The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The UK should become a Secular State, free of religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,211 times Debate No: 34385
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that the UK should become a secular state, free of religion. Con will be arguing that the UK should not become secular. We shall both share burdon of proof.

I will ask that since Con will be going first that he leave round 5 empty.


I will use the argumentetum ad baculum for evidence of pro's mistake.
If pro says so, then the MI6 kills him
The MI6 kills him as punishment for being ignorant
Thus, he is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, however he has failed in his attempt to prove that the UK should remain in ties with the Church Of England.

Argumentetum ad baculum

Con states that the "argumentetum ad baculum" is "evidence" of my "mistake". He puts forward that if I think the UK should become secular, that this in turn means the MI6 will kill me for ignorance. While wildly amusing, it fails across the board for the following reasons.

1, Many people in the UK wish to have a secular state. Con has not provided any evidence of any them being killed by MI6 in any recorded case, ever, for this reason.

2, He claims to know the inner workings, opinions and set punishments of a secret service originsation in which is so secret that no acting chief even addressed the public formally for over the first 100 years of its existence. He claims this without backing up his assumptions with any evidence, at all.

3. He claims that this killing would in turn prove that the UK should not become secular. The only reason I could see for this irational chain of events to happen for these specific reasons is if MI6 was doing the killing on religios grounds, and this would in turn, would only prove my point even further.

To sum up Cons side, Cons stated premises fails to support its proposed conclusion
in any way, shape or form and the whole argument is an informal logical fallacy. He has failed to meet his burdon of proof entirely on every aspect, and even if he met it and it was true, it would only serve to prove my purpose.

As stated, we share burdon of proof, so I shall move on.


We live in a time when science is taking leaps and bounds, and as a result many more people are growing up as atheists in this country. We also live in a much more diverse country than we previously did, accepting people from countries in all ends of the world, and people of many different faiths.

A state that is truely secular would be neutral to all the differing religious doctrines. It is my opinion that state neutrality is necessary for true conviction to be the driving force of religious and social practice, without fear of those who control the state. This again backs up my previous statement that the MI6 arguement is actually a reason FOR a secular state.

A secular state would allow every living Muslim, Christian, Jew, or any other, an equal freedom. Freedom to pray and fast as he or she wants to and freedom to follow the footsteps of teachings and Prophets of their own wish.

If we truely wish to have diversity in our country, then whether we believe in a God or not, we absolutely need secularism over one particular denomination of one particular religion.

Laws and the Equality Act

The monarch promises to uphold Christianity. This means The Church of England's leaders can vote on legislation in Parliament, 26 leaders to be precise, that are allowed to vote on and shape laws that fit their own demoninations and religions practices over anothers.

In 2010, the House of Lords narrowly passed an amendment to the Equality Act exempting employees of religious organisations from some aspects of homophobic discrimination. The amendment was passed so narrowly that, without the bishops, the vote would have gone the other way. This means that directly because of our non-secularism, our country passed a law that was in favour of homophobic descrimination. Not only that, but these people are forced, by law, to pay taxes towards an orginisation (the guvernment) that promotes descrimination of that very individual.

If I said to you, pay me money so that I can make people descriminate about a personal choice you have made, would you be happy with that choice? I would not.


It is the right of tax-paying religious citizens, as all citizens, to access facilities suited to their needs. Education is a need, yet religious schools are allowed to discriminate in selection and recruitment. Above and beyond that, they are allowed to teach creation stories based on religios text, in science classes, over or alongside science. That objectively hinders those childrens education, especially in the case of say, an athiest who wishes to persue biology as a career.

You may say that those parents/children could choose to go to another school, but in some rural areas, the faith based school is the only one available.

Would you be happy to know that your child was going to a school that is teaching her science which was refuted by scientists before you yourself were even born?

Let me put this forward. To date, there are no scientifically peer reviewed articles that disclaim the evolution listed in the science and medical journal database. Yet, some schools take it upon themself to teach science that completely contradicts this. This is only allowed to happen because we are not a secular state.

Where does it stop?

If we are already at the point of having creation stories sit along side evolution, not only in religios classes but in science classes itself, whats to stop that going further in a non-secular country. The bible gives rules for keeping a slave, tells you countless reasons to stone someone to death, condemns innoscent newborn babies to torture and promotes sexism openly.

Should we just go ahead and teach our kids those aswell?

What about all the priests who have touched little boys, is that ok cause the Queens on their groups side? Is moving them around the world instead of bringing them to justice ok? What about Christianity denying most of Africa access to condoms, causing mass spread of Aids, should we all just stop safe sex practices too? Should we include that in the schools teachings?

At what point do you look at non-secular society and say enoughs enough, and why isn't the line way back at the beginning when you first propose to include religion in your guvernment.


Cons argument is a logical informal fallacy that fails to meet any burdon of proof and, if anything, backs up my claim instead of his.

We strive for fair laws and a diverse society, but let religios leaders pass descriminative laws. This would not happen in a secular society.

We teach our children false truths based on faith teachings and disproven claims. This would not happen in a secular society.

If we say its ok for religios teachings and discriminative law passing, whats to stop the rest from following.



Fir case, however, this will not stand to the argumentetum ad populum.
You said many, but not the majority.
If the majority of the uk believes it is wrong, who are you to say they're wrong?
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for his response, However he has failed to back up his case and still has not met any burden of proof. He has not given me much to work with, but I will address what is here.

Morality and the popularity vote

Con has stated that many might want a secular state, but not the majority. I direct him to source 1 at the end of my post, an article on a recent YouGuv poll showing a majority amount wanting secular schooling, and this is something they can only achieve through having a secular state. Thus, Con has failed on this point, as a majority of people have been shown to want secularism.

Cons other point was that if the majority did in fact believe my point to be wrong, that this would be grounds for it being wrong. This is a subjective view on morality and is very wrong in itself. If 99% of the UK thought it was ok to keep slaves, this would not make it morally ok to keep slaves. If 99% of us thought it was ok to beat the other 1% daily with hammers, this would not make it morally ok. Morality does not come from majority vote.

Morality is based on ethics, it is what is right and wrong, and what is best for the well being of our society. It is not a popularity vote by one group. Iff 51% of people said "we are great, the 49% should die", this is not ethically or moraly good, this is not what is best for society and this would not make the 51% right in their actions.

Governments Duty

The government is in place to do "the greatest good" for its people in its choices. To do this governments must strive to look at its citizens equally and without bias, something which a non-secular government just cannot do. We also as a country invite people here regardless of religion, we look to trade and enter partnerships with countries all over the world, and that we pride our self on being diverse, accepting and non-discriminatory. To do the greatest good, we have to be doing things for the overall benefit of people as a majority.

If we look at the census for 2011 compared to just 10 years earlier, the amount of people who are Christian in this country is at 59%. This is down from well over 70% in the previous census. I also put to you that 63% of the UK put them self forward as being "not very religious at all." [3]

It also becomes apparent that even while you could argue that the UK has a 59% Christian majority, there are over 40,000 deniminations of christianity and I would argue that no single denomination has a majority.

I also put forward individual parts of the UK. While England might be more religios, Scotland in the 2001 census only had 15% being catholic as opposed to the over 70% in the UK as a whole[4]. Its majority was the Church Of Scotland and even that only received 42% of people in its favour. How can we doing things in the greater good of Scotland, for example, if we are allowing people to be bias for a religion that 85% of its people do not support? For the UK to meet its duty to do things for the greatest of good, it must take all the individual countries into account.

You need secularism in order for all of these religions to continue un oppressed and without discrimination. and you also need it for the growing amount of athiests in this country.

In Conclusion

Cons first round argument is still a logical informal fallacy that fails to meet any burdon of proof and, if anything, backs up my claim instead of his. He has still not shown otherwise.

We strive for fair laws and a diverse society, but let religios leaders pass descriminative laws. Con has not shown any counter to this.

We teach our children false truths based on faith teachings and disproven claims. This would not happen in a secular society, and Con has still not shown any counter to this either or that
the rest of the possible outcomes in round 2 won't happen.

The majority of the UK want secular schooling, only 15% in Scotland supports the religion we are tied into and 63% of the uk is "not very religios at all". So even the majority could be said to be pro-secularism.








Pro's case is false because he is a filthy Jew.
Proof: his nose.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for his response, even if I do not agree with religious bigotry.
Although I feel Con has stooped in his level, I will not be brought down to it.

I would like to point out that I joined here recently, My first debate is in its closing stages, none of the four debates I am a part of have ended yet, and while all the others, so far have stayed proper and intelligible, cons last round has fallen below par. While some debates on here are very much meant as jokes or meaningless wastes of time, and are agreed on as so by both parties, I actually joined to have a structured debates about issues that I feel passionately about with people who might either change my mind, or at least bring up other points in new lights.

Cons utter failings in round 3

Unfortunately Con has failed on multiple grounds in round 3. He argues my case is false because of my religion. This fails on 2 accounts. The first being that no ones argument, point or opinion fails because they believe in a specific god, deity or worldview. This is not just complete discrimination to that specific religion, but it is an utter lack of rational thinking and it is discrimination and inequality like that which makes me argue for a secular state in which all religions are equal.

The second point is that, as openly seen on my profile, I am an atheist. So not only has Con not met his burden of proof, he has completely ignored facts. This compromises his entire arguments validity and it shows a categorical failing in both his research ability and ability to construct factual arguments.

Cons argument is self contradictory, also... Rhino's.

It is unfortunate that Con did not look into my profile to see that actually, I share the same religious view as him. Maybe he did and was just irrationalised by the fact that I don't seem to share the same fascination with Rhino's as he does, who knows. If he did see that I was also an atheist he would realise though, that his argument is a logical contradiction that fails entirely.

Con states that my religious view proves my argument false.
Con has the same religious view as myself.
Therefore, by Cons logic, he is also wrong.


Cons first round argument is a logical informal fallacy that still fails to meet any burden of proof.
Round 1 backs up my claim.

We strive for fair laws and a diverse society, but let religious leaders pass discriminative laws. Con has not shown any counter to this.

We teach our children false truths based on faith teachings and disproven claims. This would not happen in a secular society, and Con has still not shown any counter to this either or that
the rest of the possible outcomes in round 2 won't happen.

Round 3 has shown that Cons arguments from majority and morality by popular vote were flawed. He has not shown any counter to this.

Cons argument in round 4 is self contradicting, lacks any evidence and reaches out to religious bigotry. It has no merit and would be better off in a playground.


Just-Your-Average-Atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Just-Your-Average-Atheist 2 years ago
I would like to sincerely apologize to my opponent, for I had wasted his time. My sense of humour has evolved from the mongoloid esque humour which I openly used in this debate and others like it. Again, my sincere apologies, I was just an @$$. And my sense of humor was retarded.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
I meant, here's hoping that he loses points for the conduct. :)
Posted by amey 3 years ago
what did u mean by here's hoping?
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
Amey, here's hoping! :P
Posted by amey 3 years ago
con must lose for bad conduct and using harsh words.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
lol, I should have worded that bit better. I can't imagine trying to rid a country of religion, that'd be pretty crazy! :P
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
I misunderstood, I was of the same impression as RoyLatham.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
Free of religion, as in the country would not be tied to one. The country, politically, would be free of religion. I do indeed mean removing its establishment with the Church Of England.

I have nothing against people believing in set beliefs, I just do not think that our country should be tied to one set of them.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
"Free of religion" implies that steps should be taken to abolish religion. I gather that's not the actual subject of the debate. Am I correct that is about disestablishmentarianism, removing the Church of England as the official church?
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
YYW, Of course it makes a difference...

The UK has Bishops of the church directly involved in shaping the countries laws. There are plenty of people who would like to see Christian creation stories tuaght in place of science, being tied to one specific religion is how things like that are allowed to happen.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by amey 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wins this debate hands down since con posted some harsh words and he also forfeited the last round ,he also posted some senseless arguments