Should it be legal to criticize ANY religion, let alone Islam? - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

Should it be legal to criticize ANY religion, let alone Islam?
in Politics


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • Thankfully, it is legal, here at least... I'd go further and say it's a necessity. The most loathsome and dangerous laws are blasphemy laws.  No idea is beyond critique.
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • JoesephJoeseph 559 Pts
    edited February 8
    They all deserve to be mocked and criticized, all are entirely mockworthy ......Islam is as ridiculous as Christianity 
  • Religion in it of itself deserves criticism. They’re all bad in their own way. Islam though, is the WORST. It’s the reason countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are backwards nations compared other nations

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
  • @Plaffelvohfen I agree. I see it as a free speech issue.
  • @Zombieguy1987 Agreed. It is a free speech issue, even if you want to criticize my Christian faith. :) <3
  • It should be legal to criticise anything or anyone you want, for any reason you want. Rowan Atkinson makes a distinction between criticising someone's religion, and criticising someone's race, stating that the former is a right, while the latter is manifestly irrational - but they are both rights. Criticism being irrational does not mean it should not be allowed.

    Rather than talking about religions though, I would talk about ideologies in general. One of the inherent properties of any ideology is its intolerance towards other ideologies. Whenever Christians, Muslims, fascists, socialists, communists, etc. take power, they always start a massive assault on people's freedoms to oppose their ideas. I believe that opposing any ideology should be a hard constitutional right protected from ever being overridden by any other law. 100,000 years from now our legal systems will be unrecognisable from the modern perspective, but they must contain a clause making any criticism - or any peaceful means of self-expression - unconditionally legal. Otherwise it is inevitable that the society eventually collapses into an eternal totalitarian state. In the freedom vs control struggle, control always has a bigger leverage by its very nature, and will inevitably win, unless it is explicitly prohibited from ever happening.

    We must build a system in which the role of the government comes down to protecting people's individual rights, and everything else it could possibly do is fully protected from its intervention. People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as their actions do not violate others' fundamental rights. This is the only way to build a free and prosperous statist society. Everything else ends up in harsh censorship and degradation of human capital and dignity, leading to the eventual collapse of the system.

    We can see the emergence of countless proposals, as well as actually implemented laws, banning various self-expression means. A very commonly used argument is "it is offensive". "It is offensive" has historically been the #1 way to justify restriction of people's freedoms. Such things as "blasphemy laws" or "respect of the government" laws, which have been the standard first brick laid in building a totalitarian system, are a part of that very notion. "Do not say it, since we do not want to hear it."

    One of the essential properties of a free society is having to hear what you do not want to hear. This is what freedom is all about: being let to pursue your dreams, even if others do not like the way you do it. All these attempts to protect poor oppressed groups from being criticised are a sign that we are going back to the square one, to the old feudal times, when small groups of people forced their rules on everyone else.


    My ideas are criticised all the time: libertarianism is not very popular these days. And I am okay with that. If someone is not okay with someone else criticising their most deeply held beliefs, then they are not ready to live in a free society and need to grow up.
    If someone believes in Allah and does not want to hear the opinion that Allah is made up, then they should stay in totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Western politicians, as well as commoners, bending under the desires of cavemen bringing their totalitarian culture here is one of the most despicable displays I have ever observed.

    In Saudi Arabia or Iran, people get tortured, go to prison and die in the name of freedom. While on the comfy and free West, useful fools demand that our freedom is taken away, just so hardcore Muslims felt better. Rowan Atkinson's words are incredibly soft; these developments deserve a much stronger reaction, than this.
  • @MayCaesar Bingo! I agree. It is a free speech issue.
  • That guy looks like Mr Bean.
  • @piloteer He is, good guess! What are your thoughts on criticizing religion? Even if you want to criticize my Christian faith, I support your free speech.
  • @YeshuaBought

    I myself would never criticize anyone's faith. I'm NOT Charlie hebdo, but I will criticize anybody who thinks it should be illegal to criticize anyone's religious beliefs.
  • @piloteer Same here. I try not to criticize other religions too much, but if someone else wants to, it's free speech.
  • I will not criticize religion in a believer's face for no reason. What people believe is really their business. I have had acquaintances who were devoted Muslims, devoted Christians and devoted Buddhists. They were all awesome guys and girls, and some disagreements never got in the way of our friendly interaction.

    That said, every now and then I criticize religion in the abstract sense. Or I can criticize religion when something horrible is done as a result of it. It is very hard to criticize Saudi Arabia without criticizing Islam, nor would it be wise, since Islamic teachings have directly affected the evolution of that society.

    I think people need to learn to criticize things without making it personal. It is okay for someone to not believe that gender change is possible. It is not a good idea, however, to make it an issue when interacting with transsexual people. Similarly, it is okay to dislike Islam (I definitely dislike it, as I do any religion). But you do not want to tell a Muslim woman that her religion is fantasy, unless the conversation goes there first.

    You may notice that I never criticize religion out of the blue. It is only when the topic is about religion, or about something related to religion, that I voice my opinion on that. When I just peacefully interact with people believing in something, their beliefs have absolutely no impact on me, and it is only when they start voicing their beliefs openly that I may respond with criticism.
  • @MayCaesar Agreed. While I am a Christian, I try not to attack people personally, unless they force their beliefs on me. What I would like to see is more open and honest interfaith dialog among the religions, and I would fight just as hard for a persecuted atheist, as I would for a Christian, maybe even more so, to show the love of Jesus Christ.
  • You ever heard of The Constitution of The United States of America?
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @YeshuaBought

    I have lived with a deep Catholic believer in one house for a year. Once we got comfortable enough with each other, we would often debate the religious matters. I would pretty openly say what I think about religion, and he would counter my arguments with his. He was a mathematician, and I was a physicist, so we both were used to forming logical arguments. 

    Our debates would never get heated. While I almost always disagreed with him, I could not help but admit that his arguments were reasonable. Our debates would go back and forth, and in each debate each of us would learn something new, gain a new insight on various issues.

    This is the biggest danger of silencing critics: such discussions become marginalised. Yet they are required for the society to be united. We cannot be united when we cannot talk honestly about our deep concerns, including those related to the people around us. What we are currently having in the US - strong division - is partially a result of both major sides trying to silence the discussion on certain topics. Since the discussion did not occur naturally, many conflicts remained unresolved, and now that someone who is not afraid to speak their mind took power, suddenly we are learning how different our perspectives actually are.

    The longer tough discussions are barred by the government and/or the people themselves, the bigger the explosion is when someone finally breaks the silence. Why, in less fortunate countries it leads to violent revolutions or civil wars sometimes. Let us not try to emulate those countries. Let us instead be strong and discuss sensitive issues openly, so we all know where we stand and what conflicts we need to work out.
  • I try not to criticize religions, or a religion "as a whole". I am NOT a believer. I DO criticize ANY religion when they try to spread their "control" to those who don't want any part of them. The "Religion is like a penis" theory is part of MY gospel. To me, Islam is something I want no part of, though it is not ALL bad. Sharia Law goes against our Constitution, but, I HAVE to defend their right to be here, as long as they drop those parts that ARE against the law. Evangelicals, to me, are a more dangerous religion to this country from within. Trying to change our Constitution to fit Biblical law is an attack on America as far as I'm concerned! As long as a religion stays within its believers, within its properties, have at it. 
    The bad thing is when ANY of those believers decide that the WORLD must follow their rules, THEIR "god", it's trouble.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch