I really don't see a problem with such a debate and vote. That is the whole point of having one. If students wish to discuss this within the confines of such a forum then that is all to the good. There maybe some element of politics in the motion, there certainly is from some outside this instance, but that can be reduced by having a reasoned debate anyway.

What I find more disturbing is politicians and candidates for political office charging in. Especially the likes of Samuel Morrison whose BFF Jim Allister said of the Easter Rising commemoration that it was of "some foreign grubby field rebellion". The hypocrisy of people like that doesn't help.

Universities are where our future in part stems from. Potential future politicians get their grounding in debating, politics and an understanding of the mechanisms that control much of our lives.

Let them learn, understand and discuss whatever they deem worthy of discussion without "grown ups" butting in. Especially when these supposed adults behave on far too many occasions like spoiled petulant brats with too much regularity.

Your use of such terms as "White European liberal atheists", "the indigenous population" and "non-indigenous people" marks you out as someone with a foundation of unpleasant opinions.

Wow!

That is a large handful of straws you have grabbed there.

"The only hopeful sign for atheism would be if we start to see lots of Muslims, Black Christians etc. defecting from their religion, because the future belongs to them. "

What does that even mean?

What hopeful sign for atheism? Why would there be a need for one? You are making the deluded error that "atheism" is a collective group with an aim the same as religious denominations are. It isn't and never has been.

Now back to the point of what "atheism" does with unconnected individuals making decisions about society in general, along with those who are religious but don't follow the explicit doctrines with a fundamentalist zeal.........................

"What is more important is not whether you "believe" or conversely conclude there isn't such ethereal beings but the reduction in power of religion to have an effect on societies decisions that act for its benefit."

You do, of course, have figures to back up your assertions, yes?

"The number of Christians in England and Wales fell by more than four million in the last decade, the 2011 census has suggested, while the number of people identifying as atheists increased by six million over the same period.

The data from the Office for National Statistics showed there were 33.2million Christians last year, compared to 37.3million in 2001.

Christianity declines in census as atheism rises
The number of people declaring themselves to be atheists rose by more than six million to 14.1million meanwhile."

So, in England and Wales, at least, the "atheist" part of "White European liberal atheists" is the opposite of what you claim. Let us look further afield then.

"Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01%, and non-religious a further 9.66% of the world population, according to The World Factbook in 2010. In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. According to one study, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining."

While another study by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary claim the rise in religious numbers is confined to China and this is what distorts the figure.

Canada itself threw up what appears to be a problem with collating such data......................

"A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.
One quarter (23%) of those with no religious identity still believe in God."

Not quite as clear cut as you would like to believe, ironic that, eh?

What is more important is not whether you "believe" or conversely conclude there isn't such ethereal beings but the reduction in power of religion to have an effect on societies decisions that act for its benefit.

Jean McConville has become a totem for one spectrum to “parade” whenever it can for whatever reasons it chooses at the time. This is not to say that Jean’s murder isn’t a tragedy and doesn’t deserve the attention it gets. The victims known as the “Disappeared” all do and far too many others. What should be just as important, perhaps even more so, than the obvious desire by one of our divided sides to raise the totem even higher is the McConville family story itself.

Jean McConville was abducted, murdered and “Disappeared”. Her family is still affected as any family would be at such a loss. That is all true, but what is always missing from the story is the sequence of events that lead to her becoming so much a totem. It is one that should concern everyone, not as a means to poke another in the eye, as it has been seen to do, but should make us all stop and think before manning the walls of the mote and bailey ramparts of some claimed moral high ground.

Jean McConville had married Arthur, a Catholic and former British soldier. Jean converted to her husbands faith. A perfectly normal sequence of events for many spouses to do. Love conquers all, perhaps. At the out break of the Troubles this became more of an issue for some and the family were forced out of East Belfast by incidents of intimidation because of their denomination. On having to move to where they thought they may be safe from such victimisation only to discover that it was not so. Even more tragic is that Jean’s husband had died less than a year before she herself was once again facing intimidation. There is much more to this tragic family story that points the finger of the accuser at us all, the perpetrators of her demise, those who claim to be the rule of law, but more importantly us as a society.

It isn’t that Jean’s murderer’s shouldn’t be brought before the courts, so many from those times do no matter whose colours they assembled under, but perhaps we ought to begin first with judging ourselves before we look to the list for lynchings. For what strange fruit is borne on the branches.

"Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop."

The interweb, I wonder what that is all about?

"Brian Everitt is Professor Emeritus, King’s College, London. After graduating with a first class honours degree he worked at the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London for over 35 years, finally as Head of the Biostatistics and Computing Department and Professor of Behavioural Statistics. He is author or co-author of over 50 books on statistics and approximately 100 papers and other articles, and is also joint editor of Statistical Methods in Medical Research. He was a Section Editor for the Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, both first and second editions. After retirement in May 2004 his writing continues apace punctuated now by long walks in the Kent countryside, playing tennis, watching cricket and trying to improve his technique on the classical guitar, rather than attending endless committees about resource allocation and mission statements."

Which part of ..........it has been tested in the courts of law and determined to be as stated............are you failing to get.

That is it.

"I don't think the evidence for harm done is as clear cut as you think. "

Now that is just arse biscuits isn't it? What you mean is no matter how much evidence is proven to be indisputable that there is no more detriment than would be for biological parents you will argue the toss against it.

For the reason, the very simple reason, you will not accept any evidence at all that proves you wrong on every count.

I know this and other posters on other articles know this. But you cannot admit it, even to yourself. That is the real problem, not the reams of evidence, not the judgments in law. Which you must abide with, like it or not.

"Instead, it is more likely that they disappeared 40,000 years ago because of interbreeding and assimilation with our early modern human ancestors, scientists believe."

There was always this rumour that Great, great,great, great, great,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Uncle Og had run off with another woman, a Homo sapiens floosey. Now we can finally confirm it. He was always one for the ladies after a drink or four.

I didn't say it. The law did. I showed you that it did in the cases put before the courts.It is there in black and white. Those are the rulings. Simple, so very simple to see. The law was looked at, studies considered, a judgment made. Simple. That is it. You are not getting polygamous marriages so get over it.

Yeeeeeeessssss.The professional bodies in various countries have done studies, are doing studies, some since the late 80's are constantly updated. They reveal no detrimental effects for children in same sex family units.

Potential harm to a child is very, very, very important, is it not.

There is no "same reckoning" at all. If so, then heterosexual parents should be banned as on a far too a regular basis are reports of child abuse by their biological parents and step parents. In a polygamous situation then you have not one set of parents, but may have many, any number. This differs from separated parents, where there is still contact.

You are still looking for any excuse where there is none. Deliberately attempt ing to find any speck of dust to conflate to a refuse tip.

The evidence is against you and has been made very clear by legal rulings.Which are very simple to understand, unequivocal.

You cannot have your wish for a polygamous marriage, so stop campaigning for one.The consensus of society is against you, the law is against you. On same sex marriage it is a consensus for because it does not affect anyone's rights least of all religious nutjobs. The law agrees that it is a human right that has no extraneous criteria and studies confirm children are at no more risk, in cases less so than is present in heterosexually bonded couples.

So, give up with the yeah but, no but, yeah, but, no but.

"Similarly, not a single voter is going to be swayed by the number, colour, or slogan on these placards."

Well, I was.

I am now going to vote for the [local sports club] Family Events Day. I'm not too sure what they are campaigning on as to policies or what tribe they ultimately incline towards in terms of NI politics, but sounds good, plenty for the kids to enjoy.

Although maybe the local Charity Fun Run Party.