The Instigator
SANTORUM2012
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Christianity should play a part in how we run our government

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 5 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 23246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

SANTORUM2012

Pro

I believe it is important that Christianity plays a part in how we run our government. My opponent will argue on the opposite side.

Round 1: Acceptance/greetings
Round 2: Opening arguments only
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Arguments

I look forward to debating with whoever should accept this debate.
Contra

Con

I am looking forward to debate the Separation of Church and State...

But First Off, for the onlookers, here is a vital piece of information:







"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle."

- President Thomas Jefferson, founding father

"Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office."

- President James K. Polk

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."

- President Theodore Roosevelt

"We must protect our citizens' privacy -- the bulwark of personal liberty, the safeguard of individual creativity."

- President Bill Clinton


Good Luck.

-Contra
Debate Round No. 1
SANTORUM2012

Pro

I appreciate you accepting my debate and I look forward to debating you on this topic which does hit home for me. To all the viewers out there, whether you are pro or con, I encourage you to have an open mind as you read this debate.

The first point I will make is that America was founded on Christian values

Where our country first began: As we all know in 1942 Columbus discovered America. My teachers often describe him as the seed that planted our country. It all begins with just one man. Christopher Columbus is recorded down as as Christian as he often made quotes representing the Almighty God, and the Lord Jesus Christ such as this one,

"God made me the messenger of the New Heaven and the New Earth...and showed me the spot where to find it. Let the King and Queen...render thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who has granted us so a great a victory."

Quote by Samuel Adams (one of the founding fathers)

"He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all... Our forefathers opened the Bible to all."

Quote by Benjamin Franklin

"God governs in the affairs of minuend if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that built it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

Next I will prove the Bible's aid in forming the Constitution of the United States

As we all know, the bible and the constitution have the same rules such as "Thou shall not kill" but what I don't think many realize is how much it really played in forming the Constitution. Please Bare with me as I share quite a few examples.

1. Principal- Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or sovereignty of man

Legal Document- Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution, currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge of Allegiance

Scripture-Exodus 18:16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”

2. Principal- Rule of Mother and Father

Legal Document- Declaration, Constitution

Scripture- Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

3. Principal- All men created Equal

Legal Document- Declaration

Scripture- Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

4. Principal- Fair Trial with witnesses

Legal Document- sixth Amendment

Scripture- Exodus 20:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

5. Principal- Creation not evolution

Legal Document- Declaration

Scripture- Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There are many, many more but I had to pick and choose in order for it to be able to fit in the 8,000 character limit, and to prevent from boring you to death as this list continues drastically.

Next I will argue that the Separation of church and state is found no where in the constitution, as you probably know it comes from the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I am definitely pro constitution but this amendment was originally brought up to protect churches from the government and to insure people have freedom of religion. By allowing Christianity play a part in running the government is not unconstitutional because by no means would we be forcing somebody to be a Christian. We would just be recognizing our moral background. Besides, Christian or not, I think many people wouldn't argue that the teachings of Jesus Christ were by any means.

That will be the end of my Opening Argument. I look forward to seeing yours!

IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember this round is only for opening arguments. Rebuttals will come in the next round.

Thank You.
Contra

Con

This debate is more about the Separation of Church and state.

But first, since this round is ONLY FOR ARGUMENTS, I will refrain from rebutting my opponent's arguments, although my arguments will naturally do this.


-- Arguments --




C1: It is Unconstitutional

The 1st Amendment:


"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."


The resolution at hand explains itself. However, according to the first amendment, the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or regulating the free exercise of religion.

If you make Congress make and pass a law that makes respects Christianity as an important part of the law (or any part at all), it is thus unconstitutional.

If you make Christianity take a role of how our government runs, you are thus denying the same from other religions. Thus, Christianity would have a role in the running of our government, but Hindus would not, or Jews, etc. Thus, the resolution would go against the our precious freedom of religion and freedom from religion (if one so chooses).

The 14th Amendement Section 1:


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process, and all have equal protection of laws. This concludes two premises;

1) Government cannot implement relgious aspects into laws because it deprives people of their liberty (to freedom of religion and/or freedom from religion)

2) Government cannot perform the above premise because some who are not Christian would not enjoy equal protection of the law which guarantees them freedom of religion

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance only with the permission of the person and not by force."

So, if our government implements Christianity into our laws, this abridges our freedom and conscience of religion. The article allows one to believe in a religion by themselves, and NOT by force.


Supreme Court case: Everson v. Board of Education

In Everson v. Board of Education, citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

So, if Christianity was implemented into the way government ran, it would be unconstitutional.


Consensus Here:

Constitution bans government from implemening religious aspects into laws

Constitution bans government from regulating/ denying people their freedom of religion and freedom from religion


C2: What Separates Us

This is a much understated argument. If the government respected and implemented Christianity into the way of running the government, it would basically put Christianity as the national religion. This has had disastrous results in other parts of humanity:

- British Gov't denied citizens the Freedom of Religion and forced them to practice at the Church of England. The result was that Britain lost some of its citizens, a nation was formed, and that nation (the USA) transformed the world. Not diasastrous, but it was disastrous for the Monarchy of England.

- Iraq Gov't with Saddam Hussein respected the Sunni Muslim religion as the head religion. The Sunni, Shia, and Shiite Muslims clash causing huge violence in the middle east that is still prevalent today as a result of Iraq abridging their rights.

- President/ Dictator Diem of Vietnam puts in place laws against the Buddhist people. This angers them, making Diem unpopular, leading to his death, leading to instability in South Vietnam, then the War in Vietnam begins, the US goes there, then leaves, then Vietnam as a whole goes Communist

There are other cases as well, very few with attractive results.

Conclusion:


Separation of Church and State is good and critical.

Christianity SHOULD NOT play a role in how we run our government. The 1st amendent of the Constitution prohibits this, as it limits our freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The 14th amendment of the same document would be violated as well, because many would be abridged of their freedom of religion, as it violates the equal protection clause of that amendment to freedom of religion. All humans have certain rights, including freedom of religion that is not forced by a government. When a government runs according to religion, it is violating many people's rights to freedom of religion. So, it is violating our Constitution, as well as rights that all humans should enjoy as determined by the United Nations.

Second, freedom of religion separates us from many others. Many other nations that have respected a national religion at its head have faced religious violence between members of different religions. The examples are numerous, including Iraq, the United States, and Vietnam.

So, a high wall should separate church and state.


“Politics is not religion and we should govern on the basis of evidence, not theology.”

- President Clinton

Sources:

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[6] History


Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
SANTORUM2012

Pro

Rebuttals




"If you make Christianity take a role of how our government runs, you are thus denying the same from other religions. Thus, Christianity would have a role in the running of our government, but Hindus would not, or Jews, etc. Thus, the resolution would go against the our precious freedom of religion and freedom from religion (if one so chooses)."




Allowing Christianity to take a role in the government would not be prohibiting people from believing what they want, nor would it be forcing them to believe it. It would only insure that Christian morals be set in place, such as praying in Schools and the teaching of God (as well as the theory of evolution), illegalizing gay marriage, making abortion illegal, etc.




"1) Government cannot implement religious aspects into laws because it deprives people of their liberty (to freedom of religion and/or freedom from religion)




2) Government cannot perform the above premise because some who are not Christian would not enjoy equal protection of the law which guarantees them freedom of religion"




Making Christianity a part in government would not be infringing on individuals right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In fact, I think it would only make America a more safe place to live.




"This is a much understated argument. If the government respected and implemented Christianity into the way of running the government, it would basically put Christianity as the national religion. This has had disastrous results in other parts of humanity:"




Christianity in our government would not hurt the nation but help it. Christianity has never been our national religion so you can't compare statistics but there did used to be prayer in schools. Prior to 1962 crime, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol consumption and other things were stable or declining. In 1963 Supreme Court ruled that we could no longer pray in public schools. Violent crimes went up over 500%, sexually transmitted diseases 200%, and alcohol consumption went up 35%. We all want to see our country succeed right? Think to yourself by making Christianity our national religion help us at all? If it would, why not do it? I proved earlier it was not unconstitutional so, what are you so afraid of?




My opponent has failed to prove that allowing Christianity have a role in our government would hurt it. His only argument was the assumption that making us a Christian nation would infringe on an individuals rights to freedom of religion which I have already demonstrated not to be true.




Thank you for allowing me to debate this topic




-Vote Pro!

Contra

Con

Rebuttals

"Allowing Christianity to take a role in the government would not be prohibiting people from believing what they want, nor would it be forcing them to believe it. It would only insure that Christian morals be set in place, such as praying in Schools and the teaching of God (as well as the theory of evolution), illegalizing gay marriage, making abortion illegal, etc."

Making Christianity the head religion of government, making the Bible dictate how our moral code should be ran is definately infringing on our right of freedom of religion. It makes our government yield that Chrisitianity is superior over all other religions, since we are using Christianity's moral code. Other religions would be denied from the same privilege.

The Supreme Court as I have earlier said has declared that putting Christian morals as law is against the Constitution. In 1962, the Constitution ruled that public schools cannot have public prayers and religious readings done for religious purposes. The Supreme Court continued to allow private prayer. Any individual can pray by themselves in a school. However, they may not lead such prayers in class. [1]


If a student so wants to pray in school, they can have at it. There is plenty of freakin free time in the whole school day to do so! The only thing we banned is public, teacher led prayer since it is Unconstitutional.


"Making Christianity a part in government would not be infringing on individuals right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In fact, I think it would only make America a more safe place to live."

It would infringe on a person's right to freedom from religion, thus violating somebody's liberty. Our government is not supposed to be a theocracy. Our founding fathers ran away from that idea, why do you think we left Britain? Cause we didn't want a religion with our government.


"Christianity in our government would not hurt the nation but help it. Christianity has never been our national religion so you can't compare statistics but there did used to be prayer in schools. Prior to 1962 crime, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol consumption and other things were stable or declining. In 1963 Supreme Court ruled that we could no longer pray in public schools. Violent crimes went up over 500%, sexually transmitted diseases 200%, and alcohol consumption went up 35%. We all want to see our country succeed right? Think to yourself by making Christianity our national religion help us at all? If it would, why not do it? I proved earlier it was not unconstitutional so, what are you so afraid of?"

The Supreme Court NEVER banned prayer in schools. As I recently showed, it just banned PUBLIC prayer in schools. If Christianity played a part in how we run our government, public prayer would be allowed again. So, what about the people who are not Christian? Their right to freedom from religion would be violated. The muslim in class would not get their public prayer, so, by the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, it would be violating her rights. Thus unconsititutional, since it violates one's freedom from religion, equal protection under the law, and freedom of religion. The government would thus be respecting an establishment of religion (Christianity), which is as I said under the First Amendment, Unconstitutional.


"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."


The actual text shows that making Christianity the head religion for our laws is unconstitutional. Win.

Plus, all your claims of violence are unsupported, and are likely related to the War on Drugs, the War in Vietnam, and riots at home. No connection whatsoever.


"Next I will prove the Bible's aid in forming the Constitution of the United States"

My opponent's arugments are not really arguments. The reason we have fair trials is because Britain denied this. The Constitution never talks about Creationism, or authority of God > State, and never talks about the Rule of Father and Mother, these are made up, unsupported, and now refuted.

Now, for a historical standpoint.

President and founding father Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction. He realized that religion was a very personal matter. He didn't want government involved in religion, and the other way around. He was a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. [2]

Conclusion:

If Christianity was put as the head religion as my opponent is advocating, it would simply be making the government respect Christianity as the head religion, as I have shown is violating the 1st amendment, being unconstitutional. Public prayer violates a person's right to freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

We are all guaranteed equal protection under the law, by the 14th amendment. This allows us to believe in our own religion, and for government to respect all religions equally. By making Christianity the head religion, we are breaking this bond. In conclusion, making Christianity the head religion is unconstitutional in many ways, and has no clear benefit, as violence would likely erupt as I have shown earlier.

When you take the influence from religion, and mix it with the power and authority of government, it leads to disastrous consequences, I have shown a few examples. Theocracies have led to atrocities. When you mix state and religion, and violate the Separation of church and state, and ALSO violate our Constitutional boundaries by large and defined limits, it leads to disastrous, unwanted consequences. The Crusades, the Inquisition, modern Islamic terrorism, and a host of other horrible things in history are all examples of what happens when Church and State combine. [3]

Thank you from reading,

please vote CONtra.



Sources:

[1] http://www.wikinfo.org...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com...






Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SANTORUM2012 5 years ago
SANTORUM2012
lol yea I saw that after I posted it 1492!
Posted by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
LOL America was discovered in 1942?!

By Billy Mayes right?
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Lol.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Darn you Contra.
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
lol sorry Zaradi
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Contra you bastard. I was gonna take this.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering girg on principle, although I have every confidence Con will still win.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Contra proved that making Christianity part of the law is depriving other religions, therefore it is unconstitutional.
Vote Placed by girg 5 years ago
girg
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con. all the way. I believed in cons side even before the debate
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more compelling on the face of it. Pro also made more than one error of fact in her statements.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
SANTORUM2012ContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 did a great job of rebutting every single point made by the Pro in the second round, and afterwards all the Pro did was restate them. Pro shouldn't have even attempted to argue that this wouldn't be unconstitutional because it clearly and obviously is. The pro even brought up an example that outlines why it's unconstitutional: gay marriage. If the government does not allow gays to marry based on religious reasons only, then that is the government favoring one religion over another.