Religious tolerance is a term that creates a set of topics. Religion and politics are considered separate entities, but when the government bases its principles on the separation of church and state, it automatically concludes that religion occupies such an important place in our society that it must there be a place where the government draws a proverbial conclusion. double. Because religion can never be "proven," large numbers of people do not associate with a particular religion, and some study whether or not Americans respect religious tolerance. Hundreds of scholars have written articles, responded to surveys, tested annual trends, and written scholarly articles on the concept of religious tolerance. The ability to show tolerance towards a particular religion is out of the question, but what is more minutely at hand is the logic on which these scholars base their ideals and whether they are valid or not. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay When it comes to logical arguments, Rothenberg and Winchell explain in their text “The Structure of an Argument” that a relevant statement has support and support. Both the audience and the creator of the message must be in agreement with their ideals, otherwise a message will not be well received or convincing (Rottenberg 214). A logical fallacy is a term for explanations given in persuasive arguments that ignore their content. These may be opinions, isolated examples that only shed light on the subject in question, or arguments stating qualifiers such as: perhaps, very probably, or usually. Many statements can cause a well-constructed argument to lose credibility because the information lacks evidence. With all this information about religious tolerance and how scholars approach this topic, many fail to explain their ideals without falling into the trap of using logical fallacies. In evaluating two separate articles that express opinions on the topic of religion, tolerance, many logical errors arise that cause two different sides of the argument to be both rational and irrational. Two articles support this argument: “Liberty and the Death of God,” which explains the “death of God” that began in the 1400s, and “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” which discusses both sides of the argument via multiple scholars. These two contrasting articles highlight the theme of religious tolerance in America for many years. The point of showing these two elements side by side is not to agree with one argument over another, but to show that all arguments are flawed and if neglected people might consult information based on opinions rather than facts. Death of God” is aimed at an audience who does not have great faith in God and explains how historians see a difference between the divine, spirit and reason. The article explains the revelations of several people, such as "Immanuel Kant [who] concluded that the existence of God could not be proven" (Fernald 2). Kant explains religion as something that stops when human reason enters the picture. The statement that God can never be proven is a hasty generalization. Its presence has never been proven, but in theory, can anything humans base their knowledge on be proven? Take the concept of gravity, still a theory because science will never be 100% proven, but it isan idea widely accepted by the general public. If people can believe in gravity without fully proving the theory, then why is never fully able to prove the existence of God logical enough to say that this higher entity is not real? The article goes on to explain how Kant and fellow follower GW F Hegel believe that once one can abandon the idea of ​​a divine being, one can rid oneself of human dependence with regard to human beings. imaginative relationships with “God” (Fernald 2). The terminology used to describe the benefits of leaving a relationship with God is detrimental to people strong in their faith. Mentioned earlier, the author and the audience must have similar opinions and viewpoints for the message to be understood. This article would do well to "preach to the choir" to those with weak religious faith, but those who follow God would have difficulty being persuaded, as the evidence is based on the experience of a few scholars. The other article, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” begins by explaining the credibility of each researcher involved. This draws on the philosophy of those who attempt to influence the opinion of an audience because they have a high level of education in the context they are speaking about. This helps to increase the rational perception of the argument. The article includes a chart that shows several countries, as well as the United States, characterized by a high rate of citizens who attend religious services on a weekly basis. Countries like Jordan and Indonesia show that on average seventy to ninety percent of their population is active in a religious setting each week (“American 5”). If God is "dead", as explained in the other article, then why is religion still a hot topic in the 21st century? Death suggests an end. As for the graphs listed in the "American Grace" article, many of them make quantitative observations regarding different polls and surveys regarding religious preferences, but several of the graphs do not indicate in what years the polls were carried out (“American 5-8). This shows a lack of critical information for the reader, as a survey taken fifty years ago is not relevant to studies aimed at explaining how society functions today. The article presents another survey regarding the number of students who are religiously affiliated and those who are not. This reflects a sharp increase in the number of students in college who do not have a religious preference. The article goes on to explain that the information comes from a survey of freshmen from “hundreds of colleges.” The problem with this information is that it is a generalization (“American 8”). How many schools were actually surveyed? How many students in total did this affect? Where were the schools located? All of these responses may explain why some students chose to feel one way or another on the topic of religious preference. Information in the College Chart shows a drastic increase in the number of freshmen who do not have a religious preference. the years 2000-2008. The claim is that students who are somewhat moderate and somewhat liberal in their political views talk about their religion by stating ". . . religion – this amounts to a particular form of politics. It's not my politics, and if I say I'm of a particular religion, that person is going to think I have that politics too and that's not the case. Ergo, they say, oh, I don’t have a religion” (“American 8). By handing over.