The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

America is a Christian nation, and should be ruled by the Bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 41104
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




I am taking the Con side of this debate. My opponent will argue that America is a Christian nation and should be ruled according to the Bible.

R1: Con Rules
Pro opening arguments
R2: Arguments and rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals
R4:Rebuttals and conclusions



Not intending to attack your abilities, but it seems that you may have taken the easy way out of something as it is a known fact that America is a diverse land. However, I like the challenge and will be willing to debate this topic against you.

But first, I will give my requirements of you for this debate which must be recognized and followed by both sides accordingly.
Rule 1: Other religions are NOT to be brought up as the topic states that this debate is SOLELY over the question of Christianity.
Rule 2: Use factual evidence and reliable sources for your information.
Rule 3: The term "ruled" will be defined as, "the exercise of ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)"
Rule 4: No personal attacks.
Rule 5: Do not devalue the Bible, as it may be offensive to some viewers. Use the Bible as references of themes, morals, etc.

Thanks! Looking forward to this debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Those rules are perfectly logical, and I accept. I will note that in posting these here without including arguments, the debate has been shortened. While this is not beneficial, It does not ruin the debate, seeing as we have a character count of 10,000.
We will proceed as outlined in R1, simply cutting out a round. Since America is not ruled according to the Bible, and my opponent is stating that it should, my opponent has the opening argument to present his case.


America is a Christian-Dominated nation:
Among all adults, 78.4% portray themselves to be Christian [1]. These Christians are certainly not all under the same denomination, but they do still have the same Divine Beings- God and Jesus Christ. In America's democracy where majority rules, why does this not apply to religion? Under this "majority rules," why do we not run a theocracy based on the Bible as it has been proven that majority of the nation believes the Bible to be their Holy Book for their religion- Christianity?

Bible Teachings [2]:
The Bible gives many teachings over forgiveness, sins, authority, faith, and many more ideals. The goal of Christianity is to serve God, and through the Bible, they can do just that. The Bible gives people the motivation to do good that otherwise people would not begin to think about. Philippians 4:13- "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." This single verse shows the strength of the power and the belief of God, that with God, we are granted the strength, courage, and wisdom to achieve greatness.

I know this opening argument was short, but I feel that it is sufficient. I know you may argue that America is not a Christian nation because it has more than one religion, but on this majority rule basis that we base our nation on... majority rules. Even if some may argue that the Bible is a book of fiction, it is a book that helps lives and strengthens morals, a book that unites majority of the nation, majority of the world, under one belief. Under one rule.

[2] The Bible

Thanks, your go!
Debate Round No. 2


1."In America's democracy where majority rules, why does this not apply to religion?"

Here my opponent asserts that in our American democracy, the majority rules. Since the majority rules and said majority is Christian, then America should rule according to the Bible.

There are two points of criticism to be offered here.

1.Majority rules?
Our founding fathers certainly did not believe that simple majority rules across the board. This is clearly shown in the history and structure of out House and Senate. The southern states demanded that representation in the new democracy was based on a simple majority, with representation based upon the population of any given state. The north, on the other hand, believed that this was entirely unfair and demanded equal representation for all states, regardless of population.

To explain this thoroughly, I will delve into the folds of History.

In 1777 the first continental congress ratified the Articles of Confederation, outlining the fundamental workings of the new government. They operated under these Articles for ten years, until the government threatened to collapse upon itself (this should be a lesson for libertarians, but that is a separate topic)[1]. In 1787 the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to reconstruct the government. It was here that they drafted the constitution and founded the government we have today[2].

Up to this point, everything I have mentioned has been common knowledge. It is here that most people lose track of history and are completely unaware of the greatest debate and division of our Founding Fathers.

The largest battle at the Constitutional Convention was over the peoples representation. There were two side to this debate, and both had a huge following among the signers of the document[3].

James Madison largely devised the Virginia Plan,[4] a comprehensive outline of the proposed new system. A key feature of the Virginia plan was a two house representation system in which each state would have designated representatives. The number of representatives for each state would be determined by the population in that state. The higher a certain population was, the more representation it had in the Federal Government[5]. Please note that even this, which is as close as America ever got to "Majority Rules" is not simply majority rules. In this proposed system, the majority has the stronger voice and more votes, but the minority still has representation and and can still block legislation pushed by the majority.

This did not sit well with the delegates of many northern states, and so they proposed their own plan for the government, and called it the New Jersey Plan.[6] This plan opposed Madison's Virginia plan in two key factors. This plan featured only one legislative house, the senate, in which each state got one representative and one vote, regardless of population[7]. In this plan, representation was based on unit, and gave no regard to majority.

After analyzing these two plans, it becomes abundantly clear that simple "Majority rules" was never even considered as a form of government by our Founding Fathers.

The subject was debate for two weeks, each side vehemently disagreeing with the other. Eventually, Alexander Hamilton proposed the Great Compromise of 1787 in which he combined the two plans into the system we still have today. The system features two houses of legislature, one with equal representation for each state, and one with representation proportional to population.[8]

2. "The Bible ... is a book that helps lives and strengthens morals, a book that unites majority of the nation, majority of the world, under one belief. Under one rule."

Here, I am placed into a predicament. I agreed in the beginning of this debate that I would not devalue the Bible. I could present factual and well sourced information that would illustrate the Bible as something contrary to the picture painted by my opponent, but I but I feel that enough people are blinded to the faults of the book that even fact would be devaluing to them. Instead I will illustrate why the Bible should not be a template for government from another angle.

One of the central doctrines found in the U.S. Constitution is that of separation between Church and State. This is found in the First Amendment to our Constitution, the first of ten rights added to the Constitution by Thomas Jefferson. It reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [9]- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

One might argue that the First Amendment simply prevents the Government from banning a religion or religious practises, and does not say that the government needs to entirely separate itself from religion. This argument would hold true had Jefferson not explain exactly what he meant by this Amendment.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[10]- Thomas Jefferson

In conclusion, my opponents arguments of "majority rules" and that America should rule "by the Bible" do not stand up to Historical fact. Simple "majority rules" was never an option for our government. Ruling by the Bible is illegal and in direct contradiction to our nation's greatest values.

1. Library of Congress

2. The U.S. National Archives

3. The U.S. Dept. of State, Office of the Historian

4. The U.S. NIAHCS

5. Yale Law School

6. Thin quest Library

7. The Bill of Rights Institute

8. The U.S. Senate

9.The U.S. National Archives

10. Library of Congress


My opponent has argued that "Majority Rules" has never been set into action in the history of our nation.

However, this is untrue. He has stated that minority parties can overrule the majority parties' legislations, but the only way to override a bill or legislation is with a majority 2/3 vote[1]. [1] also shows a list of House actions that requires a majority vote to be put into action, including overriding a presidential veto. There are also mentions of rulings based on majority rules in the Constitution [2] (I suggest CtrlF: majority for proof). In his argument, he only negated that majority rule should not be used, although that is what we use modern day. Common knowledge would show that we do not directly elect the President, but we elect someone who has promised to elect our candidate in the Electoral College [3]. If you still do not believe that the Electoral College allows a majority rule, please refer to [4] which shows that the Electoral College is very compliant with the popluar votes recieved by the people (with very few exceptions).
He also mentioned the House and Senate, in which case [5]&[6] show that we elect the members of Congress (House and Senate).

My opponent also argued separation between the Church and State.

While this may be true, in order to have the Bible be the basis of our country, we would have to change our government to a theocratic one. If we are successful in doing do, then there would be no separation of the church and state. This is a separation because there are people of other cultures here, but as I have shown earlier, America is a Christian nation. I have also shown that majority does indeed rule.

My General Argument:

I have proven that America is a Christian nation. The Bible is the ruling of Christianity. Therefore, because America is a Christian nation, the Bible should be the basis of the country.

Debate Round No. 3


I apologise to my opponent, but I am forced to forfiet this debate. Final exams are coming up, and I no longer have tje time to debate.


Well, that concludes this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by wateva232 2 years ago
Btw, in my first comment I accidently wrote OddBelliedGeek instead of PotBelliedGeek. Honest typo mistake, I didn't mean that in anyway.
Posted by wateva232 2 years ago

Well, you certainly made a fallacious argument by saying that "Saudi people are happy with him". You did not go into everyone of them to see what they truly feel about the Saudi Monarch. I know lots of Saudis who are afraid to speak of politics in their country. Fear does not equate acceptance. Lot's of women in Saudi Arabia hate the Monarch and how it is portraying them and the religious police. By the way, this is from Saudi Arabians personally. They always thought of Egypt as freedom from the oppression in their country.

Yes you are absolutely correct that westerners should not interfere, but any voice of change in Saudi is met with suppression. Just like Egypt when people were afraid to turn against Mubarak. If you ask anyone during Mubarak era, most of Egyptians would've said they are happy out of fear and fearing you are with the Egyptian NSA. It's when the Egyptians united that they overthrow the dictatorship. The only thing I hold for Saudi Arabia is the wages they give to Saudis in favor of expats.

Second, I was not defending your opponent position in anyway. Read my comment again. I did not utter one single word about supporting Pro's position. In fact, I will be voting for you on this debate. So you simply insulted me for absolutely no apparent reason.

Lastly, you did not reply to my argument in anyway. Saudi Arabia does not respect the rights of any group other than Sunni Muslims. Even people of the book according to Islam are not allowed to build churches or preach and practice their faith in public. They also have to abide unwillingly to the Islamic laws enforced by the religious police even if it is against their basic rights.

So actually I find it disturbing that you bashed me for no apparent reason out of misunderstanding what I said. Very Islamic of you, thank you.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
Wateva232, I am not supporting the monarch of Saudi Arabia, but rather clarifying that the Saudi people are happy with him.Since the Saudi people are happy with their government and way of life, it is wrong and oppressive for westerners to demand change in the name of the people.

Second, I am not denying any rights in America, rather I defend ours. My opponent is suggesting that we scratch the First Amendment and replace our current government with a theocracy. This is not what the American people want, and so it is oppressive to subject them to it.

I find it disturbing that you hold a bachelor's degree and honestly think to defend my opponents position and bash mine. It shows that a piece of paper does not show education.
Posted by wateva232 2 years ago
I find it odd that OddBelliedGeek is supporting the Monarch in Saudia Arabia, yet endorsing secularism in the USA. He is enjoying the rights in a foreign country yet is refusing the same rights for others freedom in Saudia Arabia.
Posted by arabrab 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a Christian nation. Jesus said he has no kingdom here. His kingdom is not of this world. The Bible further explains that Satan is in control of earthly kingdoms.

"Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to Him, "All these I will give you, if You will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship The Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.'" Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him." (Matthew 4:8-11 RSV)
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
<read comment below> *Facepalm*
Posted by C4explosive 2 years ago
and the bible don't talks about a religion. God is a king, not a religious leader. He is a government. He makes the rules the law, for all men to follow. I repeat the bible don't talks about any religion. It talks about a nation ruled by a king
Posted by C4explosive 2 years ago
I don't think you two understand see if they decide anywhere, don't matter what nation it is if they don't submit under Jesus. That nation will die. If they do submit under God that nation will prosper. It is just that simple. You cant debate when it comes to God you either want to live or be destroyed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the debate, and as such he has to lose conduct points It is a pity really,as I do believe up until this happened he had the best arguments,especially the Jefferson citations. The rest of the points are split as both the debaters used sources and had good spelling/grammar. I give most convincing argument points to Con, as even though he forfeited he did address the issue that America is not a Christian nation.