Religious Tolerance is a worthy cause

Let's get started. 1. Islam's endorsement of inappropriate behaviour. My opponent says that Sha'aria is what governs Iran. It is true that there is a religious government in power in Iran and that this government engages in acts that many of us find objectionable. It is also true that the government claims to be acting under the auspices of Islam. However, my opponent has not shown any evidence at all to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. Is the government following a correct interpretation of the Islamic law or is it abusing the law to promote its own purposes and retain its power? We might suspect that it's the former or that it's the latter. But we've seen no evidence of either. Where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with a single example of a government that does things that many of us don't like and that claims to do those things in the name of religion. And there are millions and millions of Muslims worldwide. In fact, there are 48 countries in the world with Muslim majorities (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). So, out of 48 countries, one happens to have a government that appears to be abusing religious principles to do things that we happen to disagree with. Contrast this with the number of secular states that have been known to engage in atrocities of various degrees. Start with the USSR, Nazi Germany, go to Communist China, go to North Korea, go to Vietnam, go to Pinochet's Chile. And there are scores more. If a government wants to abuse power and persecute people, it doesn't need religion to do so. It will use any excuse it wants. Once again, my position is that we can condemn ACTIONS but not THOUGHTS. Thought police died with Orwell. 2. Christianity's endorsement of inappropriate behaviour On this point, my opponent is quoting some of the "good old" laws from the Old Testament. This is all good and well but it's entirely out of place in this debate. You see, his argument was that CHRISTIANITY tolerates and promotes vile and inappropriate behaviour. The laws of the Old Testament DO NOT apply to Christians. Those laws have been replaced by the New Commandment which is to love your God and your neighbour (see Galatians 6:2, Matthew 22:37-39, Matthew 22:40). Christians believe that the purpose of the Old Law was to demonstrate that it's impossible for humans to obey the law and therefore the only purpose of the Biblical Law was to lead them to Christ (. http://www.gotquestions.org...). And indeed, how many Christians are there who advocate stoning adulterers or burning prostitutes? I certainly haven't met ANY. Ever. I'm also not familiar with any Christian church that advocates such practices. What does all this mean? It means that my opponent has failed to show that Christianity endorses any immoral behaviour. At the most, he showed that ancient Judaism (today, the Jews do not stone adulterers anymore) contained some principles that we might feel morally opposed to. And this of course means that he has failed to prove his case. My opponent then makes a point about gay lifestyle. He says that Christians cite the biblical laws when arguing against gay lifestyle. But is disagreeing with gay lifestyle a vile thing? Of course not. It's just a moral view of the world. Some people agree and some do not. You're free to dislike homosexuality. You're free to dislike blondes. You're free to dislike anything you want to dislike. You just can't ACT ON IT. So, let's not tolerate gay-bashing and blonde-stoning. But let's leave people's MINDS alone. Let them believe what they want. It's a free world. 3. The morality of intolerance This point is so obvious, it's almost trite. My opponent almost admits it in his last argument. Essentially, he's saying that he wants us not to tolerate religion because some religions have been known to lack tolerance towards other religions and towards lack of religion. But what gives him the right to do this? What right do we have to claim that atheism should be tolerated but religion not? Is atheist morality any better than religious morality? There's no answer to this question because we don't know what morality is based on and there's no absolute or independent or objective standard that we can use in order to compare conflicting moral standards. 4. Harm Principle I understand my opponent's position now. It is that it's immoral to tolerate religion because it restricts our ability to make RATIONAL DECISIONS in regards to morality. But what's a rational decision when morality is concerned? How is morality based on rationalism? Morality isn't exact science! It's based on BELIEFS, on PERSONAL STANDARDS. Moral arguments are always reduced to an AXIOM. Mine is "if it hurts someone else, it's a bad thing". Yours might be "If it sins against a god, it's a bad thing". And WHY is it a bad thing if it hurts someone else? Because I said so! There's no other way of explaining it. Morality is based on an emotional attitude and is INCAPABLE of rational treatment. And if I don't want to discuss my morality with you, I don't have to. You can't force me. I am free to have any moral standards I want, as long as I don't commit HARMFUL ACTS. 5. Religious people in politics My opponent says that every Senator in the USA has a religious affiliation. Well, that may be so. In a country where mere 2% are atheists, this is hardly surprising. You'd this (or something very close) to be the case. But are we seeing Congress (or state legislatures) passing vile and inappropriate laws? Are we seeing laws that mandate the stoning of naughty kids or of prostitutes? No. And what of the Supreme Court? Most judges are affiliated with religions too. And do we see the Supreme Court failing to protect public school students from religious teachings? No. To the contrary. The Supreme Court has consistently extended the protections of the Establishment Clause. Not protections OF religions but protections of separation between them and the state. Case after case, year after year and decade after decade. Conclusion: In conclusion, my opponent has not showed that religion is the cause of anything immoral. He has failed to even substantiate what "immoral" means, despite my direct question "what is your moral model? ". He has certainly not showed that Christianity supports any immoral behaviour. Interfering with people's freedom of thought is a huge step. It would take exceptionally good reasons to take that step. My opponent has showed none. Thank you for this debate.