The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
aryan_ind has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 283 times Debate No: 104677
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




On this side of the house, we believe firmly in the need to promote equality in our society. This is something we believe to a level where we are willing to take the most hard-line stance to correct the most prominent of the inequalities across the globe: gender inequality.

Policy: All religious institutions failing to provide equal opportunity for appointment to women as men will be liable to pay special taxes, that will be higher than normal taxes.
This would disincentivese the inequality that women face in various inequalities faced by women in religious institutions.

Burden of Proof: To show that my policy today is necessary, legitimate and effective.

Argument 1: Religious conventions are one of the largest factors deterring the course of equality.
Even to this day an age, it is apparent to most that religion is one of the most important factors in legitimizing an action to a majority of the globe. This specially applies excessively in most developing countries, where inequality is also more severe. Thus, if religion itself, provides a divine consent that men are superior to women and should thus be in positions of power, inequality itself gains legitimacy. Moreover, we also see how this is not how religion was meant to be, to begin with; something I will elaborate in my second argument.
When men are given such divine legitimacy, the standing of women lessens in society, not only in the eyes of men, but even in their own. They begin to believe that their duty is to shadow men, something we know is quite far from the truth in this day and age.
Lastly, our policy enables women to prove to themselves and men that they are capable of being as efficient and assertive as men themselves. This is important because unless they are given a chance to prove convention wrong, they will continue believing in their own inferiority.
An excellent example of this can be seen in Saudi Arabia, among other Islamic countries. Due to the apparent inequality present in Islam, and what we have made of it, men often take advantage of created religious policy and assert their superiority. Women cannot even drive in Saudi Arabia without the consent of their husbands or another man. Often, they cannot even leave their homes without the consent of the men they are meant to live along with, side by side, as equals.
Thus, I have proven to you how there is a necessity for the policy being implemented due to the direct adverse effects on women if religious institutions are not altered from the status quo. I have also shown you how this is an effective policy, because by understanding the central role of religion in most lives, its amendment is the shortest and surest way to correct the problem of femele quality.

Argument 2: The devolution of religion to stoop to such levels of blatant insensitivity.

The purpose of religion, without any other pollutants, in its most chaste and natural form is meant for the unification and harmonious functioning of society. This is because there is no better motivator for agreement than a strongly shared belief. Moreover, those who established religions were thinking, sensitive and moral individuals who all preached the same core values of kindness, love and most importantly, equality. Islam, a religion now polluted with the toxins of inequality, was a revolutionary thought when it said that all humans are children of god. Christianity was profound when it preached that kindness was at the core of human existence. Hinduism was extraordinary when it brought up the idea of women scholars, such as Matreyi and Gargi who even defeated several male scholars in debate. Thus it is observed that at the core of every religion there lie the tenants of kindness, compassion and, most importantly, equality. In time, the pollutants of power begin to creep in, and certain forces interpret religious texts in a way that suits them. An example of this are the Brahmins in medieval India, who often twisted the esoteric meanings of texts to grant themselves more power. These pollutants are dissolved soon in the fabric of the religion and then are considered tradition, the righteous way forward by convention.
Thus, no religion, esoterically wanted for inequality but it was only in the quest for power and status that these misconceptions were labelled as the will of God. For God, wants only for his children to remain happy and evolve.
Through this argument, I have proven to you how it is thus a moral burden on our side to cleanse religions of such pollutants and thus are legitimate in our policy; which aims to cleanse society of gender inequality.

Through my arguments I have proven to you how our policy is necessary, legitimate and effective and should thus be implemented.


In this argument I am simply saying "Church" in reference to any religious institution.

If we are to work from the idea of separation of church and state, this includes that the states should stay out of the churches business. The church is not held to discrimination charges for this reason, regardless of why someone is discriminated against.

It is good and dandy if a church chooses to hire women, but being forced to comply with hiring women is the government over-stepping.

In Christianity at least, the church does not see women as inferior. Rather, their role is different in the church, and because of the curse mentioned in genesis, "Then he said to the woman, "I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.""

This means that many women have a desire to control male peers, rather than build them up in faith. Now, how far this should go is debatable, personally I think it is possible that in later verses talking about this though Paul, some of his own bias may of came through. Though even then, he speaks of many women in good. For example, I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well."

I believe this to be possible, of his bias to be infused, because Corinthians was a letter. His worldly faults could seep in. But that is up to an individual to decide and to what extent.

Deborah was a prophetess and women given much authority in the bible, before him.

Regardless some better thoughts on this can be seen here, and you can see why many denominations do not allow women in positions of authority:

The most important idea to this is though, that if you tax churches because they refuse to put women in charge, you are trying to allow the state to control the church which gives much to much power to the state and sacrifices religious freedom.

Debate Round No. 1


While I do respect the religious opinions of my worthy opponent, one cannot deny the limitation placed on religious understanding in opposition"s case. Restricting religious institutions strictly to churches makes for quite a limited case. Moreover, Christianity barely accounts for less than a third of the world"s population. The biblical arguments, too, if taken at their best are applicable only to this third of global population, and quite astonishing in their implications as I will discuss throughout my case.
1.The greater good in interfering with religious institutions: The government bears the responsibility to care for the interests of the people it is serving and is morally obliged in doing so. This is its primordial responsibility and it over rules any other role that the government might play. Thus, as the importance of establishing gender equality has been established, and remains unchallenged, it is the government"s moral obligation to do so. As that has been explained, the question boils down to the effectiveness of the policy being implemented. As the government, we feel that our moral obligations should be taken a step further for the welfare of our citizens. We feel that only the quickest and most effective policy must implemented, and have shown how our policy satisfies both those criterion and must be put to action. We do not deny that this is a hard-line stance we have taken but it is a step we are willing to take for the uplift-ment of the 3.5 billion women that surround us. Thus, the oppositions qualms regarding the maintenance of a separation between church and state is one we are legitimate in over-ruling.
2.The misogyny in opposition"s arguments: Through an allusion made to the bible, the opposition stated that the role of women in society is to be led by men. The government disagrees with the very premise of this argument. We feel that women have an equal role in the functioning of any society and deny any such divine consent given to the superiority of a particular sex. Genesis 1:26-27, which does not belong to the New Testament, quotes that men and women both derive their value from the image of God, and are both created by God himself. This is more than enough evidence to indicate the sensitivity observed by Christ"s earliest followers and perhaps even Christ himself. Apart from strengthening our argument regarding the original purity in any religion, this also rebuts the opposition and their sexist views. It is indeed sad that the very worshippers of Christ hold a view on equality quite polar to His own.
Broadening this debate from the Christian context, during the early Vedic age in India, women enjoyed a position equal to men in society. They had an equal say in the governance of kingdoms as they had in domestic argument. It is only with the impurity of power-seeking that women were side-lined in the later Vedic age; similar to what they were done with in the New Testament. This gives us, even the religious legitimacy to rid religion of the misogyny that infects it today.

1.Extending Argument 1: The effectiveness of our policy takes root on the fact that the influence of religion on individual"s lives is exceedingly great. Religion is held as a guiding principle that guides the very philosophies that people live their lives with. Thus if the guiding principles itself propagates sexist appointment, it has the potential to alter the fabric of people"s perception. Because religion influences so greatly, it is the ideal tool that could be used to solve the problem of gender equality by propagating against it. Moreover, if it"s very actions act contrary to sexist stereotypes, equality could finally be achieved.


The government has also a responsibility to refrain from overstepping. The biggest hole in your argument is the idea of separation of church and state. Just as the church shouldn't rule the nation, the nation shouldn't rule the church. Regardless of whether the church should allow women to preach or not is not the business of the government and for the sake of freedom they need to let it be.

I am using the word "Church" to refer to all religious institutions.

I believe that men and women are equal, but different. I believe my ramble was quite confusing, but regardless unimportant to this argument.

I am a girl.

61% of church goes are female.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Bamboo_Shoot 8 months ago
Lmao, I debated this exact reso before... Its one of my favourite ones.
Posted by NDECD1441 8 months ago
Nice opening statement and setup. You may want to specify your stance though. You seem like a good debater. Good luck!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.