The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
BrettBoelkens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 103422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Actually, so-called "separation of Church and state"
is unconstitutional -- it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution,
it is therefore illegal, and the states are required by law
to teach Theism in public schools.
BrettBoelkens

Con

To be unconstitutional, it must "not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules." (Oxford Dictionary) The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do), with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3, establishing that there can not be any religious test for public office. However, just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Embryonic stem cell research isn't mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, nor does it violate any articles. Yet it is still illegal from laws put in place by the Bush administration.

However, amendments are defined as "a change or addition to the U.S. Constitution" (Cambridge Dictionary) meaning that amendments are part of the Constitution itself. In the Bill of Rights, we have the first amendment, preventing the government from respecting religion or prohibiting the exercise of it. This isn't to criminalize theism and religion, it just says that the government can't respect it. If my opponent wishes to ignore the amendments, then he would allow for unreasonable search and seizure, a lack of impartial juries, excessive fines, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

For the separation of church and state to be illegal, the 1st amendment would have to repealed much like with the 18th and 21st amendments. This has yet to happen, and as a corollary to this, the separation is still legal. And this would not make States be required by law to teach theism as gospel. This would require additional amendments, or a state wide agreement to do so.


Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"To be unconstitutional, it must "not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules.""

True, and because the phrase "separation of Church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, it is therefore not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules, and therefore it is unconstitutional.

"The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution"

Correction: The phrase "separation of Church and state" is ENTIRELY unmentioned in the original Constitution and ENTIRELY unmentioned in any of its Amendments.

"if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do),"

I have addressed the First Amendment, you liar.

"with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3"

Actually, religion is also mentioned in the First Amendment, you liar.

"If my opponent wishes to ignore the amendments,"

I have addressed the First Amendment, you liar.

"For the separation of church and state to be illegal, the 1st amendment would have to repealed"

No it wouldn't.

" the separation is still legal."

No it isn't.

" And this would not make States be required by law to teach theism as gospel"

I never made such a claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

If something is unconstitutional, it must violate/no be in accordance with either the original constitution or the subsequent amendments. In the original Constitution, the separation is mentioned in Article 6 Section 3 preventing religious tests for public office. Second off in the Bill of Rights, it is mentioned in the first amendment. My opponent is right, the words "separation of church and state' don't appear anywhere in the Constitution nor the amendments. But this does not mean the idea is nonexistent. The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible, nor does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. Nor does Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, or the Golden Rule. Just because something isn't mentioned word for word, does not mean the idea isn't there.

My opponent seems to be fond cherry martinis since he does a lot of cherry picking and quote mining. When I say, "with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3," this comes after saying "The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do)," Religion isn't mentioned in the original Constitution besides that article. I specifically said if "we exclude the amendments." I too could cherry pick, citing the Psalms to say there is no god.

He also seems fond of merely making assertions, such as freely calling me a liar. In the second round, about a quarter of his responses to my quote mined words were merely saying "no it wouldn't" and "no it isn't." There is a word rational people like to use, it's called evidence. What evidence does my opponent have for not only those claims, but for his claims in his opening statement? I too could fill the debate with bluster and bombast,

Unless we include you arguing against people who aren't your opponent in the comments, you did not cover the First Amendment.

Why would theism be taught in schools? If there is no separation of church and state, why not teach atheistic Buddhism? It's an option. Or Satanism (Many Satanists are just atheists/agnostics)? Praise Satan!
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"In the original Constitution, the separation is mentioned in Article 6 Section 3 preventing religious tests for public office."

No it isn't.

"Second off in the Bill of Rights, it is mentioned in the first amendment."

No it isn't.

"My opponent is right, the words "separation of church and state' don't appear anywhere in the Constitution nor the amendments."

Thank you for that admission -- you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

Okay, now that we are down to the final round, I think finally actually understand his argument completely. Let's try to put it in syllogistic form.

P1. The Constitution makes no mention of the phrase "separation of church and state"
P2. Since the exact phrase isn't mentioned, the separation is unconstitutional
C1. Therefore, the separation is illegal
C2. Since the separation is illegal, schools are required by law to teach theism.

i really tried, I really did, but I really don't understand why any of this makes sense.

The exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear, but that doesn't mean that the idea isn't there. And even if it wasn't there, that wouldn't make it unconstitutional. And why must it be theism taught in schools? If there is no separation of church and state, why not teach Buddhism? Or Satanism? And of course, which variant of theism?

My opponent completely ignores me calling him out on cherry picking, quote mining, and assertions, therefore they still stand. He has completely failed to display why we should repeal the separation of church and state, and just pretended it didn't exist.

Thank you for your time, and in the words of my opponent you lost the debate
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
The phrase in question does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, so I won the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Bluepaintcan123 11 months ago
Bluepaintcan123
You have a serious superiority complex Purushadasa. After clearly failing to prove your point you still pretend you won without defending a single point you made.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"i really tried, I really did, but I really don't understand why any of this makes sense."

Neither does the pig, but yours and the pig's personal ignorance of the facts does not change the facts.

"The exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear, but that doesn't mean that the idea isn't there."

Yes it does.

" And even if it wasn't there, that wouldn't make it unconstitutional."

Yes it does.

"we should repeal the separation of church and state,"

Can't "repeal" something that isn't law.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
Wow. Hope someone votes on this, because you have absolutely failed to make your case.
Just because the Constitution does not say "separation of Church and State" does not mean it can be interpreted that way.
Case law says that the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that the state must separate itself from religion.
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
It is not illegal in any way. Evolution can be taught, just as religion CAN, they just need to be understood as fantasies rather then reality so that they don't start changing religions willy-nilly.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Also, you lost the debate because you failed to provide the place in the Constitution where the term "separation of Church and state" appears. (It doesn't, actually).

It's not anywhere in the Constitution, and you know it's not.

No more comments on First Amendment because I already proved it doesn't appear there by posting actual quote after you proved yourself intellectually dishonest by posting fake quote. (Do you work for CNN?)

Provide the place where the phrase supposedly appears in the Constitution or GTFO, you ignorant jackass!

You lost the debate, now bye! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Not teaching religion in public schools makes them secular, which is illegal according to the Constitution's First Amendment. Thanks for asking! =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
And how does not teaching religion violate the "free exercise" clause?
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Correction:

The First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Capitals added for emphasis].

Please note that my opponent failed to quote the Amendment properly because he is intellectually dishonest.

Please also note that the phrase "separation of Church and state" appears exactly NOWHERE in the Constitution. It is NOT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT -- nor is it anywhere else in the Constitution.

Stop lying, skippy! LOL SMH

You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Again: so-called "separation of Church and state"
is unconstitutional -- it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution,
it is therefore illegal, and the states are required by law
to teach Theism in public schools.

Show me where it appears in the Constitution, or GTFO.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaBrettBoelkensTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't bother trying to reason with him, Con. He's far off the deep end.