The Instigator
inszel
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should state grounds allow monuments of a religious nature?

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 2 votes the winner is...
RonPaulConservative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 99024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

inszel

Con

Following the placement and later removal of the ten commandments in Oklahoma (2015) the question has been raised on whether or not such monuments should be allowed. In my view i see no issue with letting groups show their monuments upon state ground, until we get to the main point. That being that ANY religious group may do so, under the understanding that America is a secular nation and has separation from church and state. Thus such monuments would logically far out number the amount of space that the state grounds can provide. Further as the state doesn't endorse any religious movement, it is more appropriate that a state building look more like a legal building and less like a temple.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

The sun or moon are objects of worship, are we going to bann them from being visible on govt property? Better yet, the dove is a symbol of Christianity, and Natio Parks are public ground, will be exterminate all doves from national park land?
Debate Round No. 1
inszel

Con

mon"u"ment
noun
noun: monument; plural noun: monuments
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

we are not talking of symbols but stone or metal monuments.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Alright then- will we tear down the Statue of Liberty? It is a monument which commemorates a pagan godess.
Debate Round No. 2
inszel

Con

By state land i meant government buildings. case in point the ten commandment monument on the Oklahoma city hall land. this is not targeted at all monuments no matter where they might be. further i have looked for connections with the Statue of Liberty and religions, but have only found conspiracy theories; i would be interested to learn what you mean by pagan godess. but the point is that the Statue of Liberty isn't meant to be a monument of a purely religious nature, where as the ten commandments or the bahomet statue would be. avoiding the topic with these off shoot arguments aren't helping. the core ideal that can be drawn from this topic is whether or not religions should have the right to display or represent their beliefs through the government.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

the Ten Commandments are a symbol of Law and justice, and are therefore at the Supreme Court, just as the Pagan Godess of Justice is. It's called decor, there are 5 pillars at one of our Govt bulildings- will we tear those down as they represent Islam?
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ChadIrvin 12 months ago
ChadIrvin
Spelling and grammar goes to con, because I found a few misspelled words in pro's arguments. Pro gets points for having a better argument than con. When pro asked if we should ban all things that relate to religious symbols, I think it made the most sense as relating to con's original question for the debate.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 12 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by John_C_1812 12 months ago
John_C_1812
A Constitutional Liaison

The Concern in a State of the Union address between basic principle and legal precedent has two parts in an impartial separation process, dealing with artefact's that rest on public ground, on public display.

A.Are both sides of the judicial separation holding the same " belief " about an Object in question, is the Ten-Commandment only being represented as a religious symbolism, Prosecution and Defense?

B.Has a Civil and Criminal action been undertaken addressing the same necessity for public separation? Is Legal interpretation used to mask basic principle? As the impartial basic principle of crime before any Court of Law is separation? Until the point after a trial with proper representation has taken place or confession.

In this case the Separation of Church and State held by the Courts system may have had problems finding participants, or witnesses, who could not see the Ten-Commandments Historic value in past legal History.

Great topic.
Posted by John_C_1812 12 months ago
John_C_1812
Following the placement and then removal of the
Ten-Commandments."

In the Separation of church and State at what point does the Ten-Commandments move from religious property, to a representation of historic representation of law?
Because a judicial Separation does not enforce an earlier law, by defending the United States Constitution, does not dictate the Counsel cannot observe it as reference as it came before its own establishment. Religion does not make it any less of a point to historic origin or value in precedent.

"The State doesn"t endorse any religious movement."

Of course the Governing State endorses religious movement (Group). It is the primary reason why the Separation of Church and State is a common defense to the general welfare and tranquility.
A church or religion is made up of people, people pay tax, and taxation is to insure judicial representation. The legally described way to refuse a taxpayer of representation is not under religious cause alone. The legal assignment of representation often stand on a person"s competence to understand. Moving forward from that point.

The question isn"t if religion is influencing the governing State, the State which host an impartial and non-biased separation. It is how the burden of influence is shared with the public, and if a representation to the United States Constitution, can or cannot be proved. This is directed by a Federal State of the Union, or a Governors State of the Union.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DB1 12 months ago
DB1
inszelRonPaulConservativeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had very good arguments for why state grounds shouldn't allow monuments of religious nature. However, Pro came back with a better answer every single time.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 12 months ago
ChadIrvin
inszelRonPaulConservativeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment section.