Religion's Immunity

I believe you are taking my thoughts and words out of context. Also, this is kind of off topic, but I believe I will lose this argument regardless of my points because I have somehow made enemies with the Conservatives I am defending in this debate! Haha! Anyhoo, I do not agree with the way the Danish cartoon situation was handled. I'll admit that I never heard of this occurence before you brought it up in this debate. But my stance on this topic goes beyond that one instance and attempts to defend the idea of why religion is given certain immunity. Perhaps you are not familiar with my style of debate (I'll admit that I've only participated in 2 or 3 on this site thus far). But take for instance my position vs. theLwerd in the argument that a clearly racist letter was not racist. My goal was not to prove that racism did not exist in the letter, but rather provide insight as to why there WAS. I don't care much about winning debates as much as I do offering the other side of an argument. And so I continue with this debate. I will first start off by saying that I have no idea what you're talking about when you started asking about crime in your last argument. You asked if crime were real wouldn't I fight for government. The answer is yes because crime is clearly real and that fact is accepted by all, whereas there is a lot of speculation about religion. Yes religion exists but there are different theories and aspects to particular beliefs. Anyway I suppose you are hinting that theists should fight for laws to be upheld because crime is just as real as whatever God that they believe in. I understand that. But what you're not understanding is that GOD is ABOVE law, and ABOVE crime. Martin Luther King said that if laws are unjust, it is our responsibility to fight and go against those man-made laws to uphold what is right. I'm sure no one would disagree that it was wrong for him and other blacks to fight unjust laws that affected millions of American lives. And so it is with theists who are so strong in their convictions that they push their religious agenda upon others. There intentions are good. And I'm not talking about the Nazi's you speak of that kill in the name of God. Rather I am speaking about the Conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage because they seriously believe that it is wrong (not just from a poltical standpoint but in terms of their personal religious beliefs). Everyone regardless of their faith has to answer to the law. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't fight for what they sincerely believe is right. For instance abortion laws have been threatened to be repealed since they came about in the 1970s. Christians continue to fight for the right to life because it is important. It is a big issue and one the Church takes very seriously. I am not arguing that radicals be able to break the law for their own beliefs. Yet you asked in starting this debate why religion be immune to criticism. I have answered this repeatedly (probably in a non-nice way, as the hating against me in the comment section reveals) but I will once again. TO THEISTS, THE LAWS OF THE BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE ABOVE MAN MADE LAWS. The word of George W. Bush is not above the word of God. I feel like I have won this debate because I answered the question at hand whereas you have only asked more questions. For instance you wrote "So, why, KarlMarKard, should we not fix the problems the radicals create, but sit back and give them immunity from critics?" My argument is that we SHOULD fix the problems, the way we fix problems created by everyone and anyone (or attempt to, or should attempt to). Also, you have provided no proof that "critics" have given these religious groups immunity. I have seen no sources or citations or anything. You asked why why should we let the radicals violate laws that harm people, teach people anti-medicine, preach intolerance? Well I don't think we should. I hear about religious radicals being punished all the time. You noted that cults and Nazis have also believed strongly in their positions and yet we have we have punished them. Like I said, we punish people who go against American policies and laws as well. The problem in todays society is that many law makers are in fact Conservative, making them different from libertarians because their Christian beliefs force them to take a socially conservative posistion whereas they are economic liberals like libertarians that believe in small government. So until beliefs that stem from religion or religious principles stop being a factor in government, there will be religious immunity to some degree. When you hear politicans talk about the presidency for example, they are not only discussing healthcare and the economy but social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research (not so much the latter in this particular election but nevertheless it's an issue). Logically stem cell research is a good thing. It saves lives. Logically abortion is a good thing (think about it). But religion teaches us that life is sacred. Religion tells people that stem cell research is wrong. These beliefs have made their way into politics. That is undeniable. The Constitution and even Bill of Rights exist because of the morality of our founding fathers. Much of their beliefs were based on the religion they were taught by their patents who were taught by their parents and so on. My point is that religion will be immune so long as the people in power are generally in agreement. Keep in mind that the "peopole in power" may or may not be voters. If that were not the case then why is gay marriage still illegal? Because of the religious institutions that do not want to expand the term marriage to include same-sex legal loving unions, because it goes against God's teaching. If the Bible said nothing bad about gays, religious people probably wouldn't be as opposed to gay marriage (since the argument is that marriage is a religious term not a legal term) and therefore equal rights would prevail. But alas religions imposition into politics is apparent. So you see, religions are not immune to criticism. They are critisized all the time. The bottom line is that people in power, whomever they may be (generally elected officials), will affect how things are run. If people escape the wrath of the law it is not because religion is superior to laws here on earth (even though that is the case for theists). It is for political reasons or other incentives that injustice exists.