Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Good day to you too, PavlvsMagnvs. no need to apologize, I don't hold typing errors against you to start with, I know I make them also. your first paragraph comes first. You said your point is that "if they would not become useful in the first place" then it would be better for them to go to the vaults. If they are not useful to start with then doesn't that question if the relics are legitimate? if they were real surely they would be. But from the status quo you gave in round one I think the reason you believe they would not be useful to start with is because the faithful are too ignorant to know what the relics are, or the history behind the relics anyway. The solution to that should be work to correct their ignorance by informing the faithful; not lock up all relics. Also, even if the faithful are ignorant about the origin of the relic, is it really changing the effect on their faith in reaction to the relic? I don't think it is. if they come before an object that has a history in relation to a particular saint, and that is all they know, their faith in the Lord can still occur the same way it would have if they did know the name of the saint or what he did with the object that is now a relic. In fact (I hope an atheist doesn't read this the wrong way) ignorance seems to be encouraged in respect to faith in the bible. John 20:29 blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Ultimately Thomas was allowed to know for sure that his lord had risen, but it makes for stronger faith to believe even without knowing for sure (in your head at least). On your point that relics are of no benefit if there destroyed, your are right there are of no use demolished. A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again? so the scenario you are trying to prevent is the action that will solve it? To put that in planer format: A must be stopped, B causes A, doing A would stop B, therefore we should A to keep A from happening. I bet such a fallacy has a name but I don't know it so Ill just refer to it as fallacy of pointlessness. Your last point I consider the strongest. your said: "If relics are to be removed from public view, it may be replaced by an alternative that has the same purpose (e. g. statues, pictures, etc.), without jeopardizing the time-given value of the relic; or to rephrase it, the antiquity and the historical value of the relic." The Dead Sea Scrolls can be considered of historic value. to know what they are can be done by examining the scrolls themselves (if you can read them), and being able to fall back to examine the original scrolls contributes to our understanding of history, therefore making them of historic value. relics for the most part do not have anything on them that makes it evident there role in history. you have to already know the history to apply it to the artifact. In this sense I don't think they can be said to have historic value. Since we know the relic itself doesn't help us understand history then its oldness that defines its antiquity doesn't either. And you mention newer things that can replace its only other defined function, the statues, and pictures. So seeing as the relics appear to be outdated like that there is no need to waist vault space. unless of course the value in there replacement statues and pitchers is directly linked to the continued protected existence of the relics in the vaults. I admit that I am arguing with a little bit of ignorance here in that I don't understand how something can do a relics job and not fit enough criteria to be called a relic. how do these replacements work?