Christianity is a force for good in the world.

Con says, "...I've never claimed that most Christians are generally intolerant, opposed to science, or that they cling to brutal scriptures. All I've argued is that Christianity has played a predominant role in these things, and that the actual scriptures themselves are engines for intolerance." The resolution is about the present world, not the Middle Ages or any other time. Con grants my claim that Christians are now generally tolerant, accepting of science, and have adopted benign interpretations of scripture. Cons argument that Christianity "has played a role in intolerance, ..." tells us that social evolution exists and works, but the past is not relevant to the resolution. Con claims that scriptures are "engines of intolerance." But Con agrees the dominant state of Christianity is currently to promote tolerance, and that current interpretations of scriptures is positive. No doubt scriptures can be used to rationalize intolerance, but there is no evidence that intolerance would die for lack of rationalization. The rationalization of intolerance is that those people," whoever they are, are self-evidently no good. Con uses the abandoned interpretations of scripture to rationalize his intolerance of Christians. C1: Con states, "Despite what my opponent may believe, moral progress comes from outside of religion." Con is not following my argument. I claim that religion has two roles: a social role and a dogmatic role. I agree that moral progress does not come from unchanging dogma. Con seems to be fixated on the unchanging harsh pronouncements of the Old Testament. But Con also agrees that few Christians believe or practice those harsh dictates. They don't burn witches or support slavery. The fact that beliefs have changed significantly proves that social evolution works within the mechanism of religion. What dogma provides is the continuity upon which social evolution operates. New religions and virulent ideologies are full of bad ideas codified as dogma. If the new dogma is unable to be modified, then the new movement ultimately dies, but it does a lot of damage until then. The new pseudo-religious ideologies of the 20th century are prime examples. Socialism, tried and failed in almost all of the emerging nations of Africa, have done far more damage to the people there than all of the religions combined. Much of Christian dogma has always been a force for good. There has ever been anything wrong with "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others ..." The social mechanism in religion has been to purge the malevolent dogma. Moreover, those in Christian communities were always inspired to care for each other. Con seems to suppose that religion embodied only evil and that all the good came from outside. That's not true. C2: Con says, "Roy's entire argument in this section could be summed up as follows: 'Freeman, people are just so hopelessly stupid and encumbered by all sorts of irrational tendencies that Christianity, as harmful as it might be, is really one of the better outlets for these impulses.'" No, what I said is that humans have a nature. They are inherently tribal and they inherently seek simply rules for day-to-day living. Con claims I am implying that means "hopelessly stupid." An instinct for community is not "stupid," it is the way people are, and they prosper as a result. (Ducks are not "stupid" for flying south. It is a survival instinct that works well.) Moreover, living by simple rules is a necessity. No matter how intelligent and well-educated a person is, there are too many complexities to parse. For example, intelligent well-informed people have bad marriages and all sorts of "irrational" emotional problems. What social evolution accomplishes is getting a better set of simple rules. Con points to Scandinavia as being idyllic, rational societies allegedly coming as a consequence of casting off religion. H He does not address my counterexamples of North Korea, China, and Vietnam. None of those countries that despise human rights has been "spoiled" by Christianity. There are far more people in the repressive societies than in the claimed idyllic ones. The Scandinavian countries formed much of their social fabric under Christianity. All that Con is saying is that theism is not *necessary* for a good society, to which I agree. I think we are moving towards non-theistic religion, with Japan and France being good examples. But that's not the subject of debate. The debate is whether Christianity is currently a force for good the world. Christianity promotes tolerance, moral behavior, and charity. That's to the good. C3: Con's slim case that Christianity is intolerant rests almost entirely upon Catholic pronouncement of homosexuality as a mortal sin, and similar pronouncements from fundamentalist faiths. I agree that such pronouncements are intolerant and wrong. I don't agree that it has much effect. There are also official pronouncements against birth control, which Catholics pretty much ignore. Nor has Catholic pronouncements against condoms had any significant effect in Africa. Con doesn't provide any evidence to support claims that there are significant, he just demands that they are. The argument that Catholic priests are child molesters certainly is not an argument against Christianity, anymore than teachers being child molesters is an argument against public schools. Con claims people opposed stem cell research are "wicked." I think opposition is wrong, but it had little effect. Stem cell research continued with existing lines, with states stepping up funding. Modern ideological zealots continually propose far worse things, and they have a great deal more success. So I agree that Christians do not always do as I would like. That's their right. They do far less damage than ecology nutcases who are currently the potent irrational force in society. Imagine if Christians passes laws that turned farms into desert and towns into ghost towns. The outrage to separation of church and state would not be tolerated. But the modern irrationality is applauded. Intolerance against Christians, smokers, conservatives, miners, lumbermen, hunters, rich people, and dozens of other groups is encouraged, because those groups exist contrary to modern dogma. George Bush substitutes for the Devil as the origin of all evil. Supplanting Christianity has not brought tolerance or rationality. A1: Con says, "... my opponent denies the significance of these wicked scriptures by dogmatically asserting that moral progress comes out of them. Needless to say, this claim can be dismissed out of hand for both its absurdity and for the lack of evidence, which supports it." If it is so absurd, why did Con grant that modern Christianity has adopted benign interpretations of scripture? The evidence I cited supporting the claim was that Christians are not burning witches or supporting slavery. The Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. The Mormon Church supported gay rights legislation in Utah. What I have said is that Christian scripture is full of contradictions, ambiguities, and allegories. That's a good thing, because it allows the interpretation to change in the light of civilization. That has happened, with the result that Christianity is a net force for good in the world. A2: Con grants that Christians are doing very substantial charity work. That is a force for good in the world. Saying that other institutions might evolve to collect the donations and organize the work is no argument against it's being a current force for good. And what of the community? Would the ACLU start organizing church suppers, marriages, and funerals? I think in a long enough time that substitutes would arise, but for now Christianity is positive force for good. We are not in the Middle Ages. Today, Christianity is a force for good. The resolution is affirmed.