Richard Dawkins, Andrew Copson, and Arif Ahmed debate against Rowan Williams, Tariq Ramadan, and Douglas Murray over whether or not organized religion has a place in modern (21st century) society (at Cambridge).
The house vote and the end of the debate agreed that the argument was stronger for organized religion as actually serving a purpose than serving none. "Dawkins lost" screeches the headlines of Christian Apologetcs news-lines.
I think it's rather disheartening that they would even focus a debate on whether or not all those people who have lost their lives in order to support the idea of being able to worship together (with their friends and family, wives and children) over the years were actually just in their thoughts. When people can gather together for the worst excuses imaginable such as getting drunk or filming adult movies without it being publicly or culturally disdained, what right do they have for attempting to take away a community service that teaches morals and reason for life in a community setting?
In a world that proclaims a gospel of free thinking... what sort of audacity is there that would attempt to rid the world of a group of like-minded-thinkers (a kin to the groups of atheists and anti-theists who also congregate)?