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

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. Refutation: 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. Constructive: 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.