The Instigator
PapaCam94
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Republican Party advocates for more "efficient" government more often than smaller government

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 35072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

PapaCam94

Pro

I'm taking the position that the Republican Party in general isn't really advocating to shrink Government but rather to grow it at a slower pace than the Democrat party. Cons objective is to prove that the position I have taken is false and that the Republican Party is really trying to make the government smaller. Examples of making government smaller include fewer expenditures by the government and/or decreasing the amount of money spent by the Federal Government and also the conserted effort to give up collective rights to hand over to the individual and reduce the overall legal burden on the people of the United States.

On a side note I am new to this website and have only engaged in a couple debates, but however, I think I'm a worthy contender who has some interesting points to share. I would love to have a respectful discussion with you and I hope you accept
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate. Though it wasn't written in the rules I assume first round is acceptance and welcomes only.

So with that being said, welcome to the site! I hope to have a fun and exciting debate with you.
Debate Round No. 1
PapaCam94

Pro

Allow me to quote myself as you have quoted me

"A cross on display in a public museum or a school is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor is it a mandate you be a follower of Christ. Is it immoral? Well that's an entirely seperate issue. But illegal? Hardly"

I made it clear that this debate was not to be about what groups should and shouldn't be allowed to do but rather what the law permits.

I read the article that contains the quote you cited from science blog and based on that article it worries me that you might possibly be trying to portray me as a member of the religious right who's making the case that the exact words "seperation of church and state" aren't actually in the constitution so there really is no such thing as the wall of seperation. But of course we both already know no such term is used in the constitution, I was merely describing where a misconception about its meaning comes from. My position, once again, is that religious expression by members of public trust, such as teachers conducting group prayer in public schools is permitted by the constitution. The position you have chosen to defend was supposed to be contrary to that, there's no trap my friend, for the position you have agreed to defend has held up in the court of law many a time. In fact if you look at the many cases dealing with this very issue, I would contend that the majority of them in recent years have ruled in your favor. But lest I say more for the burden of proof lies with you and I think that it would be more fitting that I lay out some evidence of my own. But for your benefit, however, I will cite a case that ruled in favor of your position and that is Engel v. Vitale. I will quote an article that gives you a bit of background as to what the case was about and then I'll quote excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions and the explain why latter is more compelling

"Facts of the Case
The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

Majority Opinion

"It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America... [T]he successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law"

Dissenting Opinion

"I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation."

The dissenting opinion is far more compelling because comparing children voluntarily saying a prayer in school to the type of religious persecution faced by early colonists while in England is like comparing apples to oranges. The first amendment prohibits congress to make a law respecting and establishment of religion in order to prevent one faith being branded as the official religion of the land. When children say a prayer led by teachers in school no such law has been enacted, in fact congress has taken no part whatsoever. Unless the prayer is compulsory and/or there is a prerequisite to follow a certain faith if you are to become, for example, a teacher, than neither the religious liberty of the students nor their parents has been broken.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Arcording the the article from which you borrowed the above quote, Thomas Jefferson said this in response to whether or not tax dollars should go to contributing a Connecticut church. But of course congress requiring by law it's citizens give financial support to a certain faith would be considered as making a law in respects to an establishment of religion.

Sorry I didn't lay out clear enough rules to put us on the same page. I look forward to reading your responses.

Sources
http://www.infidels.org...

http://www.oyez.org...

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.law.cornell.edu...
lannan13

Con

Uhm... I think you have the wrong debate. I'll post my arguements in the next round that way hopefully we're on the same page.
Debate Round No. 2
PapaCam94

Pro

PapaCam94 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

We stated in a PM that we would redo this debate, so in that case please vote it a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
PapaCam94

Pro

PapaCam94 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

Keep it a tie.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Awood8964 3 years ago
Awood8964
lol oh no! I'm sorry that happened to you, I nearly did the same thing on one of my other debates! just laugh it off, ...it happens! :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.