On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

Thank you - this has been an enjoyable debate. Disclaimer: In round 3 I claimed that Con dropped all of my advantages, 1-7. This was misleading since Con still had opportunity to respond to them in round 3 and 4, my apologies. I will defend my advantages, and refute the sparse defense Con made for his own disadvantages. Counter-Claims Rebuttal “Religiously Affiliated” Includes Tons of Organizations Like the United Way & Charity Advantage Outweighs Con’s Case 1. First, Con ignores all of the sources I cited in round 2. The study he cites in rd-3 doesn’t refer to my sources. My rd-2 (ii) NBC news collected data from the site http://www.justgiving.com..., which focuses on charities directly targeted at serving the under priveledged- NOT church/temple/mosque upkeep as Con supposes. Furthermore, I cited an article from rd-2 (v) Philanthropy.com that demonstrated not only do religious people tend to give more and more often to charity, but: “The three most popular charitable causes for all households regardless of religious affiliation were, in descending order: basic social services, “combined purpose” organizations (like United Way), and health care.” According to Philanthrophy.com and the studies they cite, most give to charities that directly serve those in need, not church upkeep like Con supposes. Secondly, Con claims (from a mis-reading of his (RD) Religion Dispatches evidence) “73% of all religious donations feed their own congregations.” This is patently false, and Con has no support for it. His RD evidence states the study cited defined “religious giving” as all “religiously-affiliated organizations like Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army.” Many organizations from the United Way to the Salvation Army to Feed the Children to Habitat For Humanity to every children’s hospital with the phrase “Sacred Heart” in the name happens to be religiously affiliated. But the number one priority for all of these institutions is to serve those in need, NOT maintain a congregation’s religious space like CON asserts in a mis-reading of his own evidence. Con believed that 73% of donations went to a paritioner’s “congregation.” I’ve proven this false with my Philanthropy, Just-Giving, and Con’s RD evidence. Con’s point has been well refuted, so you should extend all of Pro’s points. Extend my CHARITY and link it to my INSTITUTION advantage for religion. For example, as stated in rd-2, the Catholic Church provides 26% of healthcare services in the world! As a non-for-profit, the Catholic Church does NOT charge anything for those that cannot afford to pay AND does not discriminate based on creed, color, gender, sex, or sexual orientation. This is enough to VOTE PRO right now. Even if you believe some of Con’s disadvantages (cross-apply this argument to the whole case), this advantage outweighs all of them because the Catholic Church alone provides 26% of the health care for the planet. 26% of the world’s sick would be destitute in a world without the Catholic church. I’ve demonstrated that religious folks give more to charity than non-religious folks, and have a religious motivation to do so. I’ve provided a religion charity LINK in rd-2 that CON did not challenge. Therefore, a secular organization simply hasn’t, can’t, and won’t replace the charitable scope of religiously affiliated charities like Habitat for Humanity and Catholic hospitals. 2. Religious Folks Tend to Be Happier & Healthier The study Con cites in rd-3 actually supports my claim, reading: “Religious affiliation appears to boost happiness and well-being in societies that fail to provide adequate food, jobs, healthcare, security and educational opportunities, the researchers found. Religious people in religious societies are more likely to report that they feel respected, receive more social support and experience more positive and less negative feelings than their peers who are not religious.” I provided the link to this advantage in rd-2, link my rd-2 definitional supplement to advantage as well. Religion goes hand-in-hand with a community the same way Vitamin-C goes hand in hand with drinking orange-juice. Religious people form organizations with sacred guiding principles, and these sacred guiding principles best support a community building because everyone is expected to love and help one another. (This usually isn’t the case in a bowling or science club). 3. Religion Provides a Sense of Community See my argument in the paragraph above. Faith-based communities are the MOST INCLUSIVE and make religious folks happier because sacred guiding principles trump social norms that would typically exclude classes of people like the elderly and handicapped from a social-gathering you would host at your house. Sacred guiding principles demand people in faith-based communities love and support each other in ways not demanded in a bowling club. All people regardless of sexual orientation are welcome in Buddhist temples, Unitarian, Jewish synagogues, and most mainline Christian churches in the US. Where they’re discriminated against it’s tragic and can be better attributed to a heteronormative bias, which thrives most in poverty, that pre-dates the major world religions. 4. Faith-Based Institutions The “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" are NOT binding, most hospitals don’t follow them, and Con misunderstands them anyway. Con demonstrates this with the article describing how a Catholic church ALLOWED an abortion at their hospital. Catholic based hospitals are non-for-profit and never turn anyone away due to an inability to pay for the needed procedures. Many secular hospitals discriminate against the poor, by turning away patients that cannot afford treatment. There’s no link between poverty and religiosity. 1st, even if it was, I already established that religious people give more to charity than the secular. 2nd, the data is problematic. The vast majority of humans have been religious for the vast majority of human history. Atheism has only emerged as a minority in Western countries that teach enlightenment based science. This education requires the country to be wealthy. (Most religious folks in the Western world believe in science fyi.) The data about religion and wealth is not-unique. 3rd, none of Con’s data links to my Institution advantage. Regardless of private wealth in varying states, faith-based institutions operate just as prevalently in wealthy states like New York and Massachusetts as they do in states with the greatest needs. Furthermore, we can tell the alleged link is not consistent since citizens in US and Western Europe tend to be wealthier and more religious than citizens in China and Russia. 5. Social Transformation Buddhism gave equality to the lowest caste of Hindus by treating all people equally. Christianity and Islam transformed pagan cultures of hedonism into cultures of philanthropy and self-discipline. Wars waged by kings/tribe-leader were waged to advance the territory of kings/tribe-leaders. Con cannot demonstrate any link between the commoners’ religion and actions of the state. 6. Metaphysics & Ethics Refer to Hume and the is / ought error I demonstrated in my rd-2 hypothetical. You can always describe what “is” but that shouldn’t be conflated with what ‘ought’ to be. I can describe a war in Syria, from reports on the news, but only an ethical judgment based on faith in human-rights or love will inform what OUGHT to be done. All of the studies Con cites only can explain natural empathy felt toward those near them, especially those in our own family. None of those studies can explain why we should care about human beings on the other side of the world. Poetry & Religion CON: “But you can blame the poet, musician, and artist who created them, as all are created with an agenda in mind.” Extend Con’s argument to refute Con’s entire case. Don’t blame religion. Blame the bad pastor or warmonger that flew a religious banner in bad-faith. Meanwhile acknowledge religion writ-large does more good than harm by enriching people’s worlds and encouraging collective altruism in varying ways. I’ve refuted all of Con’s attacks on my advantages. Ergo all of my advantages stands. Extend all of my advantages! Even if you believe some of Con’s disadvantages they are outweighed by my advantages, 1-6. Con’s Claims: NO LINKS BETWEEN RELIGION and Con’s Disadvantages Many of Con’s claims overlap or are repetitive. They can be distilled into the following points. (1) “Religious” Wars Con cannot demonstrate a link, despite numerous opportunities. States will always wage war to advance the interests of the state. It’s absurd to blame the religion of the commoners’ for the actions of the kings. (2) Religion and Rights Con cannot cite any link between the actions and the religion in question. Much of the horror typically attributed to religion can be better attributed to factors that predate religion like tribal traditions and mental illness. Islam actually bettered the lives of people when it first began by giving women the right to own property, the right to abortion in some cases, and the right to move about freely. Ironically, only recently have LGBT peoples been fully accepted in parts of the US and Western Europe in Christian majority countries. (3) Religion & Institutions Con doesn’t understand how religious institutions (like hospitals and schools) operate. They follow the same laws as secular institutions and do not force their religious beliefs onto the people they benefit. All religious schools are non-for-profit and most (not all) provide free schooling to people, especially to those in the developing world. Most of Con’s advantages have no link, and the few that do refer to fringe groups that are clearly outweighed by Pro’s huge charity/institution advantage, ie Catholic hospitals provide 26% of the health care on Earth. Cheers!