The Instigator
Singer-Songwriter_2018
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should talking about God during school hours be legal?

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 88068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Singer-Songwriter_2018

Pro

People have been talking to students about God to others for the last few years, but now the government has taken away our right to share the Good News, causing an attack on the Christian faith and the freedom to practice our religion in public schools. I believe that telling people about the Lord Jesus is very important because it gives other students who don't know Him hope and love, and the bible says that we have been brought down here to planet Earth to make disciples of all nations.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

I would like to thank Pro for this opportunity as I am taking to accepting this debate.

1. To begin with, it must be understood what the context of 'talking about God' Pro is referring to. From what he has said, one can deduce he means that it should be legal for students to spread the Christian faith in schools during active school hours. If that is the case, then this is simply inappropriate. While it is entirely okay for individuals to withhold religious values, it is not acceptable to impose them on others. Schools and such other educational or academic institutions are intented to be irrespective of religion [secular] and are established for the 'academic growth' of students into adults as they develop. Nowhere does it become appropriate to spread religion in this environment. This is also infringing on the rights of others to practice their own faiths or lack of.

2. Pro is very clearly preying upon the religious vulnerability tool of many people, that being using religion as a tool of spreading their particular values. Now, it should be brought up that [in the US], students used to be forced to pray every morning, to say the pledge every morning, and 'good Christian patiriotic students'. However, the laws were repealed for the sole reason that they enroach upon the First Amendment rights of Americans, within the first title of the Constitution. That being, of course, the freedom of speech, press, religion and such other. The recognition received therein is that if students are forced to practice a religion, they are not capable of practicing their own. Essentially it is forced conformity upon students in schools. However, should students be able to TALK about God? Sure, that could be legal. But SPREAD God? No, that's not Constitutional. Attempting to establish religion in a school is abhorrent. The same principles of secularism and separation of church and state should apply to businesses and schools; no personal convictions should interfere with the rights of others nor with the impartial nature of those such environments.

3. Pro referenced the Bible without taking time to consider that the Bible was written by many different people, re-edited, translated, re-translated, re-re-edited, and so on and so forth. Along the way, many pages and proverbs of the Bible were probably redesigned to fit the interests of those on top and assure power. Hence the fact that the Catholic Church was corrupt for so long, and that government ended up using religion as a way to maintain power. The Bible, much like most aspects of organized religion, tends to show a bias. But the Bible is also contradictory. The Old Testament talks about how merciless and ruthless 'God' was to his creations, and then the New Testament talks about his Jewish son who died for the forgiveness of sinners [apparently all people]. But Jesus also taught the idea that no human should be capable of judging someone else, considering that no human is free of sin. This particular principle of the Christian faith is very interesting and very key to what Christianity actually means. I'm sure you as a Bible-lover remember the passage where an adultress was to be stoned, by Jesus said "he who is without sin will cast the first stone" and no one did? Yes, that was because no human is without sin. So trying to impose your faith on others to 'save' them from sin or any such nonsense would contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ, an imperative figure in the development and growth of Christianity as a religion.

4. Pro literally made the claim that there is an apparent 'attack on the Christian faith' by the American government and school systems. Meanwhile, 70.6% of Americans are Christians, and that accounts for all sects of that religion. Only 5.9% are devout followers of other faiths, and only 20.6% are irreligious. So to say there is a 'war on Christianity' despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being Christian is outright ludicrous. There is also a law across 13 U.S states saying atheists are not allowed, legally, to uphold public office. Due to federal and constitutional law this does not actually apply, but this is still a problem in the country. For many years, particularly since 9/11, Americans have also harshly given members of the Islamic faith problems for their beliefs. If anything, while a war on Islam is happening, Christians are using this to gain more followers and show a surge of support against the 'threat'. Just because people are not forced to comply with Christianity anymore, does not mean the faith is somehow facing an attack. 3-5 are about the stigma U.S Muslims face.

Sources cited:
1. http://www.pewforum.org...;(U.S religion statistics)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;(stigma for atheists)
3. http://www.gallup.com...
4. http://www.theguardian.com...
5. http://www.soundvision.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Singer-Songwriter_2018

Pro

Singer-Songwriter_2018 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

My points remain uncontested so far. Extending.
Debate Round No. 2
Singer-Songwriter_2018

Pro

Singer-Songwriter_2018 forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Once more, my points remain unrefuted. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tanner_1230 1 year ago
tanner_1230
I am disappointed in the pro side, and would have liked a better argument from a valid view.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Ignore me just dropped by to say Hey to WhineyMagiciann5 . I'm debating Free will on another debate page .... check it out!
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
it would encroach upon the first amendment is one obvious thing, and Christians are no where near oppressed, that 70% of America statistic is correct. captain scarlet covers the problem of the extreme thought influence on children. also showing why it is best for young kids to grow up in a secular environment.
Posted by CaptainScarlet 1 year ago
CaptainScarlet
A really good reason from FOC below on why we don't let people proselytize their faith in schools. Students should be educated on how to think analytically, critically, socratically etc, given exposure to the latest facts, data, theorems etc, challenged to research, be educated on process, discipline and rigour. But they should not be taught what to think. Unfortunately telling people 'what to think' is the preserve of the religious. This creates a herd of people who think quoting scripture from weird cultish mystery faiths is impressive in some way. You might as well read the Eleusinian mysteries and be impressed by Demeter as well. But to be fair at least those are good stories.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
2 Tim 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Psalms 109:5 They repay me evil for good, and hatred for my friendship.

1 Thessalonians 5:3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
Singer-Songwriter_2018TheSatiricalAnarchistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I slightly can agree with both Pro and Con. I do believe that children should be able to talk about God but it shouldn't be imposed onto others, similar to mandatory prayer. Anyway, since I agree with both to an extent, neither a point for more convincing arguments. Con gets the point for conduct due to Pros forfeit.
Vote Placed by Shrekoning 1 year ago
Shrekoning
Singer-Songwriter_2018TheSatiricalAnarchistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No one insulted each other, so conduct is tied. Con had better grammar. Pro made a weak introductory argument and then forfeited. No sources used. I would like to clarify that talking about God, or praying, is allowed in school. It is not illegal. I am a High School student. We have a student prayer group that gets together to pray in the morning. Outside of that, people just choose NOT to pray. Prayer in school is not illegal, MANDATORY prayer is. Learn your facts people, quit spreading your fear and hate mongering.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 1 year ago
Geogeer
Singer-Songwriter_2018TheSatiricalAnarchistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
Singer-Songwriter_2018TheSatiricalAnarchistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F