THW ban religion

IntroductionIn developed western nations like the United States, the ideal that one is free to believe or not believe in any religion is upheld by both society and the law. People should be able to hold their own beliefs about the world, and depriving them of such an ability violates basic human rights. Yet, despite that, my opponent, who believes that religion corrupts people, has supported a complete banning of religion. [1]This is, in my opinion, unacceptable; that’s why I oppose the motion that “this house would ban all religion.”ModelIn my opponent’s words, under his proposal, “it would be illegal to practise religion;” “all churches would be demolished,” and “the Bible [and other religious documents]” need to be banned. [1]SignpostI shall make three points to back up my case against the motion. I shall argue that firstly, banning religion is unneeded, that secondly, banning religion is ineffective at achieving its goal of eradicating religion, so it’s wrong even if said goal were a noble one, and that finally, the motion would constitute an egregious violation of human rights and therefore ought not to pass. ArgumentsNecessityBanning all religion isn’t necessary, as most religious groups are making the world better, not worse. While it used to be the case that organisations like the Roman Catholic Church could start things like the Crusades, today the negative effects of religion are much less severe and limited to places like the Middle East where the political situation is unstable. Nowadays, religion is primarily a force for good; religious charities like World Vision contribute to causes like supplying clean water and sending aid to disaster-stricken areas. In order to prove that it’s necessary to ban all religion, Pro needs to prove that most or all religions corrupt or are corrupt. Otherwise, it would only be necessary to ban the religious groups that are corrupt and spare the others. Effectiveness and backlashBanning religion completely is infeasible; criminalising religion is unenforceable, it makes adherents of religions hold onto them stronger, and it causes violence between the religious and authorities. As such, even if destroying all religion were a noble goal, which it isn’t, we should still not ban religion altogether. When religious worship is banned, worshippers would simply start worshipping in private; it would be impossible to detect private worship without conducting routine searches of homes or using invasive surveillance techniques. For instance, China restricts people from worshipping outside of state-sanctioned religious groups, but there still exists a network of forbidden underground “house churches”.[2][3] Plus, banning religion and persecuting religious people could only make them hold onto their faiths more strongly. Many religions’ scriptures teach that believers should stand strong in faith even when persecuted, and some even tell them to expect persecution. Banning religion would also stir up conflict between religious people—who constitute the vast majority of people on the planet—and authorities. Religious people angry at the fact that their religious freedom is being taken away and that their places of worship are being bulldozed would start riots; some may even join terrorist groups that promise to fight a “holy war” against the anti-religious authorities. Since a good portion of our politicians, military officers, and skilled workers are religious, they might institute a new government through a coup against whomever thought of bulldozing churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples everywhere. All in all, banning religion is ineffective at achieving its intended purpose, and would make things worse by causing violent backlash.Freedom of religionThe freedom of religion is widely recognised as a human right. Taking away a basic human right and forcing everyone to believe in the same thing would limit thought and therefore be immoral. ConclusionAs I have shown, banning religion is unnecessary, ineffective, and plain immoral. As such, be it resolved that this house would not ban religion.Sources[1]http://www.debate.org...[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...