Organized Religion

I would first like to say that I'm very grateful this debate was conducted with as much decorum as it was. No childish or primitive arguments on either side. I would next like to address the point about science. I would say that this point is irrelevant to the debate. I simply made a statement which I knew was controversial, and decided to explain my position, because I know it is an odd position to hold. I will expand on this point now. I am of the view that following the collapse of the Roman Empire, there was a tremendous power vacuum into which the Roman Catholic Church stepped. Society was at risk following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the dark ages was more related in my mind to the sack of Rome than to religious oppression. Religious orders were at the time, the last remaining bodies that promoted learning of any form. The reason was that it encouraged people to read (so they could read the bible, of course. Not necessarily benign but a knock on effect was that the church became a bastion of literacy, especially in Ireland, the "land of saints and scholars". Looking at the Muslim world, we have Ibn Al-Haytham, who wrote the Book of Optics and invented the scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org... every Galileo, there's an Al-Haytham. There is an argument to be made that religious groups who held learning in high regard provided science with the requisite aegis to make their advances without persecution, but I digress, and have already labeled this irrelevant to the debate, I trust all concerned agree) The source provided here is biased. From a site called "commonsenseatheism.com" we know what to expect. It's as good as me quoting an article from commonsensejudaism or something of the same sort. The graph shown is speculative. Not unfair, but very much exaggerated for dramatic effect. 1. And so, the debate returns to my first argument. We now examine large extremist factions and their effect on the world today. I believe we share the opinion that Science and Religion should have nothing to do with each other. Scientists don't actively interfere in religious affairs and yet we can observe the opposite happening right now. I do not agree with this position. I would however say that creationists have very little sway over things outside of certain small pockets of religious areas. (E.g. the American South) It is a fair argument that these anti-scientific cavemen should not be afforded power, but I put it to you that they cannot possibly gain such foothold. What grounds do I base this on? These extremists are ridiculed by the media. They are a large minority, but a minority nonetheless. They have incited the hatred of all those outside their group and are unelectable. Mormonism, however, is harder to argue around. I will confront this head on, the mormon church does not know where the line between politics and religion lies. What I will say is that they are a single case and organized religion cannot and should not be judged by them. I will nonetheless address the issue of special treatment for religions. Religions receive special treatment because the advocates of religion take it very seriously, and because organized religions are a special class of organizations that need special laws to deal with them. With regards to the tax exemption, the reason for this is that these organizations exist outside of politics and have no actively malicious intentions with their funding. Mormons do, Scientologists do, but not all religions do. The point here is that organized religions operating within the established legal parameters deserve tax exemption because they will be using their funds for good ends such as charity. They also need to pay for the upkeep of the church, and there is no reason to tax that. I would whole heartedly agree though, that when a religion steps into politics, it ceases to be an organized religion as much as a political party. The point I have made is that these organizations are a minority and their influence over stated. 2. The moral issue here is an important one. I had meant this to be a personal morality. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" is as good a credo as any to live one's life by. My argument here has been misconstrued. I had argued that a strong moral compass is a benefit of religious commitment. That religion allows one the framework by which to live one's life. My argument seems to have been interpreted that religious morality should be applied to everyone or should used for our legal system. My argument, which I believe still stands, is that religion can give it's adherents a sense of moral certainty on confusing issues. I firmly believe that this should be tempered with firm logic. I will refer you back to the example I made in round 2 of the Catholic stance on contraception and the circumstances in which it should be allowed. (Not to be used because life is sacred, acceptable if STD's are a possibility) The religious stance on abortion is not based on the idea that if God decides you are going to have a baby that you must, but rather once you have conceived, you are already a parent, and that all living things, born or unborn, have the right to life. Religious morality is and has always been taken seriously when and only when common sense is applied. Thomas Aquinas doctrines for example are his interpretation of the bible plus common sense. My point was not that morality cannot exist without religion, but that religion is capable of constructing a working morality. It is capable of providing comfort, fellowship, and love to its followers, it is capable of great intellectual feats, from Anselm's Ontological Argument to the Jesuits schools, and of great brutality. I have made the case that the good organized religion does and has done on balance, has outweighed the bad. I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who gave their time to this debate, and beg them to vote Pro. Thank you.