Debating Speech
This motion is the death of equality. First, I would like to specify the title of this motion and the opposition’s take on it. We believe that a ‘secular society’ refers to each religion being equal and respected within a society rather than the discrimination of those who hold religious beliefs. Second, I shall set out the main reasons why equality should come ahead of prejudice against people who cannot help the way they were born whilst my partner will tackle the outcry of ‘freedom of belief’, which will be the main argument from the proposition. We, the opposition, believe that as long as a person keeps their anti-equality beliefs to themselves, they should be allowed to have them so if a person in Ireland was against the Gay Marriage bill, they may of course keep this belief as long as they don’t use it to discriminate against others.
Now, I would like everyone to think of a time about seventy years ago when, as a shop keeper, it was perfectly reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals, ethnic minorities and even women. Now that racism and sexism are openly criticised, we have become a more equal and fair society, so why was there any controversy over a homosexual couple wanting a shop to bake a cake with an anti-discriminatory message on it? I would like to emphasise that this service was offered by the baker and so refusing this couple and damaging emotional effects on the couple as they strove for equality and the recognition of their position in a society. The defence of this case argued that sometimes discrimination was successful and sometimes it was not, however, if we as a nation strive for equality, as Mr Cameron similarly said recently, no discrimination is acceptable, or we arrive at the Orwellian conclusion that ‘some animals are more equal than others’.
Religion can sometimes be used to enforce views or bully others, which has a negative impact on society as equality is compromised. The Scopes trial is an example of this, having taken place in 1925, it set fundamentalists against modernists in which the part time teacher who was responsible for teaching a Darwinist theory to his students was victorious over three-time presidential candidate Jennings Barrow. This is an example of where the judiciary agreed with the opposition of this motion.
Sometimes, the state should clearly have the authority to stop people acting on their religious beliefs, especially where certain individuals and groups within society are threatened by the more fundamental or extremist aspect of religion. An example of this is when author Salman Rushdie was under threat, having written his book, ‘The Satanic Verses’. Rushdie is still under threat from the issuing of a fatwa by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, ordering Muslims everywhere to kill this man that did lead to attempts to kill him. It is in cases like these that the state should have the power to intervene to protect its citizens and stop certain fanatics from acting out on their religious beliefs, as the author has used his freedom of expression to create a form of art which, in the views of some extremists was anti-Islamic. If some extremists believe that a view is against their personal beliefs, it is not right that the view should not be expressed. In many people’s view this was a legitimate example of freedom of expression in contrast with the ‘Cakegate’ where the owners of the bakery were acting in breach of the law.
To summarise, therefore, in order to take steps to creating a more equal society, we must eliminate discrimination of any kind, even against those who hold discriminatory beliefs themselves, as long as that discrimination poses a threat to the equality of a given society.