You CANNOT!!!) If you believe, keep your believe in your heart...if there is a god, let HIM sort it out in the end.
Greece offered us (and the world) a very basic idea of what democracy is. If you think about, democracy is STILL imperfect even now. If you think that America is a bastion of democracy, I answer that by saying....now way. Ask any African American or American Indian about that. I can also point you to the last 2 presidential election and our WHOLE election process. This is not to say that I don't love this country and what is possible with our system. The real underlying idea is there and is strong. I personally think that we are screwed up because of capitalism...and I can argue many points about that. But, the system that we have allows room for change....and THAT makes it great.
I have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that some of our moral and values have been mimicked from religion, they come from ideas way before mono-theism. Back in Greek times where the Idea of democracy was originally formed.
Furthermore, morals and values, even within our society range from the community you are in. The values that are important for a church community in Kansas who believe in creationism are very different from the morals and values of a gay community in San Francisco or even a primarily Hindu town like Edison, NJ.
Fortunately, our society is structured around laws that are fair for ALL, not just one group. THIS is what our society is based on....having a clause in the constitution for FREEDOM of religion is a far cry from a nation being based on Christianity.
Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist nation. THIS is an example of a government being run by religious morals and values solely. For example, if you cheat on your husband in Iran, you are stoned. That doesn't happen here. And if you say because in christianity, people aren't stoned for that...haha...I implore you to read the old testament...people were stoned for MUCH less than that. Don't forget, Islam is based from the same Abrahamic god that Christianity is...as well Judiasm.
Absolutely,
But many of people who find it sinful are people of High power...preists, rabbi, shaman, even the pope, etc. Who read parts of the bible, koran, etc. and interprets it to suit their own needs (i.e. run a congregation, get followers, group people, etc.)
I personally believe religion to be nothing more than a superstition. Religion can not be proven nor disproven with the information we have at our disposal. So therefore, laws and social standards cannot be based on what is "sinful".
Furthermore, you should realize that the original title of this debate was "IS homosexuality a sin"
my initial comments were (if you read above) that there is no doubt that in most religious groups homosexuality is considered a sin...so the debate title should be changed...and the moderator
changed it to "SHOULD homosexuality a sin".
whoa....
I am totally not questioning your belief in God....I am simply saying that sin is related to religion. You said:
Sin is not determined by organized religion, but by one's personal beliefs. It is not a sin to eat shellfish, and it is not a sin to be homosexual.
I showed you by definition...sin and religion ARE linked.
I personally see nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don't believe in sin either. It doesn't apply to me, because I don't believe in god at all and sin is linked to religion. However, I do respect and understand the need for those who belive in religion. And I accept that.
The question of this debate is "IS homosexuality a sin" ....the answer is..."Yes" because the Church has decreed it so.
Finally, you are on a debate site EVERYBODY is pushing their beliefs!
sin IS determined by organized religion. This is the official definition of sin:
sin
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
note the first meaning DIVINE law
While I agree with eveything you say, You may want to rephrase your debate title to "Should homosexuality be a sin" or "is homosexuality wrong"; by asking "IS it a sin" the answer couldn't be anything but "Yes" (of course this also depends on what religion you are talking about) but "sin" is a figment of religion, not a figment of rational thought. And most religions have declared homosexual behavior as "sinful".
Interestin point Loud...
According to religion...it is a sin...so my answer is YES.
But, religion and sin, are irrelavent concepts until you can prove religion to be true beyond any doubt, which is impossible by its own definition. Religion is faith. Thus meaning any argument religion has in regards to what is right and wrong in our society is not relevant and irrational.
However, to add yet another circular argument...
In reality, you can argue that because of their numbers amongst popular belief, that religion FORCES relevance. But, if we are talking rationally and philosophically...religion is a virus on a productive and foward moving society.
First of all, humour is subjective...so deciding the ability of what gender is more capable of humour would first mean having to put limits on what humour is.
Furthermore, saying that humour is the only way to attract a mate and that only men can profit from its use would be false. It is a tool of attraction on both sides, but not the only one. Not to mention, humour also serves a function in developing our brains.
Finally, it would seem to me, that if you looked at the evolution of humans, that women would be more apt for humour because when we were a hunter gatherer society, men would separate from the tribe and needed to be quiet during the hunt, while women would stay at the camp in groups chatting in order to ward off potential predators. More talking, more likelihood of humour.
(haha...I just realized that my response makes me seem like I have absolutely NO sense of humour and I was defending those without it...damn internet!)
how do you know you weren't simply programmed to believe that HAL is real? Furthermore, how do you know you werent programmed to believe humans are inferior? Were it to be true, your whole existance would be insubstantial, thus making you worthless.
I dont like that when you go to the debate page, the sides are organized by points, then you don't know what order they were enter and someone may be responding (without directly opposing or favoring but instead by adding a new argument) to something someone or referring to something someone said earlier, but you can't tell who they are referring to. It sould be in order of when it was entered.
That is a ridiculous statement...considering that everyone who pays taxes, pays for public property. So...sorry, I pay taxes, I am an atheist and to be fair...KEEP YOUR RELIGION IN YOUR HOME!!! I dont want my kids to have to say..."In GOD we trust" , thats not how I teach them to think.....and I dont want my public school, WHICH I PARTIALLY PAY FOR....to be biased. Thats it. I have no problem with people praying or believing in a god. i don't go around telling people to be atheist. It always these religious nuts who HAVE TO SPREAD the word of their God! Save it for someone who cares...someone who wants to go to your PRIVATE INSTITUTION that is the church. There, you can ban homosexuals, ban pro-choiceer, ban the infidels, whatever you need. And pray to your god. But in public....can we be fair, can we be understanding of other beliefs and cultures and respect that! Religious people are so afraid that if they arent in everyone's face 24/7 then their precious religion will disappear (I can only hope for that). Lets be fair...huh!
By the way, Our founding fathers had slaves....so they have done MUCH worse than holding a religious opinion to be sued for.
yes cyberweez...science should have a role in politics...because science is proven....religion is a myth or in the very least an unproven theory. Thus...cannot dictate how we create laws. Furthermore, Are you going to seriously argue that scientific evidence should be ignored in our society? That's a scary thought. Have you heard of that story about the parents who decided to "pray" for their daughter who had diabetes instead of getting her medical attention? she's dead now and they will thankfully be going to jail. (see link below) And, if you are one of those people who believe that because God is written in the Constitution in a couple of places that its intent was to secure a Christian Nation, then you both havent read the Constitution NOR know anything about our founding fathers.
Because...more than HALF of the girls taken in between 14-17 (there was over 100) were pregnant! Look...I want to be clear, I am not against polgamy, BUT...only if the woman (and men) being involved are at least old enough to make the choice and not be forced into polgamy. This is a seriously harmful situation that needed authorities to step in.
