I've defined the term several times. I don't know if you've noticed that I have posted my argument in the main thread. This is supposed to be a commentary on that afterall. It makes very clear my definition of the term.
Its still a religion. It is still a spiritual philosophy with organised institutions, precepts and texts which are at odds with scientific knowledge.Some would argue that some forms of Buddhism are atheistic and hence you'd actually be disallowing atheists who happen to practice that form of spirituality from their beliefs. What??? Why would you do so?
I was only responding to a generalisation: that anything that inhibits or impairs people's freedom of religion is automatically intolerant. I believe that taking away for good the ability to abuse the influence given by religious institutions and organised religious systems is the greater good, i.e. it prevents more harm than it causes.By your definition Religion i.e. All of it is more intolerant than atheism and this cannot ever be proven as true.
If you're going to make generalizations I cannot see how you can debate successfully.
Your argument seems to be that because I am attacking freedom of religion, I am a bigot. That is not true. The definition of being a bigot is viewing people with hatred or fear for no logical reason other than their membership of a particular viewpoint. That whole idea is based on the fact that tolerance and freedom are paramount. Well, I don't think they are, and I have already demonstrated that you don't either, as you agree that is is right to suppress certain organisations and viewpoints if their actions can be shown to produce harm to society, such as Neo-Nazis, Drug cartels, etc.
The comparison between religion and drugs is a good one: most people who take drugs are perfectly normal people. Most of them cause no harm to the rest of society. However, the basis of the drug trade is that most drug takers think it is acceptable to transport illegal drugs which they know fund other more serious crime into the country. There is nothing morally wrong with the act of using illegal drugs. What is wrong, is that by your purchase of them, you are buying into the wider drug world which legitimises and facilitates things that are harmful. The solution is easy: allow people to cultivate and use drugs on a small scale, but cut off the head of the illegal cartels which supply them. That way, the harm is neutralised, yet people can still carry on with small scale personal use. The war on extremist fundamentalists is the same as the drug war: we can continue using our ineffective legal system to remove them when they get violent, or we can just sweep away the entire system of religion which protects them, and leave them naked and exposed for what the are.
Like any analogy, its not perfect, but the point stands.
See above: no it doesn't. Demonstrating that most marijuana smokers and cocaine snorters are normal teens and young adults who are otherwise perfectly law abiding doesn't exuse the harms of their dealers and organised mafias that supply them. Because marijuana smokers and cocaine users are the reason that drug cartels exist.original challenege is enormously broad. If I can demonstrate one sect of one religion is not intolerant, or if I can demonstrate that one person who believes in one sect of one religion is tolerant than if defeats your analysis.
If a majority of lawmakers were to agree with my argument, then there would be a mandate for the law to change. The law is only what the majority think it should be.If a religious group is not breaking the law, then by what authority would a community abolish its practices?
Why can't they just carry on doing them for purely charitable reasons rather than religious ones?You do realize that despite any negative connotations to religious organizations, they do perform necessary charitable roles within communities, and as such those roles will then have to be either neglected or done by the state.
This is an international forum, so the field of discussion for this motion is the entire world. There would be nowhere to hide. Besides, religious institutions collapse on a regular basis: the Christian institutions in the Roman empire were abolished by the emperor Julian, and then the Pagan ones were abolished by the emperor Justinian, and communities weren't crippled. They just reorganised along different lines.Since the adherants of a belief system are within a community since they are welcomed and tolerated by it, they generate tax revenues for that community. Abolish their belief system or disallow them to exist within a community, and they'll relocate to another community that does tolerate them. As a huge majority of people belong to religious institutions, you'd cripple many communities' ability to function.