On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

I thank Con for presenting his case. I shall extend my rd 2 advantages, and counter his case. I look forward to his response. ALL ADVANTAGES OF RELIGION CONCEDED I thank CON for conceding all of my advantages. Con makes no attempt to refute or rebut a single one of them. Please extend advantages 1-7. On my advantages, Con can only say, “Religion has no doubt done good things in the world…” Of course Con believes religion’s disadvantages outweigh any advantages, saying “...the shadow of religion will always reach farther than it's deeds.” In his case, Con points to many dark shadows - but none of them belong to religion. Religion = Poetry/Music/Art & CON Can't Link Religion to His DAs (Cross-apply this argument to all of his disadvantages and list of travesties.) Religion is an element of human existence like art that has permeated every civilization since the birth of language (i), and it will always be with us. Like poetry, music, and art it helps us get through the day by enriching our experience of the world. There is no link between religion and the disadvantages Con cites. Religion, at times, may be associated with certain movements but no more than that same movement is associated with other forms of human expression. Should we blame the 20 million deaths under Mao on “art” because the communist propaganda machine used illustrations to “re-educate” its citizens? Should we blame “music” for a war because many soldiers felt motivated by the beating of drums? Should we blame war on “poetry” because violent conquest is often romanticized in the epic poetry of antiquity? No. (i) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... Likewise, we should not try to indict religion through guilt of association since it has no causal link between itself and these dark shadows of humanity like violence and hate. Since these shadows have been with our species before civilization, and have persisted in secular regions across the globe (Russia, China, Eastern Europe) - there is no reason to believe religion casts these shadows since we see these shadows when religion is not present. In other words, correlation is not causation. Religion should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. Con needs to establish the link between religion and these harms. It’s not enough that the perpetrators happened to be religious. Stalin may have had staunchly atheistic motivations when he murdered 20 million people, burned down churches, and killed Eastern Orthodox priests to revolutionize society because he believed in Marxist teachings. But it would be problematic to blame those 20 million deaths on “atheism” or “Marxism.” Mental illness, Stalin’s extreme paranoia, as well as his political motivations to eradicate all civil institutions other than the state are probably more likely culprits. Ergo Con must demonstrate the link between religion and his harms. He must show us religion’s fingerprints on the smoking gun. If he cannot do that, then you should disregard all of his disadvantages. I could easily post a list of atrocities committed by every secular actor to indict “secularism,” but you should not believe it unless I prove how the secular world belief caused the atrocities in question. In this debate the BOP is shared, and the one making the claim has the burden to prove it. Meaning Pro has the burden of proof in demonstrating my advantages while Con has the burden of proof when claiming his disadvantages. Con provides a long list of bad events, but he fails to link religion to the vast majority of these events. (I will refute the few links he did provide.) Con needs to demonstrate how religion caused all of these events, if he cannot do that - then you should disregard them. Given that we see poverty, war, shame, persecution of minorities, and domestic violence in secular areas committed by secual actors, what’s unqiue about religion that gives it this allegedly “dark shadow.” How do we know it’s not just the darker side of human nature casting this shadow, regardless of the agents’ belief-system? (1) Divisions Con contends that the number of denominations is evidence of division, implying that these divisions lead to “grave and tragic endings.” His (1) Pew research evidence does not support his claim about the grave and tragic, it only shows the geographic placement of varying sects/denominations. The number of denominations is no more insidious than the number of extracurricular activities at a high school. Different preferences often manifest into an array of different options. Most of the Christian denominations around today were created in the US post-1776 because of America’s broad religious liberty, not because of religious wars (ii). (ii) http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com... Human Greed & Fear: Colonialism, Imperialism, Nationalism, Tribalism, Classism (Response to Con point 4: Fear & Selfishness) Much of the fearful persecution against minorities and other religious groups can be traced back to class divisions that were first imposed by European colonizers. Wherever European colonizers went they found it useful to impose laws that enforced religious based, as well as racial, segregation. Before the colonizers arrived, most people did not notice major religious differences - peacefully coexisting and often intermarrying among different religions. Most non-European pre-colonial wars were fought over tribal differences, not religious ones. The European enforced classes often included an elite class that the colonizers preferred for varying reasons. The Europeans enriched this elite class at the price of the lower classes. In the often violent transition away from colonialism that continues to the present day, the lower classes often resented the elite class for economic/political reasons, and violently attack them in the post-colonial era to revolt against unequal economic relationships. Many of these revolutions took place in the late 20th century, but anti-colonial violence continues where most of the property is still owned by the elite-class, and or by the former colonizer. For example, in the former Belgian colony of Rwanda, most of the property was still owned by Belgian whites until 2013 (iii). (iii) http://www.africa.upenn.edu... Case in point, in the British takeover of India, the British colonizers forced the very religiously diverse natives into separate classes, the Hindu class and the Muslim class. The British preferred Hindus and enriched them to be the “ruling” class. After the British left in 1947, the country descended into what could be described as a minor civil over war over property and wealth. The battle lines happened to fall on Hindu/Muslim lines because of British imported nationalism, and a century of British enforced religious segregation (iv). Before the British there was no way of telling if you were a Muslim or a Hindu due to a mix of intermarriage, and cross-over ritualistic practices. Under British colonialism, everyone knew from public records, and because each subject was forced to carry an ID that indicated one’s religious identity. (iv) http://www.ibtimes.com... HUMAN GREED / COLONIALISM / IMPERIALISM (Cross apply this response to Con's (4.) Human Selfishness) Con cannot link religion to these atrocities. Follow the evidence he cites. Each link leads to a website that summarizes the event, but none provide evidence that religion was the key motivation or cause of the atrocity in question. Each item in this section can be better attributed to human greed and its collective form - colonialism. Turkish Empire - The Turks spread their empire, which had a mostly secular ruling class by the way, over centuries the same way Rome and Persia conquered the same region before them. Empires kill people to claim land, not because they’re inspired by pagan or Islamic teaching. China- children sold into slavery for economic gain Egypt: Shia muslims, along with other members of the Muslim brotherhood were slaughtered because of political tensions after the ousting of ex-President Mohamed Morsi by the US funded Egyptian military. Malaysia - Shia was arrested for her faith, this would be blamed on a corrupt state (not religion). Bahrain - this goes back to colonially enforced divisions from the colonial era. They’re based on the colonial legacy of economic/political divisions not religious conviction. The legacy of colonialism and class-based poverty divides us, not religion. The US equivalent of anti-colonial violence was the race-riots of the 1960s & ‘70s. This violence was sparked by a legacy of slavery, which created segregated classes in the United States along racial lines. Despite most blacks and whites sharing the same religion - there was still violence because most violence is caused by highly unequal resources, especially when the lower class is living in abject poverty, not over theology. 2. Blood Sacrifices Most of these can be better attributed to tribal tradition that pre-dates most world religions or mental illness. In the case of animal sacrifices, most people no longer sacrifice animals for religious purposes. The vast-vast-majority of animal deaths can attributed to the industrialized world’s demand for meat. Again, Con holds the burden of proof when making serious claims against religion. If he cannot prove religion causes these atrocities - then you should disregard the whole list in your decision. 3. Massacres Blaming Islam for every war fought by Muslim majority countries is absurd and orientalist. That would be like blaming Christianity for every every war ever fought by the USA, or like blaming Buddhism for every war fought by Japan and China, or Marxism for the 20 million killed by Stalin. Again, citing links that summarize the event is not enough. Con must demonstrate how Islam was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of directly causing these events.