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

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.