The Instigator
jesusfreak22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DoctorSandwiches
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

All religions should be able to worship publicly

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
DoctorSandwiches
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 41922
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jesusfreak22

Pro

1st round acceptance. Good luck!
DoctorSandwiches

Con

This appears to be a very opinionated debate, which I always find fun.

State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
jesusfreak22

Pro

In Michigan, it's illigal for Christians to pray in public schools. However, Muslims have been given special prayer priviliges. This goes against our first ammendment! Police in Michigan refuse to let Christians announce daily calls to prayer. Muslims are allowed to use the citys own LOUDSPEAKER to announce prayer calls. http://stevedeace.com...
The first ammendment gives us the right to the freedom of religion. So why is it being infringed upon?


We came from London to America for many reasons. One was to worship who we want. So why are we being restricted from the government? Why can people no longer pray to their god, wear clothing that expresses their religion, without offending anyone? I believe that this is outrageous, and something should be done about it. Because the United States of America was founded on a religious principle.
In Memphis Tennessee, a 10 year old girl named Erin wrote in a school assignment that God was the person she admired most. The teacher, upon seeing Erin's work, told her that she was not allowed to mention God on school property. Well why not? No answer was given to that question. A poor, shocked Erin had to redo the assignment, all because of a teachers' beliefs. Now, I understand that we don't all believe in the same religion. However, I also believe that people should have open minds to what is being said. We all know that there is more than one religion, and we don't have to set rules about which ones may be discussed.

I look forward to what my opponent has to say. Good luck!
DoctorSandwiches

Con

Good Luck indeed! Okay, so after some serious studying, I could find extremely little that I could counter your argument with. Bear with me, because this may be a little rough.

I've found a rather nice article on SIRS that may be what you are looking for. It is posted at the bottom of the page, but I am not sure if you can access it, so I will copy and paste the parts I found important.

"Government at all levels must represent all of its constituents. It must treat everyone equally, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or religion.

That's the ideal, anyway. The reality is that government sometimes plays favorites and sends the message that some citizens are more favored than others.

This often happens in matters of religion. In a perfect world, the government would be indifferent as to where its citizens worshipped or even if they worshipped at all. In our less-than-perfect real world, government too often sends the message that it has a preference on religion and that those who pray or worship in a certain way are insiders while others are on the outs."

"No one should make the mistake of thinking this is only an issue of Christians vs. non-Christians or believers vs. non-believers."

"The Supreme Court is due to consider the question of government prayers during its upcoming fall term. The case, which centers on a town named Greece in New York, was brought by Americans United on behalf of community residents who felt excluded by municipal leaders' practice of relying on almost exclusively Christian prayers to open meetings.

The last time the high court considered this issue was 1983. In that ruling, the court said it was permissible for the state of Nebraska to pay a chaplain to open meetings of its legislature with prayers. The court noted in Marsh v. Chambers that the prayers didn't proselytize and were non-sectarian in character.

Religious Right legal groups will undoubtedly bombard the Supreme Court with briefs beseeching the justices to expand the Marsh ruling and make it clear that government bodies may also employ prayers pegged to specific faiths.

That would be a mistake. It would violate the rights of millions of Americans and give local governments the green light to align themselves with whatever faith they happen to like best."

Collectively these sections tell me that overall, Christianity tends to be the big power. It seems to be allowed rights that normally should not be allowed.

Like any big decision, this one had some serious ripples. The minorities are speaking out against the domination of Christianity through both church and state by making those combinations taboo. Eventually the ripples will probably fade away, but currently both the government and the minority religions are trying to push Christianity out of state.

"Pushing Public Prayer: Government Must Respect the Rights of Everyone." Church & State. Jul/Aug 2013: 14. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 09 Dec 2013.
Debate Round No. 2
jesusfreak22

Pro

"Government at all levels must represent all of its constituents. It must treat everyone equally, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or religion.

That's the ideal, anyway. The reality is that government sometimes plays favorites and sends the message that some citizens are more favored than others.

While the reality is that the government plays favorites, they shouldn't. Because that directly violates our first ammendment. However, we are not perfect; we will always play favorites, conciously or sub-conciously. But we are not talking about the reality of matters. We are talking about the freedom of religion, which is granted to us in the Constitution.


"The Supreme Court is due to consider the question of government prayers during its upcoming fall term. The case, which centers on a town named Greece in New York, was brought by Americans United on behalf of community residents who felt excluded by municipal leaders' practice of relying on almost exclusively Christian prayers to open meetings.

And, might I ask, what is wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with opening a meeting up with a prayer? That is how many people start a meal. That is how many people start their day! I understand that some of the people at the table may not be Christians, but couldn't they pray their own way before starting? What is prohibiting them from doing so?
DoctorSandwiches

Con

This is all about the reality of matters. Should we be allowe to worship freely? Within reason, theoretically yes. But in reality, the Christian society has been dominating all the other churches and even the government to the point that anyone non-Christian feels threatened. What repercussions did you expect? Everyone else to just keep things the same? So now, the people are rejecting Christianity from its well suited mould. A governmental meeting is not a meal. A governmental meeting is government sanctioned and represents a government affair. As noticed througout history, as soon as a government becomes part of the church, the government fails. Take Henry VIII, for instance. He started his own religion where he, the king, was also the pope. He is considered one of the worst men in history. Take his daughter, "Bloody" Mary, who butchered all of the followers of her fathers religion. When government and church collide, the result usually creates some serious collateral damage. So no, prayers should not be allowed in government meetings.

We have also missed an obvious point. Some religions do not adhere to the ideas of most religions. Since nearly everything can be considered a religion, some people may conduct meetings of which the average person would find disgusting. They could find the fine line and act on the threshold, and no one could do anything about it without being a hypocrite. This could cause some serious repercussions.

In closing, creating complete equality between religious freedoms would be a mistake because it would be nigh impossible to enforce or regulate.

And I'd like to thank my opponent for this stimulating debate. It is always interesting to argue a point contrary to my own.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Oh look, I was right... Standing pretty firm their eh Jesus freak?

God will be taken away from these things soon enough, Atheism is soon to be the Second most popular religion in the world and is on the move in America. Even check the news.

"There probably is no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Mr. Dawkins.
Posted by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
The same way we should ban "God bless America" on money? The same way we should prohibit the usage of the Pledge of Alligance because it says "One nation under God"? God should, in no way or form, be banned. God will NOT be banned as long as his believers stand firm. We have and we shall, forevermore.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
I'm predicting that con will be the winner of this debate.

I wouldn't have anything to pray to... That's what's restricting me!

We should also take out "Under god" in the first amendment.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
jesusfreak22DoctorSandwichesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "all" religions? seriously "all"? I would hope that pro was aware of the practices of "all" religions before making such a profound statement, but Pro did not present argument for "all" religion, she only equalized Christianity and Islam. Con's argument for "within reason" is a firm stipulation for religions being allowed to worship publicly and give him the win for convincing argument because it will not allow all religions to worship publicly.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
jesusfreak22DoctorSandwichesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments backed up by sources