If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well
If religious displays and practice are to be separated or secularized from the government, then the federal benefits of the same should be removed as well
Apply for acceptance of debate will be done in comments. As this is my first debate, I am testing the waters.
As Pro, I will be debating for the logic of removal of benefits of government enacted activities associated with separation of like religious practices, and supplementary absence of logic in non removal
As Con, you will be debating for the logic of non removal of said benefits, as well as supplementary absence of logic in removal, or that federal benefits are nonexistent in relation to religious activities
I appreciate any criticism that will aid me in future establishment of debates
Acceptance of the debate implies;
Thank you for your acceptance
I accept the terms and conditions set out by Pro.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and assisting me in "getting my feet wet" as it were in the realm of debate.org.
The First Amendment was established to not only protect an individual's right to practice the religion of their choice, but to also protect that individual from [the religions] of others. It also sought to establish a boundary as to where no religions could be created by, and for, our government.
"The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion."
"In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene."
The Court deemed the crèche, or manger was unconstitutional as it favored Christianity over other religions in a display.
As a precedent to my arguments, The application of separation and establishment had to be made.
This example of separation depicts a certain amount of irony, as the holiday season (aside from the meaning of the actual word holiday) itself promotes religion, whether a particular religion, or religion itself.
5 U.S. Code § 6103 - Holidays
"The following are legal public holidays:
New Year’s Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25."
These dates and terms were confirmed at <http://www.archives.gov...> .
"Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is Federal policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law."
The creation of these dates and names, especially Christmas Day, into law, is a direct violation of the establishment clause. Partially in the term holiday, originally crafted from the word holy, and day Though it has been accepted later in history to also mean a vacation or celebration unrelated to religion, it shares meaning with religious connotation, not excluding it. Wholly, however, in the Definition of Christmas, previously established as a Christian holiday.
As the correlation of legal precedence and religious connotation associated with the aforementioned dates has been established, it is reasonable to conclude that the policy regarding endorsement of religious activities is not extended to the benefits encouraged by the government in the form of the new definition of holiday.
It is the right of the people to publicly practice their religion. Publicly.
The fourteenth amendment extends these rights to equally apply to corporations as legal person hoods. 
The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice.
Holidays have an economic impact on businesses. By recognizing the source of these demands it behooves the federal government to utilize such observances for the benefit of economic growth. If the government made strides to eliminate the inclusion of holiday customs into their public persona, we risk killing the demand it generates.
Seeing how the government can not create religious days, it only stands to utilize the days already commonly used by the populace.
So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision.  That the recognition of Christmas as a holiday, a custom practiced by the people, was not against the establishment clause. Government institutions were not establishing the practice, just recognizing it's prevalence.
As such the name Christmas, was not elected by government either. Christmas was being called Christmas 4 centuries before the U.S. was created. It is only the name by which the holiday is known by.
Christmas with the use of trees, Santa, reindeer, and present exchanges is a modern amalgamation of corporate advertisement, additions by different populations. To an outside observer Christmas as represented in media, even government accolades, would appear to be a very non-christian holiday.
Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines.
"The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice."
While the 14th amendment grants equal practice to corporations as person hood, no entity may act on the behalf of the government in regards to religious practice.
Contrary to your argument, the removal of religious affiliation is in no way the same as denying people the opportunity to practice. That was the intent of the establishment clause.
While government agencies are prohibited from creating religions, practices, or affiliations they are also prohibited from siding with any religion or the idea of religion over non-religion.
The fact that Christmas was established long before the creation of the United States confirms that it was not named by the government. Though it also defines that the United States officially named the holiday defined by government standards after Christmas. Christmas has been defined in R1 as having a predetermined religious connotation.
"Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines."
As roughly 70 percent of the United States reports as Christian, it would be illogical to assume that the significance of their most revered holiday is obsolete.
"So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision"
The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion.
Unless religious affiliation creates unreasonable individuals, it would be safe to assume that 70 percent of the American people would reasonably observe that the government creating a holiday named after their most sacred holiday is an endorsement of a version of their religion, or, if it is a combination of religions, it is still a promotionn of religion over non-religion.
Mhykiel forfeited this round.
I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this event and enter in to Debate.org.
As Stated in round 1, the definitions of Christmas and benefit were established.
It was established in round 2 that the government of the United States has established holidays, with legally confirmed named and regards.
Round 3 affirmed that the First Amendment established freedoms from a government ability to promote a religious attribute over non religion.
The logical conclusion to the dictation of these events is that the government endorses a holiday (benefit) in the name of Christmas (Religious), despite the establishment clause's disassociation.
Thank you for participating in this debate period, and have a Merry Christmas!
Mhykiel forfeited this round.