Religions cause more harm than good

It should be noted that I did not say that there were NO mental health benefits, I merely said that my opponent cannot use the reason of "religious practices fosters one's health and well-being, most notably partaking in public religious participation..." How can someone say that participation in religious activities is a benefit when the argument is whether or not religion is actually beneficial for society? Now, my opponent also states that "we create groups for mutual interests". A better word for mutual interest is greed or selfishness. As a result of greed someone is always put down and crushed. Now, the Northeastern colonies were founded because the Puritans, Separatists, etc...were tired of being persecuted in England. Once there, the colonists closed their societies. In Boston, Puritanism is the ONLY religion. Anyone who had ANY dissenting opinions were banished from the colony. There was constant bickering between the colonies, none of them liked each other, and there was no cohesive unity between the colonies by which the colonists could identify themselves as 'American'; it was never American but always Bostonian, Virginian. And while my opponent may say that, although the colonies were divided amongst each other, within each colony the colonists were part of that community, or cohesive; this is also untrue. For example, Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. In Virginia there were two type of people; the back country farmers and the big plantation owners. There was absolutely no sense of community between the two; and Bacon's Rebellion brought forward that issue. They liked their state, not the people in the state. Plantation owners and back country farmers abhorred each other. The racial divide between the English and Irish because one group was Protestant and the other was Catholic existed well into the 1900's. No matter how small you break down a community there was ALWAYS division and at the base of that division was religion. Modern day Ireland, it is unsafe to go into some neighborhoods for fear of being bombed, beaten up, killed or whatever because the country is divided; the politicians may know that they are not fighting a religious war, but the common people think its a war of Catholicism vs. Anglicanism. My opponent can argue all they want about how going to weekly religious gatherings can promote a sense of community to a couple hundred people but that's insignificant when compared with the division between thousands and millions of people. Who are the strongest advocates of anti-gay marriage? The religious people, after all it's sacrilege. Catholicism blatantly disagrees with same sex marriages; they believe that it should be illegal for same sex couples to be married. Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas; just to name three, currently ban same sex marriage? Notice that they have strong religious sentiments? "The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union." (1) Next, I would like to attack my opponents thesis of tradition. "Tradition is generally defined as long-standing beliefs, practices or customs that have been handed down from one generation to the next. Every culture, every race or group of people have their own rich customs and traditions."(2) My opponent says that tradition provides comfort, I cannot deny this but there is a flip side. First of all, traditions can be demeaning. My example for this is Christmas. Nikolaos of Myra, it is rumored, once sneaked into the house of a man. This man had three daughters, due to his financial distress he would have to sell his daughters into prostitution. In an effort to prevent that Nikolaos gave the family an anonymous bag of money. This is where the legend of St. Nicholas comes from. Today society has changed the idea of father Christmas into a purely commercial venture. Christmas no longer has the meaning it once had, now its a commercial business, Christmas is as much of a time, if not more, for presents rather than love. People have mutated St. Nicholas' figure into something he very much was not; children do not know St. Nicholas, the founder of Christmas, they merely know Santa Claus, the man who gives them presents. Nicholas has been defaced by society, a man who did a good deed deserves better than what society has molded him into. Yet people continue to mock Nicholas because it is tradition. Tradition may be comforting, but it mutates the original ideals of the people who first enacted these traditions. My opponent points out that sexual abuse by religious officials were not religious in nature, but that statement is only half true. Of the many religions of the world we only hear about abuse from Catholic priests, not to say that it does not happen in other religions, but that is what is reported in the news. My opponent says that pinning the blame on religion; "It's not right" the term right is generally defined as something that is in accordance with that which is good, proper, or just. When someone says just, what exactly do they mean by that? The official definition of just is: to be "guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness"(3) When a bully picks a fight with John and John hits back in self-defense, who does the school punish? Both of them, the instigator and the defender. Is it necessarily fair? Yes and no, John did not have much of choice, hit or be hit. But at the same time, John was involved in the fight and the schools want to show that fighting will not be tolerated. Now, if religion were John, should society not show that sexual abuse will not be tolerated? Innocent children are being preyed upon by men who hide behind the facade of religion in order to stop these men and to protect the children the mask they hide behind needs to be taken away so that everyone can see plainly who they really are underneath. RELIGION may not be bad, but it is a stick. (see final argument) Regarding science my opponent said that "other people's fantasies are not really inhibiting society to a significant extent"; my opponent should know better than that. People change the course of nations, people shift ideals and values, people ARE society. It may only take a few people to start something, but in the end things can only be accomplished when the majority of people are on board. Revolutions, intellectual and physical, are fueled by the people. In our society, as I have already stated, half of Americans do not support evolution, how can a small percentage of people ("the legitimate intellectuals and well-informed educators and problem solving scientists") fuel this intellectual revolution towards something that, "While it's a theory I'd say most should reasonably believe to be true"? Revolution requires a majority of people to actually succeed. My opponent has adamantly admitted time and time again that religion has been used as a tool for corrupt and tyrannical people. These corrupt politicians, and people in general, use religion as a tool, a weapon. Take their weapon away and these people can no longer use this stick to poke and incite people. Will hey find another stick to use? Perhaps, but right now THIS is the problem because it IS what is being used. People do not stand by whilst being poked with a stick it is a survival instinct to grab the stick and throw it away. In conclusion to my argument I would like people to consider that religion does not promote violence, it is used for violence and before it hurts anyone else it needs to be thrown away. I would like to thank theLwerd for taking up this argument, and I would like to remind voters to freshen their memory on my argument. (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://tiny.cc...