The Instigator
Brabus
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Founders belief in Separation of church and state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,461 times Debate No: 27708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (5)

 

Brabus

Con

This debate is going to be about whether the founders really did want the separation of church and state which we always hear from the left/ atheists. I will argue that they did not want a full separation of church and state. The basic idea behind my belief will be that they intended the wall to be one way. They wanted religion to be protected from the government not the government from religion.
I await for a great debate!
wrichcirw

Pro

Thanks Brabus for hosting this debate. It seems that I am arguing that the Founders intended a full separation of church and state. Should be interesting, and you have a novel approach. I look forward to your arguments.

Debate Round No. 1
Brabus

Con

Well first off I think it is important that we define separation of church and state. It is the principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Now I am not going to argue that the founders wanted a religion for the whole united states they did not. However I will show that states were allowed to have a religion. I will also show how early founders used federal funds for the promotion of Christianity. I will use supreme court cases and quotes from founders and other presidents.

Perhaps one of the best examples of a state which had a state funded religion is Massachusetts which had an established church until 1833 this is after the first amendment was ratified so the first amendment did not stop Massachusetts state religion it was only meant for the federal government. In fact many of the original colonies had state religions after the first amendment. Another example is north Carolina which had in there constitution that no one could hold public office who wasn't a christian.

"That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."

My second point is going to be that there cannot be a full separation if the government is supporting a religion and therefore the founders did not want to have full separation. My first point will be the aitken bible. This is a bible that was "approved" by the congress and 10,000 of these bibles were printed. This bible was to be used for schools. "That he (Robert Aiken) both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." I think the reader will agree that there isn't a separation if government is spending money on the bible which is a christian/ judeo book. This point is to disprove the idea that the founders were not Christians while this is not directly involved i think it is a good way to support my point in an indirect way. 27 of the founders were ordained pastors. Now let me ask this if you went and started something like a city and almost half were pastors don't you think there would be some religion added into it?

Finally in the supreme court case of HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S the court ruled that "It being historically true that the American people are a religious people, as shown by the religious objects expressed by the original grants and charters of the colonies, and the recognition of religion in the most solemn acts of their history, as well as in the constitutions of the states and the nation, the courts, in construing statutes should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion." Another point will be that congress recognized it as well. Congress, 1854 "The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Another quote Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854
"Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." While this is good evidence for my case i do not feel it sufficient enough so i will now add quotes of founding fathers and then close.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (John Adams)

[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness" We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. (John Dickinson)

John Hancock called on the entire state to pray "that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory."

Righteousness alone can exalt America as a nation. Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. (Patrick Henry)

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. (George Washington)

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. (George Washington)

(quotes and court cases/ senate things) http://www.wallbuilders.com...
(Aitken bible) http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com...
(state constitutions) http://candst.tripod.com...
(North carolina constitution) Broke, Beck, Glenn
(27 founders being pastors)http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com...
Thank You and i await your response!
wrichcirw

Pro

First of all, thank you PRO for making this a substantive debate. In the future, I ask that you annotate your citations with a footnote for ease of research and validity, like what they do on wikipedia [1] (example of format).


PRO has stated what on the surface will look like a compelling case. However, upon analysis, his case rests on assumptions that are simply not valid and actually strengthen CON's argument.


Assumptions

A) First and foremost, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

-- The First Amendment [4]

The First Amendment was written and signed into law by the Founding Fathers as part of our Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers unequivocally separate church and state. The Founding Fathers made no stipulations or exceptions for Christianity.

B) Second, the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and interpreted. We are not debating subsequent amendments to the Constitution, nor are we debating about the interpretation of the Constitution by subsequent Supreme Courts. We are debating ONLY about the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state. Supreme Court decisions are only relevant in the cases where justices on the court were themselves Founding Fathers.

C) Christianity has a rich tradition in the West. Pivotal figures like Constantine and Martin Luther demonstrate how long the debate has lasted in the West regarding Christian traditions. While Europeans in the 1700s may have known of Buddhism or Hinduism, to think there was any significant debate about these religions in Europe or America is foolhardy. Therefore, Europeans and their colonial citizens in the 1700 would not have known anything BUT Christianity. Most, if not all, of the Founding Father were deeply religious. Many came from different denominations of Christianity, but they did not know of anything else BUT Christianity. Many if not most of them died with their beliefs intact.

Because the Founding Fathers only knew of Christianity, it follows that their beliefs in religious freedom were limited by their knowledge. This does NOT mean that their preferences for Christianity negated their beliefs in religious freedom - they preferred Christianity because it is all they knew.


PRO's case:

1) States had religion codified into their way of life (state church in Massachusetts).
2) Aitken Bible supports that "the founders did not want to have full separation [between Church and State]."
3) HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S (1892) proclaimed that "American people are a religious people," and that "...the nation, the courts, in construing statutes should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion."
4) Founding Father's thoughts via quotations demonstrate a preference for Christianity.


Counter-arguments

1) I do not contest that many states were founded by religious figures that sought to practice their religion without persecution. However, this is irrelevant. None of these religious figures were Founding Fathers. William Penn was a charismatic figure that founded Pennsylvania on Quaker beliefs, who died in 1718. [3] Massachussetts is the home of Plymouth Rock, [2] the site where the Mayflower Puritans landed in America in 1620. These Puritans also sought to practice their religion without persecution. Many of these states had established constitutions BEFORE the federal government even existed, as is the case for both Pennsylvania and Massachussetts.

That PRO himself stated that Massachussetts, the home of the original Puritans, no longer had a state church as early as 1833, even though the Pilgrims landed in 1620, demonstrates several things:

a) Demanding the abolition of traditions held for hundreds of years in the colonies by the new federal government would have easily been seen as the replacement of one tyrannical monarchy by an equally tyrannical republic. The Founding Fathers were not stupid enough to demand such radical change in 1787.

b) It took time for the Constitution to have effect on the states. The federal mandate was still hotly contested even after the Constitution was signed.

c) The federal mandate won out.

The First Amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers, triumphed here.


2) I recognize the Aitken's Bible as PRO's strongest argument, however even here it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom.

Although printing a book is not a significant expense for a government, it does show support for whatever purpose the book intended. Remember that because the Founding Fathers knew only of Christianity, they saw religious freedom only in the limited scope of various denominations of Christianity. Therefore, by printing the Aitken's Bible, they perversely reaffirmed their beliefs in religious freedom by printing a book that any and all religious denominations in America could use in their beliefs.

Had Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., been part of the belief system of any of the colonies, then the Bible would not be seen as the ONLY religious text. However, in the colonies, all denominations ascribed to the Bible. Therefore, by printing the Bible, the federal government reaffirmed its belief in religious freedom because during the time of the Founding Fathers, ALL KNOWN RELIGIONS IN AMERICA USED THE BIBLE AS THEIR SOURCE OF BELIEF.

We cannot fault the Founding Fathers for displaying apathy towards what they did not know. How could the Founding Fathers print the texts of every world religion, when they did not know of any but one?


3) Again, What we are debating is the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state, not what subsequent Supreme Court justices thought of the issue.

In this sense, I move to wholly invalidate PRO's HOLY TRINITY VS U.S. argument, as it is preposterous to think that justices living nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers knew what they were thinking. This would be struck down as speculation in any court of law.

We are not debating about what is the law of the land, what we are debating is the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state.

Furthermore, this entire case dealt with government action against a church, NOT A STATE CHURCH. The Founding Fathers respected religious freedom, and going about on a witch hunt for whatever church displeased them would not fit into their modus operandi. This is clear in the text quoted by PRO.

Even if we recognized the arguments of this court case, it would actually STRENGTHEN the First Amendment in establishing a separation between Church and State, and wholly invalidate PRO's case.


4) Each of the quotations can be rendered inadequate in proving PRO's case by using one line of reasoning. The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution. By doing thus, they upheld to the highest degree the purpose and sanctity of the First Amendment.

I challenge PRO to cite anywhere in the UNAMENDED Constitution (exception to the Bill of Rights) where the Founding Fathers codified their religious beliefs into law. I can safely predict that PRO will fail this challenge. Instead, the Founding Fathers codified the First Amendment, and this is the defining document in establishing Separation of Church and State.


Through his various citations and arguments, PRO has actually STRENGTHENED the case that the Founding Fathers believed in the full Separation of Church and State.

Unless PRO has more arguments to make, I move to end this debate with the resolution negated. Vote CON.

(out of room)

[1] http://www.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.adl.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Brabus

Con

Rebuttal to assumptions
Unfortunately pro has taken the wrong interpretation of first amendment. If the founders would have wanted a separation then why did they not put that into the first amendment? All it is saying is that the federal government will not establish a religion that's it.
Secondly while i agree that supreme courts should not be the only thing we base what we believe on I would say that they have a job which is to interpret the constitution. I will also say that it was commonly held that we were a christian nation until the supreme court of the mid 1900's who lived at a time farther away then the cases i used. What you seem to be implying then is that the founders might have intended it a certain way but they were limited by their knowledge because everyone was christian. In a way that almost proves my point of saying they did not want a total separation of church and state.

Well unfortunately i disagree with you again. Here's why the founders didnt get rid of the state religions. The first amendment became law in 1791 so the founding fathers allowed a state to be in violation of the first amendment? [1] of course not because its not against the first amendment. Also the state church was never ruled unconstitutional they just got rid of it the supreme court never said they couldn't. Well I would say again you are proving my point that the founders did not support separation. I am also going to disagree with you about all known religions used the bible. There is one major exception and that is Deism. Deism does not believe in the bible. Also Judaism was a religion back then and they only study the old testament so if they were actually trying to be religiously correct and wanting to support all religions equally they would have only published the old testament. I also think you disproved yourself because you still admit that the founders supported religion in government even if it wasn't just Christianity. You re still saying that it is right for the government to print religious books.

Again i will say that the ideas which you are fighting for came from a court decision 50 years after the one i used so I do not think it is absurd to use the court case in my argument. Also it does not strengthen your case because the ruling does not say that you cannot have religion it just says you cannot go against religion. That is not saying you cannot have moral grounds based off of a religion just that you cannot attack a certain religion.

Now I agree some of these quotes could be considered personal preference. However John Hancock asking people to pray is not that has to do with someone in government asking people to pray. Because I feel that there are more quotes for my point here are some.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay (First Chief Justice) [2]

"[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington [2]

I believe these quotes will suffice as john jay himself just said that america is a christian nation.
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this" it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." (John Quincy Adams) [5]

Now I would like to take you up on your challenge. I would like to change your challenge a little bit. I will be using the Declaration instead of the constitution because i belief that they both are founding documents. The declaration is the why of america and the constitution is the how. I will do better then cite one place in the founding document i will site 4. Firstly the Declaration says our rights are given to us by "natures god" so that shows the support for at least some religion. Secondly it says we are created and that our rights come from the creator. Thirdly It names God in the form of the "supreme Judge". Finally the Declaration says with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. So we can infer by this that they believed we were protected and most importantly that we should have a reliance on the divine providence. This shows their support for religion. [3]

"And then there"s Thomas Jefferson. Not only did Jefferson recommend that the great seal of the US depict a Bible story and include the word God in the national motto, but as President, Jefferson negotiated treaties with the Indians in which he included direct federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the Indians. And these treaties were ratified by the US Senate. Furthermore, Jefferson closed Presidential documents with the appellation, "In the Year of Our Lord Christ," thus invoking Jesus Christ into official government documents." (David Barton Historian)
I think what Jefferson did supports my thesis and argument throughout the entire argument and therefore he helps in proving me point that he used directly federal funding, he wanted the seal of the U.S. to have a bible story, and he wanted God in the national motto. If religion and government should be completely separate then why does the supreme court have the ten commandments in and throughout it repeatedly? [4] Also why was it fine to have the ten commandments in schools for such a long time along with the bible? [5]
My argument has more than enough facts, and logic supporting it to be held as correct. My opponent was not able to come up with his own evidence against my argument. But rather he tried to take down my points which he was unable to do. When he asked for more in an area i gave him it. When he asked for one citation of religion I gave him 4. When he brought up problems with my quotes I brought in more quotes. I brought in more facts and supported my existing facts. Therefore I believe that the evidence points to the idea that the founders did not believe in a complete and full separation but rather they believed in no federal church, freedom of religion, and finally they believed that churches should be protected from the government not that government needed to be protected from the churches.
Thank you for the debate it was my first on this website and I thought we had a good and lively discourse!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://undergod.procon.org...
[3] http://www.ushistory.org...
[4] http://morallaw.org...
[5] http://www.three-peaks.net...
wrichcirw

Pro

First of all, I apologize for mixing up PRO and CON in the prior round, this is my first debate in which CON hosted the debate. I hope it is clear from the argument and context to which sides I was referring.


Counter-arguments:


1) CON stated that "Unfortunately pro has taken the wrong interpretation of first amendment. If the founders would have wanted a separation then why did they not put that into the first amendment? All it is saying is that the federal government will not establish a religion that's it."

CON needs to do some basic research:

"The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

The Establishment clause is immediately followed by the free exercise clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation." [1]

Thus, I will repeat that "In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers unequivocally separate church and state. The Founding Fathers made no stipulations or exceptions for Christianity. "


2) To CON's assertion that Supreme Court Justices "have a job which is to interpret the constitution," CON STILL does not understand that the debate is about what the Founding Fathers believed, not what Supreme Court Justices in 1900 thought the Founding Fathers believed.


3) CON states "I also think you disproved yourself because you still admit that the founders supported religion in government even if it wasn't just Christianity." He incredulously states this with zero proof. I have no idea to what he is referring. This is a strawman argument and I move that CON get deducted conduct points for it.

What I stated was "The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution."


4) CON states that "the ideas which you are fighting for came from a court decision 50 years after the one i used so I do not think it is absurd to use the court case in my argument." This is ANOTHER STRAWMAN case. I am citing "HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S (1892)". CON is citing "HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S." CON either is unable to properly cite which court case he is using, or is deliberately deceiving voters.


5) Again, none of the Founding Father quotes that CON states are in the US Constitution or other pertinent legal documents, and are therefore meaningless to the debate. "The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution."


6) CON states that "I will be using the Declaration instead of the constitution because i belief that they both are founding documents." Until he is properly able to cite and quote the Declaration of Independence, I will completely ignore his arguments as invalid. I have no idea what he is quoting, except single words and scattered instances. He is not citing any coherent thoughts from whatever document he is using.


7) CON states that "Jefferson recommend that the great seal of the US depict a Bible story and include the word God in the national motto." Did Jefferson succeed? Or did the First Amendment prevent him from doing so?


8) CON states "My opponent was not able to come up with his own evidence against my argument. " Clearly CON does not know how to read, or has simply not read what I have argued.


9) CON states that " When he asked for one citation of religion I gave him 4." Absolutely incorrect. I challenged CON "to cite anywhere in the UNAMENDED Constitution (exception to the Bill of Rights) where the Founding Fathers codified their religious beliefs into law." Instead he just quotes the Founding Fathers from their own personal correspondences. YET ANOTHER STRAWMAN.


10) For some reason, CON states that "government needed to be protected from the churches." Governments own a monopoly on violence through the military and its police force. The government does not need to be protected from churches. Ask David Koresh. [2]


11) Finally, to address CON's point that PRO is "saying that it is right for the government to print religious books," I refer again to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation." [1]"

Printing a religious book when all of the religions in the country use the same book, including Jews, does not show preference or accommodation, nor does it establish a national religion.


12) CON states that in the time of the Founding Fathers, Christianity was not the only religion worshipped, that "there is one major exception and that is Deism. Deism does not believe in the bible." He neither cites what Deism is, where it was practiced, nor when it was practiced. All he cites is one single line, and expects to be proven right with his bald, naked, and undefended assertion. Regarding Deism:

"Constructive elements of deist thought included:

  • God exists, created and governs the universe.
  • God gave humans the ability to reason." [3]
Also,

"Deists were stigmatized – often as atheists – by their Christian opponents. Yet some Deists claimed to be Christian, and as Leslie Stephen argued in retrospect, the Deists shared so many fundamental rational suppositions with their orthodox opponents... that it is practically impossible to distinguish between them.
[3]


I will combine these aspects of Deism with the logic from Pascal's Wager, that

"there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.

Pascal formulated the wager within a Christian framework" [4]

From these sources, it is clear that Deism shared so much in common with Christianity that it is very easy to determine that Deists benefited from access to the Bible.


Apologies to voters if I have not addressed all of CON's points. I did so to the best of my ability, but too many of them were either one sentence strawman arguments or completely baseless, unsubstantiated, and uncited bald assertions. Personally, I found CON's behavior to be atrocious, although I will give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was unintentional.

I thank Brabus for hosting this debate, and I thank the voters in advance for voting PRO.



STRAWMAN is "a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
FYI to CON the best way to avoid STRAWMAN arguments is to directly quote your opponent.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager


Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Exactly Aned, none of us saw the big bang and none of us saw a one celled creature evolve into 50,000 others. None of us have seen an ape turn into a human, although we have all seen a human act like an ape! Religion should not be pushed and neither should the king of all false religions "darwinism" !!! GOD gave us all the right of free will and no human should ever try to prevent it. If it is good enough for GOD, a creator, a divine power, a life source or whatever you believe in, it should be good enough for mankind. I believe in all rights for everyone as long as it does not impede or infringe on others lives in some sort of adverse ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
In order to guarantee freedom, a separation of church and state must exists. None religion is better than the rest. Most people believe in what they have been taught by their parents. And if someone never wanted to learn about religions because was interested in something else, that person has the right to not be religious and not be discriminated. Why should people believe in something they have not seen? Why does religious people try to intimidate whoever think differently? People's values do not depend on religion. There are good and bad people in any religion, or without any religion. That is what freedom is all about. If being Christian means to have compassion, then how come many Christians supported slavery?
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"First off you actually sent me a friend request. "

Then I regret doing it. Congratulations, you win.
Posted by Brabus 4 years ago
Brabus
First off you actually sent me a friend request. secondly the people that voted on your side are more inclined to side with you from the beginning (just like the person who voted for me is inclined to vote my way) I was not being rude at all i stated my points I would not have called any of my behavior atrocious you were the one who started to blame and say that others actions were a certain way not me.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Furthermore, I friended two of the people that voted BASED on how they voted here. They were not on my friends list when they actually voted.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Also, to your credit, you're arguing a hard case. "Common knowledge" would have it that the Founders believed in a full separation of church and state. I would take the fact that you got so many kudos for presenting an intelligent case for your argument (including from me) as a big compliment.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
The fact is, this is an interesting topic that is almost ubiquitous to the lives of every American. It's going to draw a large audience regardless. People on my friends list get alerted every time I do something, like post a comment or start/end a debate. They probably saw this, most on my list are intelligent people, wanted to see what this topic was about. Then, they voted.

I think you're an intelligent person as well, but your behavior leaves a lot to be desired.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I didn't ask any of them to come here. And I've friended basically anyone who was civil during a debate, or whose logic and intellect I respect. I'm sure you've noticed by now who I didn't invite (i.e. you).
Posted by Brabus 4 years ago
Brabus
Wrichcirw you and i both know why i lost the debate. You had 3 of your friends from this website vote so of course they are going to vote for you. I am new to the website so i dont have friends on it yet therefore i didnt have the base you did.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
An example of someone "NOT for Jesus" but not "against Jesus":

Martians. They don't know who Jesus is. How can a martian be "for Jesus?" They can't. However, they can't be "against Jesus" either.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
BrabuswrichcirwTied
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: Pro proved through the First Ammendment that founders separated gov. from church.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
BrabuswrichcirwTied
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 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: Arguments: Con makes a decent argument that the FF did not necessarily intend a full separation. Pro gives a good explanation as to why this wasn't contrary to the establishment clause at the time, but would be so today. Pro also shows that the First Amendment is certainly not intended to go one way. The resolution is a problem. I give the arguments a tie, however, I'm going to counter Bergeneric63 until he gives proper justification for why Con's arguments are better. Sources: Counter Bergeneric63. Pro relies solely on Wiki, but Con uses it as well. He also uses unreliable sources such as Barton, who holds no credentials and has been denounced by real historians (including those from the Christian community) as a fraud. S&G: Again, counter Bergeneric63. I see no justification to award Con with S&G as his writing is full of grammatical errors. Con's S&G is certainly no better than Pro's
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
BrabuswrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The founders did not want the separation of Church and State. Anybody that knows history knows this.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
BrabuswrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "What I stated was "The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution."" Combined with The Establishment clause is immediately followed by the free exercise clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment Sums up why I voted con. Surely the Founders leaned heavily Christian and Theistic, but as heavily as they leaned, it was kept out of the HOW of America... even if it was encoded in the why. States rights superceded this for a long time however. Excellent debate though. Honestly, Con made the strongest argument against I have yet read.
Vote Placed by bergeneric63 4 years ago
bergeneric63
BrabuswrichcirwTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used wiki a lot so that ruined his credibility for reliable source. Con used many valid points and wasn't insultive...