Third proposing speech
I am deeply disappointed about AB's speech. Firstly, he said that the principles that make a religion is the only thing that matters in this debate; I believe the AB didn't understand the motion of this debate : we are not here to argue about "what make a religion, a religion", nor about why religion is needed in our society. Of course, religion is needed! We are here to find a solution to religion's actual use in our society. One who dares say that religion is well defined in our society is a fool! Indeed, you can't just ignore what is going on today due to religion! […]
I am deeply disappointed about AB's speech. Firstly, he said that the principles that make a religion is the only thing that matters in this debate; I believe the AB didn't understand the motion of this debate : we are not here to argue about "what make a religion, a religion", nor about why religion is needed in our society. Of course, religion is needed! We are here to find a solution to religion's actual use in our society. One who dares say that religion is well defined in our society is a fool! Indeed, you can't just ignore what is going on today due to religion! […]
by ZA
Third opposing speech
As the first opposing speaker 1 puts it, there are principles, truths in religion that cannot be modified: the Christian 10 Commandments or the Buddhist 10 Precepts for instance. Change these principles is no sense: it means the negation of the religion itself. If you argue that now Muslim must eat pork, because it is useless now as second proposing speaker suggest it, your speech is against God’s one : it is like saying « God said something wrong ». A change in a religion discredits the religion, and sometimes even negates it. [...]
As the first opposing speaker 1 puts it, there are principles, truths in religion that cannot be modified: the Christian 10 Commandments or the Buddhist 10 Precepts for instance. Change these principles is no sense: it means the negation of the religion itself. If you argue that now Muslim must eat pork, because it is useless now as second proposing speaker suggest it, your speech is against God’s one : it is like saying « God said something wrong ». A change in a religion discredits the religion, and sometimes even negates it. [...]
by MPLB
Third proposing speech
Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for following this online debate. I am going to summarize and conclude this debate and to point out mistakes made by the opposing team.
Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for following this online debate. I am going to summarize and conclude this debate and to point out mistakes made by the opposing team.
I am deeply disappointed about AB's speech. Firstly, he said that the principles that make a religion is the only thing that matters in this debate; I believe the AB didn't understand the motion of this debate : we are not here to argue about "what make a religion, a religion", nor about why religion is needed in our society. Of course, religion is needed! We are here to find a solution to religion's actual use in our society. One who dares say that religion is well defined in our society is a fool! Indeed, you can't just ignore what is going on today due to religion!
At the very beginning of the debate, my fellow partner AMa proposed a definition of religion as a concept to gather people. He pointed out a list of consequences that the religion has in our society nowadays. Therefore, religion should be modified to avoid further crimes against humanity. Let us be clear about the word 'modified' : we don't want to change the fundamental basis of religion, we only want to adapt religion for today's necessities.
Then, the first opposing speaker, AMo, started comparing religion to truth. Indeed, he said that "Religion cannot be modified, as we cannot modify truths", admitting that religion is a "universal and eternal value". Don't make me laugh! Universal? What about the millions of non-believers? Eternal? Let me ask you a question, when did Christianity begin? After that, he contradicted himself saying that religion can evolve but cannot be modified; in that case, what do you mean by "evolve"?
The second proposing speech, led by MB, showed why we should make religion evolve along with society. Indeed, unfortunately some people still foolishly see only truth into religion nowadays. As such, they act blindly "in the name of their beliefs" and don't realize what they are really doing (I think that examples are not necessary unless you didn't hear about Al-Qaeda or KKK). Nowadays, religion is seen as the solution of all the unsolved problems; people prefer to stay ignorant than to find the real answers : "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise", said Thomas Gray.
Also, MB pointed out the issues for a modification of religion in our society : AIDS, abortion, euthanasia, GMO. The change should come from the communication within religions. Religion is a part of our society, as such, it should evolve as the society evolves!
Thank you for sparing your time to follow this thrilling debate! Make the right choice, don't ignore these problems and issues and vote for us!
ZA
Third opposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply honoured to conclude this tricky debate. I will sum up the reasons why we strongly believe that modify religion is a mistake. I will argue that changing religion is irrelevant, too complicated, and even dangerous.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply honoured to conclude this tricky debate. I will sum up the reasons why we strongly believe that modify religion is a mistake. I will argue that changing religion is irrelevant, too complicated, and even dangerous.
As the first opposing speaker 1 puts it, there are principles, truths in religion that cannot be modified: the Christian 10 Commandments or the Buddhist 10 Precepts for instance. Change these principles is no sense: it means the negation of the religion itself. If you argue that now Muslim must eat pork, because it is useless now as second proposing speaker suggest it, your speech is against God’s one : it is like saying « God said something wrong ». A change in a religion discredits the religion, and sometimes even negates it.
According to the first Proposing speaker, religion is used by people like an instrument, an excuse for terrorism. In the name of their belief, people do terrible thing such as the cruses, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, … Do you really believe that modifying religion to suit today’s necessities would stop terrorism? Do you think it would have prevented the fight between protestant and catholic, and end the fight between Shiite and Sunnite ? The answer is obvious : it would not change anything ! Religion would still be used as an instrument, and terrible act would still be done in the name of religion. The previous examples also point out the fact that a change sometimes leads to schism, which may generate war.
These two points show that modifying religion is irrelevant : it means the negation of religion, and the idea that it would limit the excess is groundless. But the debate must also be practical, it is not just a question of relevance: a modification is hard to put in place, and it can be dangerous! First of all, who has the legitimacy to change a rule that goes back to more than thousand years and was established by God? Here is my point, it is impossible to make a consensus: some people would be opposed. History has shown that opposition within a religion itself leads to serious trouble: the schism often leads to war, as an example the fight between catholic and protestant, or Shiite and Sunnite. Thus, modifying religion is dangerous: it can rekindle the old conflicts, and generates new ones.
The second proposing speaker said that « Too many people are acting blindly in the name of their beliefs and don’t want to contradict them, because they are afraid to go against their religion.” He confuses “acting blindly” and “acting with faith”; true religious don’t act because they are afraid, but because they have the faith in their religion. Religion gives to them a reference, a code of practice in their life. It is important that this guide is immutable: who is going to follow a religion, supposed to be an eternal law dictate by God, which is changing? People need unchanging values in this evolving society, immutable values are, not today, but immutable necessities.
MPLB
ZA,
ReplyDeleteSince I fear my questions for Prop 2 will get forgotten and stay unanswered, I’d like to ask you similar questions.
1) I was very disappointed since your side is writing a lot about people who use religion to legitimate their crimes or simply commit crimes because they are persuaded their religion asked them to. You say we should change those behaviors, but neither of you say how. No matter what you could propose, religions will always stay different one from another. So, those who want wars and conflicts will always find an excuse for their acts in those differences.
2) Your side says that you don’t militate for changing dogmas of the religions. But, how can you than expect the Pope to speak positively about the abortion? Indeed, in the Christian Church teachings a fetus is already a human being, the life is sacred and only God has the right to take it away. Since the both sides in this debate write that modifying dogmas is out of question, do you expect the Pope to contradict them?
Besides, as Opp3 explained, wouldn’t any change in religion tend to discredit it since religion is supposed to be based on God’s immutable words?
MPLB,
Religious teachings were written a long time ago in a society so much different from ours. Today we use abortion and condoms, people marry with persons from a different religion…Doesn’t it increase the gap between the religion and the society? Wouldn’t an individual feel an interior tension when the society tells him one and religion the contrary?