The Instigator
DebateSpirit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Religious symbols, religious pictures, prayers,... should be allowed in Public faculty?

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 1 vote the winner is...
johngriswald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,679 times Debate No: 10195
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

DebateSpirit

Pro

Just as the government of the United States try to take away the right to express religions in public faculty. The fact that some states not allow teachers to wear big crosses or use crosses to decorate their classes. They even gone to extreme when they not allowed Muslim teachers to waer the Jihab. This is against the laws and constitutions.
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate.

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!
Debate Round No. 1
DebateSpirit

Pro

I extremely apologize for the waste of this round, I guess a long time without debate had somehow affected my mind.

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.

DEFINE:
_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.
(dictionary.com)

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.
johngriswald

Con

INTRO:

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.

DEFINITIONS:

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.

ARGUMENT:
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.

CONCLUSION:

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.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateSpirit

Pro

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 3
DebateSpirit

Pro

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateSpirit

Pro

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Extend my arguments. A real shame.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
Here is some help (advice) from from an article on 'Help' on Debate.org :

"Create an Arguable and Clear Topic
The topic of your debate should be a controversial statement. The topic should imply that there are only two sides to the argument. Creating a clear and arguable topic helps the debate look more professional and allows the reader to more easily comprehend the content of the debate and who is on which side. Here's an example of a topic:

Steve Young is a better quarterback than Joe Montana."

Propositions that are not controversial are uninteresting. Practically, there is no chance that the U. S. government will approve school-sponsored prayer in the public schools.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Who says a topic even has to be controversial?
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Just because an issue has been 'decided' by the Supreme Court doesn't mean it's not a controversy. That assumes that A) the Supreme Court makes the ultimate moral/just decisions, which are never wrong, B) once the Supreme Court decrees something, everyone agrees with it. Roe v. Wade was already ruled, but there's still TONS of controversy over abortion.
Posted by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
A proposition to be debated should be controversial.

The issue of school sponsored prayers in public school is not controversial in fact because the U.S. Supreme Court has decided the issue via Madeline Murray O'Haire.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If you don't specify between public and private school, you will be pwn'd.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
DebateSpiritjohngriswaldTied
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