Religious Tolerance is a worthy cause

I apologise for my late response. I have been busy with work-related travel. Now, to the issues. There are a number of problems with my opponent's argument. 1.Hasty generalisation Firstly, my opponent is engaging in a generalisation. The point in issue (what he seeks to prove in this part of the argument) is that religious tolerance is immoral. In an attempt to support his argument, he relies on two religions; Islam and Christianity. He points to things that he finds morally disagreeable and which some (I emphasise the word SOME) of those professing those two religions have been guilty of. From this he attempts to lead us to conclude that religious tolerance is immoral. Obviously, using this line of argumentation, my opponent AT THE VERY MOST might succeed in demonstrating that tolerating either one of those two religions might be immoral. And this of course does not support his claim. It only supports a claim that "ABSOLUTE religious tolerance is immoral". But of course that's not my opponent's contention. Since my opponent's argument does not support his contention, I submit that he fails on the point of morality. 2.I did say SOME I now return to the point I emphasised above, which is that it is only SOME believes of the two religions in question that engage in any practices that we (or, more specifically my opponent) might find to be morally intolerable. He gives an example and that is the stoning of adulterers. It's important to note that the above practice is engaged by a very small minority of members of the faith known as Islam and is effectively restricted to countries in which religious law is allowed to be used in conjunction with or as a substitute for secular law. You do not (and if you do, it's extremely rare) hear of adulterers being stoned in countries in which secular government systems are in force. In such countries, the stoning would be considered murder and would be punished under the law. When we tolerate a religion, we tolerate those of its members who do not engage in actions that we would otherwise consider immoral. Thus, we might say we won't tolerate stoning people or whipping people. But there's no need to go on and say that we won't tolerate anyone who believes in the existence and divinity of a god named Allah or Yahweh or of a prophet/deity called Jesus Christ. Only those who interpret their religious codes so as to endorse immoral practices can be said to necessitate any lack of tolerance. And EVEN THAT is questionable or at least hasn't been demonstrated by my opponent (who, I might add, bears the burden of proof). But more on this in point 3 below. Of course, this might not apply to a religion which necessarily drives with it immoral practices. One can imagine a cult that says that in order to achieve a divine reward, one must rape little children. The above objection to my opponent's argument is in essence another generalisation-related ground. This time he is generalising WITHIN the two religions that he has brought up as an example (an example which in itself of course constitutes a hasty generalisation). 3.Basis of morality My opponent says that religious tolerance is immoral. But he hasn't demonstrated any model of morality whatsoever. Most importantly, he has failed to demonstrate that there exists an absolute model of morality (a true, objective test of what is right and what is wrong). And we can be sure that all evidence suggests that absolute morality does not exist. Moral standards differ both at individual level and at societal level. On an individual level, I think it's not immoral to take drugs if that's my choice and if it doesn't lead me to hurt others. Others might say it's immoral to take drugs because it's against the law and disobeying the law is not a moral thing to do. On a society-wide level, on the other hand, most people in Poland are opposed to abortion. They think that it's immoral. In Australia, however, the majority believe that there's nothing wrong with abortion. There are countless other examples. Since my opponent hasn't told us how to test if something is moral or immoral, how can he claim that it's immoral to tolerate religion? He can't. At the most he can say that he feels it's wrong to tolerate religion because some members of some religions do some things that he feels are wrong. Well, if that were his Resolution, I'd high-five him and I'd not dare disagree. But it isn't. 4.What this really means is war Now, if my opponent has his way, what does this lead to? Well, he is endorsing lack of tolerance for those who have different moral standards to oneself. If A thinks that B is morally wrong on a substantial issue, A should (according to my opponent) refuse to tolerate B's views. But then, B can (according to my opponent) do the same to A. Each is entitled to think that his own model of morality is the correct one and each is entitled to attempt to prevent (penalise) the other from (for) having the views that he/she has. This has been done before, folks. And its results? Holy wars. I, and other atheists against Ali Bin Haba Shabuh (made up name) and his government. Think about it. My opponent is endorsing a mentality that seeks to justify the prosecution of holy wars. I, for one, object.