Religious tolerance is a term that creates a set of arguments. Religion and politics are said to be separate entities, but when the government bases its principles on the separation of church and state, it automatically concludes that religion is so important in our society that there must be a place for the government to draw the proverbial line. line. Because religion can never be “proven,” large numbers of people do not associate with a particular religion, and there are people who study whether or not Americans respect religious tolerance. Hundreds of scholars have written articles, conducted surveys, tested annual trends, and written scholarly articles on the concept of religious tolerance. The ability to have tolerance towards a particular religion is beyond question, but what is more scrupulously at hand is the logic on which these scholars base their ideals and whether or not they are valid. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Regarding logical arguments, Rothenberg and Winchell explain in their text "The Structure of an Argument" that a recognizable statement has support and support. The audience and the creator of the message must be congruent with their own ideals, otherwise the message will not be well received or persuasive (Rottenberg 214). A logical fallacy is a term to describe explanations given with persuasive arguments that do not hold up based on its content. This might include opinions, isolated examples that only shed light on the topic at hand, or topics that specify qualifiers such as: perhaps, very likely, or usually. There are many claims that can cause a well-structured argument to lose credibility because the information lacks evidence. With all this information, regarding religious tolerance and how scholars approach this topic, many are unable to explain their ideals without falling into the trap of using logical fallacies. When evaluating two separate articles expressing opinions revolving around the topic of religious tolerance, many logical errors emerge that cause two different sides of the issue to be both rational and irrational. Two articles on this topic are "Freedom 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 denotes both sides of the topic through multiple scholars. These two contrasting articles have shed light on the topic of religious tolerance in America for many years. The purpose of showing these two arguments side by side is not to agree with one argument over another, but to show how all arguments contain errors and, if overlooked, people may consult opinion-based information rather than on facts. Death of God” is aimed at an audience that does not have a strong belief in God and explains how historical scholars see a difference between divine, spirit and reason. The article explains epiphanies that several people have had, such as “Immanual Kant [who] concluded that the existence of God could not be proven” (Fernald 2). Kant explains religion as something that stops when human reason comes into play. The statement that God can never be proven is a hasty generalization. Its presence has never been proven, but is it theoretically possible to prove everything on which humans base their knowledge? Let's take the concept of gravity, which is still a theory because the science will never be 100% proven, but it is an idea that is widely accepted by the general public. If people can believe in gravity without fully proving the theory,so what does it mean that never being completely able to prove the existence of God is logical enough to say that this higher entity is not real? The article goes on to explain how Kant, and a disciple of his, GW F Hegel, believes that once one can let go of the idea of ​​a divine being, then one can free oneself from the human dependence on imaginative relationships with “ God” (Fernald 2). The terminology used to describe the benefits of leaving a relationship with God is harmful to people who are strong in their faith. As mentioned above, the author and the audience must have similar opinions and views for the message to be understood. This article would do well to 'preach to the choir' to those who are weak in religious faith, but those who follow God would struggle to be persuaded because the evidence is based on the experience of some scholars. The other article, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” begins by explaining the credibility of each scholar involved. This is based on the ethics of those seeking to influence public opinion because they have high levels of education in the background they are discussing. This helps to increase the rational perception of the topic. The article includes a graph showing several countries, along with the United States, featuring a high rate of citizens attending religious services on a weekly basis. Countries such as Jordan and Indonesia show that an average of seventy to ninety percent of the population is active weekly in a religious context (“American 5). If God is “dead,” as explained in the other article, then why is religion still a prominent topic in the 21st century? Death suggests an end. As for the charts listed in the “American Grace” article, many of them express quantitative observations regarding various polls and polls regarding religious preferences, but many of the charts do not indicate in which years the surveys were taken (“ American 5- 8). This demonstrates a lack of critical information for the reader because a survey conducted fifty years ago is irrelevant to studies that aim to explain the way society works today. The article shows another survey regarding the number of students who affiliate with a religion and then those who do not. It expresses a sharp increase in university students 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 did it reach in total? Where were the schools located? All of these responses may influence why some students chose to feel one way or another regarding the topic of religious preference. The information in the undergraduate studies table shows a dramatic increase in the number of freshmen, who do not have a religious preference, around the years 2000-2008. The claim is that students who are somewhat moderate and tend to be liberal in their political views talk about their religion by stating “. . . religion – which is equivalent to a particular type of politics. This is not my politics, and if I say that I belong to a particular religion, this person will think that I also have that politics and I don't. Ergo, they report, oh, I don't have a religion” (“American 8). When questioning the credibility of an argument, a thought arises regarding this statement, who actually said this? This seems to be a vague statement about how people might feel. Potential reasons why college students might.