Motion: Religion makes the world a better place.

Before beginning, I feel it necessary to point out that instead of opening arguments, my opponent went immediately to his rebuttal period. I have no issue with their structure, but I do find it relevant to observe that in doing so, they gave almost no argument that made benign the concept of Religion, instead transferring all the critiques that have been leveled at Religion to man itself. I find it almost dangerous that one can separate man and Religion as completely as my opponent has done, for without man there would be no Religion, and every Religion is shaped not by an omnipotent being but by the hands of the people who worship that deity. I say dangerous because by separating faith and the actions of man that have been caused by man’s devotion to faith, they have created a scheme where no Religion can be criticized for the behavior of its members, and faith-based atrocities can only be attributed to the human who committed them, not the motivation that inspired the atrocity itself. I vehemently disagree with this structure of blame. It is impossible to study the horrors of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the Buddhist massacre at Mandalay Palace, the violence of Islamic Jihadists, and the many examples of hate-based crime in our world today without studying the motivation of the offenders. None of these barbarities would have occurred without the guidance of Religion, but my opponent has used his entire opening statement to deny its culpability.The above paragraphs outline the main issue with my opponent's argument. Here are some more itemized responses.1) “...Man chooses what to interpret and what to alter in a Religion, therefore if Man chooses to act contrary to the Principles of the Religion, it is Man who is ultimately responsible…” This statement is designed to do exactly what I outlined above. My opponent has given no argument in their belief in any doctrine, only the Baha’i way, which is more Unitarian than Religious. They have not claimed support for any form of Divine Inspiration. Yet, they seek to separate man from Religion in a way that exonerates Religion itself from the crimes of man.2) My opponent has so thoroughly disconnected Religion from man that one argument even consists of them denying the physicality of Religion itself, as though rebutting a claim that “Religion” kills people. 3) I object to the term, “unqualified interpretation”. The Crusades were commanded by the Pope and the Inquisition was begun by Spanish Cardinals. The Buddhist Massacre at Mandalay was ordered by the palace monks. Islamic Jihadists are commanded by Imams. Every one of these atrocities have been commanded by a leader of the faith in question. If these leaders are not chosen by a deity, what is the point of anyone at all believing that their faith is a) believable as the truth, and b) followable. 4) My opponent claims that questioning teachings is encouraged but questioning authority is not. I have a difficult time following this logic so I have to ask these questions.a) How is one to question teachings without questioning the teacher? b) Are the answers to these questions given to the one asking by the teacher? How not, without questioning authority? c) Whoever gives the answers, are those answers considered “qualified” or “unqualified” interpretations?d) What is the difference between a conclusion after a “full unbiased devotion of the Writing” and an “unqualified interpretation”? Who decides whether a devotion of the Writing has been full and unbiased?5) I think I have, through multiple examples, shown that Religion does NOT suppress our lower nature.6) You made absolutely no mention of “spiritual purpose” until the penultimate sentence of your statement. In the spirit of fairness, I will bring it up here so that you can respond to it in your rebuttal.Thank you, and I look forward to further debate!