Government should ban the sponsorship of religious pilgrimage

I would like to start with a statement: I have made my stance so clear, but if the opponent feels that he would not want to read the first few sentences of my previous argument, then I shall state it again: Governments should not end the sponsorship of pilgrimage. Now I would like to respond to a few of the questions that arose and rebut to the opponent's points. 1. Religion isn't directly tradition, but it is responsible for tradition the opponent states in his opening sentences that religion is a way of life; isn't the tradition. A tradition is commonly defined as "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past". In the past, our forefathers believed in religion, whether it was Christianity, Buddhism, Satanism, or Muslim. This religion was passed down from father to child, from child to grandchild, and therefore, religion is passed down with a special significance; it provides an identity for the people who inherit this tradition. How is that not tradition? In many places, like Thailand, where traditional Thai dances come from Ancient Buddhist texts, is that not religious tradition? In the Vatican, where the separation between the Church and the state cannot be seen through centuries of religious governance, is it not tradition for Popes to pay respect to Jesus? Therefore, taking in information from these two examples I have provided, does it make sense to not call religion tradition without ignoring centuries of acts that our forefathers have created? 2. Prophet is not god the opponent has stated in his previous argument that a prophet is a god. A prophet, however, is a "person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God." A God, on the other hand, is a "creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being." The opponent, however, has mixed up the words god and prophets, and through assumptions, he thinks that going on a pilgrimage is going on a journey to embrace and respect gods; I would like to reply to that with a statement that not all religions believe in god. Buddhism is a rational religion and denies the existence of god, but like many other religions it still has a prophet and believes in certain values. And like many other religions, many go on a pilgrimage. 3. Response to questions the opponent has asked me questions that I feel compelled to answer. His first question, " is it when we go for pilgrimage that we will respect our God? ", I feel needs rephrasing, and I apologize, but I am unable to understand what he is trying to ask. His second question is "are we then going to worship God or for tourism?" after I stated that a pilgrimage is a form of religious travelling. I would like to respond that when you see the word "tourism", you think of beaches and exotic hotels. But religious tourism is another thing: in fact, it has been used for a synonym for pilgrimages. I stated that pilgrimages are a type of religious travel, but perhaps I forgot to mention that it is the most common type of religious travelling. And I certainly did not lie against you by saying the religion is irrelevant. I just stated that Atheists call religion "irrelevant and immoral". That is the rational explanation against religion, but the opponent seems to have mistaken this with a statement, which I never said: "that religion is irrelevant". I never said that, and if I did, I did not mean to say that. Going back to my point on pilgrimages, I stated that Israel earned 432 million US dollars from religious tourism in a year. As pilgrimages are the most common type of religious tourism, and the opponent says it costs a lot. That only propels my case: many feel obliged, because of their views on religion, to go on a pilgrimage once a year. If it costs a lot, and the flow of pilgrims is almost endless, that only means money for the government, doesn't it? If we are looking at this from an economic viewpoint, then we can clearly see that sponsorship of pilgrimages provide easy and an almost confirmed income for the host country, doesn't it? The opponent also cites an article from the Vanguard Newspaper. However, Vanguard Newspaper is a localized Nigerian English-language newspaper, and it highlights the action of the few to represent the actions of the many; therefore, those claims can clearly be ignored. I would also like to remind the readers that the debate topic states nothing about Nigeria, and the opponent cites the status of one country, and one country only. The opponent states that the Nigerian state lacks roads and good infrastructure, but how does that have to do with pilgrimages? The fact that the Nigerian government has been popping up every now and then in the opponent's arguments don't seem to be symmetrical with the debate. Therefore, I now would like to introduce my points: Putting aside the economical benefits, the government has a duty to protect the traditions of one country. In many countries, it has been a tradition for the people of that country, or that faith, to go on a pilgrimage, at least once in their lives. An example of this is a pilgrimage to Mecca, where all able-bodied Muslims must pay respects there at least once in their lives. The implications of ending government sponsorship of this are huge, as it can have security factors, especially from the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. This tradition has been in placed for such a long time ending government sponsorship of it would lead to two things: 1. The complete halt in the cities development. Mecca has developed from a village to a prosperous town in the modern world because of pilgrims spending their money to worship their gods. This would almost reduce the city into complete starvation, and many would migrate out of that place. 2. Ending years of traditions and possibly the halt of Islamic culture. Islam has for so long revered this city, that halting it would cause many to outrage. Ending government sponsorship there is also questionable, as the government looks to this place for it's income and it's identity. Also, some important Buddhist pilgrimages sites are in Thailand; the Thai government largely sponsors religious pilgrimages in the few places, and in fact, these places are where the tradition of the old strives the most. Sukhothai is considered a holy city of holy places, and perhaps not coincidentally, traditions there strive the most. Pilgrims come from all over the world, from China and Japan, to come and pay their respects here. If government sponsorship of that act stops, then traditions would fade away, because people see no pride or joy in practicing their traditions. This would end traditions, and would eventually lead to the eradication of a national identity. But the economic benefits of it are huge. If the opponent is not satisfied with my statistics on Israel, then chew on this: American religious pilgrims provide $10 Billion a year towards the world's tourism industry. Is that not a lot? The opponent seems to be describing the encouragement of going to a pilgrimage, not sponsorship of pilgrimages. Sponsorship of pilgrimages means that the opponent would want pilgrims to come to their country, while encouraging would mean to encourage them to go on a pilgrimage. He is therefore contradicting the debate topic, which is Sponsorship of Pilgrimages, not Encouragement of Pilgrimages. It is because of these reasons, and many more, are why I encourage you to vote con in the following ballot. Thank you and have a nice day.