Introduction
In today’s society, religion significantly influences moral foundations and values, and thus can be called a force of progress. Organized Religion Debate features Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz, who candidly present their perspectives on whether organized religion provides the answers to 21st-century problems. Although Keyes and Dershowitz stand on opposite sides of the debate, they succinctly express their perspectives on religion and morality, the Bible and moral guidance, religion and politics, plus religion’s impact on the founding fathers (C-SPAN, 2000). The speakers further addressed several issues such as civil rights, gender and sexual orientation, poverty, crime, industrialization, and sexual orientation. While Keyes and Dershowitz depicted contrasting techniques and delivery styles, they provided multi-faceted knowledge that cut across various disciplines, contributing to an active, engaging, and rigorous debate. Religion serves as a powerful antidote to the problems of the modern world but faces several challenges.
Themes
Keyes opens with a disclaimer, which he offers partly as an effort to unravel the problems of the 21st century. Keyes points out the challenge of predicting the problems of the modern world and rather attests that “I do see a challenge though, that ought to be fairly evident to us and that becomes increasingly acute because of some of the temptations…” (C-SPAN, 2000, 10:35-11:00). However, Keyes should acknowledge that current trends and practices drive the future. For example, the 1929 stock market crash, government policies, plus world trade and money supply collapse caused the Great Depression. Therefore, the challenges of the current century could be predicted. Nonetheless, Keyes provides a strong argument that “…our knowledge…does not equal the knowledge of the one who put all things in their places (C-SPAN, 2000, 19:34-19:47). For this reason, “…we cannot allow power to replace our submission to God’s will…” (C-SPAN, 2000, 20:29-20:31). Knowledge and power demand absolute certainty and people inherently make mistakes.
Furthermore, people often follow the religion they are born with, guiding their actions, beliefs, and practices. Keyes believes that “the founders of this nation…had a particular wisdom…that we are all of us created equal and endowed by our creator with the foundation of our rights and justice” (C-SPAN, 2000, 19:34-20:01). Conversely, Dershowitz argued that the founding fathers were ordinary people who discussed issues including slavery and sexism. Thus, from Dershowitz’s view, Keyes’ mocked the Shintoists, Christians, Buddhists, and atheists who confronted issues such as cruelty. In this sense, Keyes attacked great individuals and articulated a correlation between morality and religion. On the other hand, Dershowitz articulated that morality cannot entirely coexist with religion “because there are always going to be people who are not religious” (C-SPAN, 2000, 23:48-23:56). Religion shapes the framework that distinguishes right from wrong, but this excludes non-believers, questioning the weight of the argument.
Despite contrasting principles, agnostics and atheists possess a sound sense of morality as religious believers. The converse is true: using religion for bad appeals, from God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son to the conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. In the United States, the case of sexuality gets increasingly challenged since it goes against God’s word. Religious institutions have autonomy over theological affairs but justifying rights violations can be greatly challenging. While Dershowitz posits organized religion as divisive, Keyes insists that it can override problems faced by today’s society. Dershowitz provides a valid counter-argument that “Religion does provide some answers to some problems…but organized religion particularly creates division” (C-SPAN, 2000, 28:30-28:39). The use of organized religion for preferred appeals fails to equally respect individuals who can attain morality without religion.
The apparent relationship between religion and morality supports the belief in God’s existence. Keyes points out that a firm belief in God through all circumstances helps embrace the universal purview of justice and human rights. Religious belief or faith helps some people meet their spiritual and psychological needs such as getting comfort during tribulations. However, Dershowitz invokes rhetoric in Keyes’ assertions by arguing that the history of organized religion relies on constantly apologizing for misunderstanding God’s word. Religion failed to solve societal problems before and can continue to do so. For this reason, human rights stand strongly against religion. For example, the use of religion to justify gender and sexual orientation discrimination violates the freedom of expression. Dershowitz says that “I don’t know whether God exists. I don’t know that. And I tell you one thing, I am not frightened of my beliefs” (C-SPAN, 2000, 48:25-48:29). Respecting religious diversity and individual beliefs is essential in upholding a moral precept.
Delivery Style
The delivery of an effective and productive debate transcends logic and reason. Keyes and Dershowitz effectively delivered their arguments by taking advantage of key techniques. For one, both Keyes and Dershowitz used their voices meaningfully and expressively. Although Keyes spoke with appropriate loudness, his variation in speed adversely affected his delivery, including unclear articulation. In contrast, Dershowitz slowed down while presenting his counter-arguments to increase communication effectiveness with the audience. With Dershowitz’s delivery, one can comprehend and synthesize every word, conveying careful reasoning. Despite the difference, Keyes and Dershowitz focused on sharing their ideas with the audience. Additionally, both speakers meaningfully used body expressions; Keyes and Dershowitz showed commitment and sincerity in the debate plus used gestures to emphasize key points and underscore transition. The speakers particularly used pauses to enhance the clarity of their points, enhancing audience engagement.
Keyes provided compelling arguments by attempting to take an ethical approach but failed to do so repeatedly. For example, Keyes occasionally attacked Dershowitz instead of criticizing his points, questioning Keyes’ credibility. Dershowitz retaliated by pointing out the absurdity in Keyes’ arguments through the use of Islamic rhetoric, “He would be talking about the great needs of Islam. He would be talking about how when our young people go to war and kill Iraqis or kill Jews, they are doing it in the name of Allah” (C-SPAN, 2000). Although Keyes crafted strong opening and closing arguments, he displayed information overflow and jumped from one point to another. On the other hand, Dershowitz balanced his points, providing concise arguments on morality existing without religion. Additionally, both speakers repeatedly rephrased their contentions to claim a misunderstanding of their arguments. Good argument delivery communicates confidence and clarity of thought.
Conclusion
Given the 21st-century problems, organized religions exist as a structure to rebel against and within. According to Keyes, organized religion compels people to embrace history, reminding them of the communal power in a society and the belief in God. However, social behavior, norms, and culture inevitably change, and so does religion. Political institutions often use religion to justify their actions, contributing to the growing distrust of organized religions. Dershowitz essentially argued that the existence of organized religions contradicts their core purpose, spiritual enlightenment. For instance, with organization comes oppression and power, thus, excluding a certain group of people. Generally, Keyes and Dershowitz provide compelling arguments on organized religion, leaving the audience with a point to ponder.
Reference
C-SPAN. (2000). Organized religion debate. Web.