Religious symbols, religious pictures, prayers,... should be allowed in Public faculty?
Debate Rounds (5)
I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation.
Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that religious symbols should be allowed in public places or religious symbols should be allowed to be worn in places of business" There is a difference between wearing religious symbols in pubic and doing so at a place of work.
Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define religious symbols, places of business, prayers, religious pictures, Jihab, religions etc. Remember that these definitions must be clear and concise and should have no question as to what they mean they can be used for/against your argument.
Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why Religious symbols should be allowed to be worn in public or places of business (depending on your resolution). You can provide factual evidence as to its benefits and also offer pure logical reasoning to support your claims. Anything that supports your affirmation should be put here.
Thanks and good luck on the debate!
AFFIRMATION: all religious symbols, outfits, pictures, jewelry and everything that express their faith and belief as long as it's not provoke any hatred and violate any laws, as far as they don't, they should be allowed to be shown off by the staffs and the officers who are working on public faculty.
_religious: of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
_express:to show, to manifest, to reveal.
_public :of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole.
As we know, our Founding Fathers with their great decisions when they decided there must be a wall that seperate the churches and this country's government, we can clearly see that through the 1st Amendment: " of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole...", but some of us had misunderstood the statement and believed the Founding Father wanted to ban religions from this country. Contradictory, most of the signers in 118 singers of this country, most of them are Christians with different denominations. In fact, most people forget to look at the other part of our 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". (Amendment 1st).
So it's strongly difficult to see why public faculty's staffs such as senators, mayors, principles or simply a teacher can't express their faith in their work place.
Thank you for my opponent's anticipation, I'm await for his new arguments.
Don't worry about it bro, we have lots of rounds so we can afford to waste a round, doesn't matter at all. Thanks for the debate and I look forward to having a good one with you.
My opponent seems to misunderstand the part of the first amendment that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" That clause in the constitution refers to citizens and not to public servants, or those employed by taxpayer dollars.
Citizen: any citizen of the United States who is currently not "on the clock" in other words a citizen who isn't currently on the job.
Case Law: is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis.
Law: In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)
I would also like to accept all of my opponent's definitions.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held:
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""
SOURCE: Marnell, William, H. (1964). The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to The School Prayer Controversy.
Now I know my opponent will read the above interpretation and take this sentence (No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance) and use it to aid him in his side. However, the "person" is essentially someone who does not represent the government. Notice this statement: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."
Meaning that anyone working for the government, while they are "clocked in"/on the job can not in anyway promote a religion or participate in any religious activity.
Furthermore, the religious standing of the "founding fathers" is irrelevant and should have no affect in constitutional interpretations as our founding fathers intended the constitution to be a "living" document, meaning that it should change/be interpreted based upon the needs of the present and not cling to the past.
If you are going to argue that the constitution should not or was not intended to be a living document then fine, however you will only disprove your own resolution as the freedom to religion is an amendment to the constitution itself and is a result of this.
The practice of judicial review, as part of the checks and balances of the Legislative and Executive bodies of the US government, was put in place in the US by the famous Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judicial review not only checks the other bodies of the government, but also controls the laws put into place throughout the country. Judicial review is one of the main ideas that sets forth the ideal that the Constitution is a "living document".
LOGICAL REASONS THAT UPHOLD CURRENT LAW:
My opponent's resolution states: all religious symbols, outfits, pictures, jewelry and everything that express their faith and belief as long as it's not provoke any hatred and violate any laws
To start off my opponent defeats himself in his own resolution by stating "as long as it (does not)....violate any laws." As I have shown in the first part of my argument i absolutely violates laws. It violates case law particularly Everson v. Board of Education (1947). In this end alone my opponent is defeated by his own standards set forth in his resolution
My opponent states "everything that express their faith" should be allowed to be utilized by public officials. Public officials are to serve the public. By my opponent own resolution, teachers could use their entire time to preach, pray, give bible lessons, share the gospel, give personal testimony, interpret their religious book etc. This would obviously inhibit their ability to get through the state-defined curriculum which would affect the education of our children and could even offend those who are not of that teacher's religion. Public officials would also waste their time doing the same things.
Public servants are agents of the public. An agent should be fulfilling the principle's wishes. Preaching the gospel is not in any of these job descriptions.
To conclude, my opponent has been defeated by the own standards of his resolution. His resolution defies the law (Case Law, Everson v. Board of Education 1947) which his resolution states that he cannot do when he states: "as it's not provoke any hatred and violate any laws" Furthermore my opponent advocates that public servants be allowed to do "everything that express their faith and belief" which would interfere with their duties to educate, and govern our country. My opponent's resolution defies its own wishes to abide by the law and also defies logical sense. For these reason I have successfully refuted my opponent's resolution.
I would like to thank my opponent for his argument and look forward to what he will do in the third round.
DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.