Question:
Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify

Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix.

Allowing people the opportunity to claim that “God’s on our side” can be used to justify anything, especially when He appears to be fighting on both sides.

Many people have been keen to wrap themselves in the trappings of religion just as they do in the flag or in the rhetoric of one political ideology or another.

Seeking to associate one’s opinions with one creed or another is the oldest trick in the ideologue’s book.

The fact that men of violence claim to be doing things in the name of peaceful religions tells us very little about the religions themselves. In the modern world they is no reputable religious leader doing so and those minority leaders who attempt to are generally condemned and ostracized by the principle leaders of their faiths.

Laying responsibility for violence at the foot of religion as a whole gives credibility to a handful of extremists – in much the same way that conflating patriotism and fascism would.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are

Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society.

It should be noted that what tends to be the focus of such persecution is a lack of adherence to an ultra-orthodox position. It is frequently a cover for political or social prejudice. Charges of heresy or apostasy are easy to level and nigh on impossible to disprove.

Even beyond these extremes, demands for religious observance play out in US elections and, inexplicably, the views of religious leaders are sought on areas where they really have no relevant expertise at all, such as advances in medical progress. Those who disagree on matters such as stem cell research or gay rights are, apparently, arguing with the Almighty.

Secularism is a peculiarly Western European concern. In most of the world religious observance is taken very seriously. Denying people access to the guidance of religious leaders flies in the face of allowing people freedom of choice and conscience.

Secularists routinely, and somewhat arrogantly, insist that their voices must be heard but those of people of faith, despite representing the overwhelming view of humanity, should be silenced.

Equally where there are religious precepts incorporated within the law. One of the oldest systems of secular, state arbitrated law- the common law of England- is based largely on religious principles. For secularists to attack religious people for criticizing difference, when all they are really saying is that most people aren’t secularists, is the height of hypocrisy.

Most of the world takes religious observance very seriously and expect their beliefs to be respected by their international political leaders and others

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments

It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age.

As well as condemning those who practice other faiths, or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight, the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes, among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist, frequently racist and almost universally homophobic.

Preventing access to contraception is the single largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one.

All of the major religions teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought – quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to single out one area of life. At least religious organisations are based on the belief that everybody should be treated with respect, which is not a claim that could be made be most political creeds.

In addition there are few social changes that have not involved religious radicals at their foundation. Rightly or wrongly, major religious organisations tend to reflect the views of the societies of which they are a part. It seems unfair to blame the religious organisations for that.

It is also worth distinguishing between nations where one religious belief is wide-spread and almost normative in nature, and those where it is far more of a choice. If women or homosexuals chose to join a church in a pluralist society, presumably they are not expecting to be a priest.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world

At times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them.

This principle applies both in people’s own lives, with the birth of a child or the death of a loved one, but it can also apply to national events. At times of great tragedy it is frequently the main religious community that is expected to sum up the mood of a nation and to provide explanation and succour. It is difficult to see how a politician, jurist or academic could fulfill that role so well.

It is interesting that although we may ignore the day-to-day role of religion in society and in communities, at moments of great trial, or great celebration, it is to religious rites that most people turn.

It is an interesting defence of a position to note that people only really turn to it when they are emotionally vulnerable and their mental faculties are at their weakest. It’s scarcely a clarion defence of the benefits or religious observance or practice.

It is no doubt true that when we need an explanation for the apparently inexplicable- the death of a child, say- there is more comfort to be found in the ministrations of a cleric than that of a statistician. However that in no way makes the cleric, or their creed, right.

The cold hard truth is that personal and national tragedies do have logical explanations, it just happens that we may not want to hear them at the time. However, any other credo which used other peoples emotional weaknesses to push their view of the world and the universe would be treated with contempt. For some reason, religion gets a pass.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be taken into account in public life

In a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a welcome reminder that other activities- besides “wealth creation”- can be meaningful and valuable too. In addition to promoting morality and spirituality within society they have also, historically, been sponsors of great art and music.

The fact that religions are also international organisations bring perspectives that believers in some countries may find uncomfortable, but which act as a reminder of more universal truths – primarily, altruism.

The simple reality is that religious organisations in most of the world are all too willing to involve themselves in ecumenical politics and issue declarations on economic matters. Equally, presenting the absurd and grotesque wealth and power of the world’s major religions as having anything to do with quiet spiritualism is, frankly, absurd.

In some circumstances, major religions can provide international perspective but, all too often, that simply means importing the most reactionary position available – African Anglicans on gay ordination in the US; the mediaeval views from Islam in the Middle East into discussions on the rights of women in European migrant communities. Generally this brand of internationalism simply reopens social battles that were settled a century and more ago in the West

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world

Whether sending food support in famine zones, providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities, religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are the only organisations willing to go into certain high risk areas throughout the world.

I addition in many sociogeographic areas, especially those of urban poverty, priests may be the only professional that many hundreds of people can access. Churches and mosques are frequently the only place of sanctuary and peace.

In addition religious organisations have historically been the first to provide education and healthcare with nation states following their example.

Religious education frequently has more to do with indoctrination than anything else, as is seen in so-called schools where reciting the Koran or Talmud passes for education or in privately funded education in the UK and US where evolution is taught as ‘just another theory’.

In terms of tackling poverty, there is no doubt that many religious organisations- especially the Catholic Church- provide enormous quantities of relief to the poverty directly caused by their policies in the first place.

No single cause of poverty, especially among women, is greater than denying women access to contraception, closely followed by denying them access to education. As the woman is frequently the primary care giver, their poverty affects their children.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict

While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.

[1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.

[2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-findings.aspx http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-methodology.aspx

[3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom

It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.

If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.

This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?

[1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society

Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.

[1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.

[2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1

[3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]

It is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]

Finally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.

[1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001

[2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006

[3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat

There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.

[1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)

[2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.

[1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict

Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]

Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.

[1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)

[2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Religion does not motivate foreign policy

Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.

Nations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]

With religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.

[1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012

[2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012

That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered

Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.

Moreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.

[1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012

[2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State

It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say "The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved." [1]

[1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality

Sexuality is an indivisible part of personhood; people need to be able to express their sexuality openly in order to fully actualise themselves. It is wrong therefore to use sexuality as an individual metric by which they are eligible to become priests or not – they should be taken on the whole of their personhood.

There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. [1]

[1] The Lembeth Conference 1998. Resolution I.10 http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim