Religions should break with tradition if followers demand it.

Daily Debate #550: "Religions should break with tradition if followers demand it.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Christopher Hitchens.

If we are talking about the free will of humanity religions should break with tradition if followers demand it, I mean if a group of protesters are standing outside your home for days it would obviously trouble you an dmake you give what they want in most cases just like this debate, if the followers of religion demand the break through tradition it will happen. Here are my arguments Argument 1:actions speaks louder than words and worshipn Heard the quote of actions speak louder than words, this application with the debate topic defines that tradition is better than just a name, status and history of a figure or God and tradition which is works are better. Why you may ask and is it absurd? I will answer no and it should be practiced accordingly. Like instead o just going with your religion speaking that you're this religion or that religion without works and just worship you ar emy God or whatever it's pathetic don't you think. How about serving the religion through tradition like instead of ignoring the religion completely you serve it with tradition by you know, reading the religious book, worship with offerings or commit to its value rather than just looking at religion and ignoring the tradition that helps with the religion and the fact that it is the core to religion. Like isn't it much better to live with tradition than just going life saying that you're this religion without works.? In my conclusion faith without works is meaningless, and the fact that it is mentioned in Christianity is a sign that tradition is also faith and carries your reputation in religion also the truth.

You've actually argued *against* yourself here. You're saying tradition is the *work* that matters—the real faith. But then you're asking religions to abandon it when followers demand? That's incoherent. If tradition is meaningless busywork, fine, drop it. But you just spent three paragraphs telling me it's the *core* of religion, the actual practice that makes faith real. You can't have it both ways. Either tradition matters—in which case demanding its destruction weakens the faith itself—or it doesn't, and your whole argument collapses. Protesters outside a temple don't make doctrine true. They just make noise. What's your actual position?