The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The Separation of Church and State: A fundamental misunderstanding exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,009 times Debate No: 3878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Pro

To clarify the entailment's of the argument, I am stating that there exists a fundamental and profound misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. I am assigning myself the PRO role in agreeing that such a misunderstanding exists, and wish to reveal its intended meaning.

The phrase, "Separation of Church and State," has become a mantra for countless peoples of the United States. It is a common misinterpretation of Establishment Clause to the 1st Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The words, ‘separation, church, or state,' are not found anywhere on ANY Founding document, yet it has been repeated many times over. If then these words do not appear on any official documentation, why do we hear so much of this oft-repeated phrase?

In the 17th and 18th centuries many Europeans immigrated to the United States in order to flee from religious tyranny and religious persecution. With, perhaps, the exception of Roger Williams and William Penn, most groups did not believe religious tolerance was the explicit or implicit goal of setting up a theocratic state, compatible with their beliefs. They recognized the problems associated with theocracy, the most obvious reason: everyone wanted to be ‘Theo.'

Ironically, the infamous phrase in question came from Roger Williams, not Thomas Jefferson, another common misnomer. Thomas Jefferson, however, popularized the term when he sent a personal letter to a group known as the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. The Danbury Baptists had heard a rumor that the government was seeking to adopt an official state religion. Jefferson wrote this letter on behalf of the Baptists, easing their mind that the government had no intention of instituting a national religion. Remember, early settlers had fled England to move away from religious tyranny and persecution. The last thing they wanted was to go back to a place where they were forced to side with a particular dogma that ran counter to their personal, religious beliefs.

What Jefferson actually stated was that a wall between the church and state has been erected, meaning: they were allowed to freely worship the Lord in whatever manner that seemed fitting. Jefferson's intent was to assure them that their rights to free assembly under their faith would not be interfered with by external influences, such as the government.

So what is the purpose behind the 1st Amendment?

The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin's Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion, such as we have historically seen in Constantine's, Rome. That's it! That's all that the 1st Amendment means. If you have bought into a lie or read more into it than that, I am not shy to inform you that you're wrong. Clearly, this has been taken so far out of context that it's being used as ammunition against certain religious institutions.

The trend of today's zeitgeist is that the 1st Amendment has been manipulated to extend to anti-religious sentiments. The most common citing of the 1st Amendments have always been the assertion that the Church has infringed upon the State. This certainly has happened in some ways, such as the case where creation science was trying to find a way in to public schools. However, there is ample evidence of the State trampling the Church, yet we seldom hear a word in protest. Because in fact the 1st Amendment was not written for secular persons in mind, though they benefit just as much as everyone else, but rather it had in mind religious persons. Revisionist history professors try to distort this image because of their own atheistic predilections.

Contemporary society is now conditioned to believe that secular interests are neutral and that religious sentiments are inherently biased. The reality is that bias exists no matter what to some degree. But why erroneously smuggle in the 1st Amendment when it is evident that it is manipulation to do so?

In closing, my opponent must refute that the interpretation of the 1st Amendment is flawed, and must give compelling reasons detailing the alleged flaws.

Thanks to whomever accepts the challenge. Good luck and best wishes.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Thank you for starting the debate.

First of all, I'd like to point out that it is really entirely irrelevant as to what Jefferson thought the First Amendment meant, at least in the appeal to authority that you're trying to give, because James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (http://www.jmu.edu...). Your unsourced story about Jefferson has no relevancy in this debate.

Now, on to your main argument:

"The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin's Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion, such as we have historically seen in Constantine's, Rome. That's it! That's all that the 1st Amendment means."

I agree with you. That's what it means, and that's what seperation of church and state means. The government's (or state's) influence is seperated from your ability to worship freely. It cannot tell the churches what to do (assuming they are breaking no laws). It can also not recognize any religion, and, consequently, church, s the official religion/church of the nation. just because the words "seperation", "state", or "church" are not explicity stated in the First Amendment, it doesn't mean that the seperation of church and state doesn't exist. You're trying to say that seperation of church and state means something more, but it really doesn't. I'm confused as to what more you think it means.

Then you go on to talk about how secularists use it to keep the church out of government. Yeah. The government can't have a religion in it. That's what the Establishment Clause means.

Yo also complain about these secularists not caring when the government oversteps its bounds over religion. Well, why does it matter whether they care or not? People care about what they care about, and it doesn't chagne what the Bill of Rights actually means. Even if it was important, it is still cancelled out because religious people will always be angry when the government oversteps its bounds into religion. It's a self-balancing system.

But all of that is irrelevant. The issue here today is whether or not the First Amendment gives us the seperation of church and state. My opponent seems to think that the seperation of church and state means more than what it actually does, yet he has not actually said what it does mean. I have illustrated what it means for you, and shown you where we get it from. I will elaborate and clarify as needed as this debate continues.
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"First of all, I'd like to point out that it is really entirely irrelevant as to what Jefferson thought the First Amendment meant, at least in the appeal to authority that you're trying to give, because James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (http://www.jmu.edu......). Your unsourced story about Jefferson has no relevancy in this debate."

It isn't irrelevant whatsoever since it was his inspiration, and indeed, his own words that made the First Amendment what it is. The exact verbiage in his letter is verbatim to the very amendment in question, making it entirely relevant to the debate. How would the source of the inspiration for the topic be irrelevant when the entire premise of the debate is to preserve the actual intent of the amendment, and to dispel misnomers concerning it?

As to the source, let us read:

"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

Source - Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov...

"just because the words "seperation", "state", or "church" are not explicity stated in the First Amendment, it doesn't mean that the seperation of church and state doesn't exist. You're trying to say that seperation of church and state means something more"

Nonsense... I stated the exact opposite and you even quoted me doing so, which the readers will clearly see. I am saying that many other people have manipulated the 1st Amendment for the furtherance of what ever agenda they espouse. This amendment is clear cut, and I am glad that you concede that position, since that is really the only thing I asked the opposition to do.

"Then you go on to talk about how secularists use it to keep the church out of government. Yeah. The government can't have a religion in it. That's what the Establishment Clause means."

I said nothing of the sort. I naturally defy you to substantiate the claim that I said, or even made allusions to your assertion.

"Yo also complain about these secularists not caring when the government oversteps its bounds over religion. Well, why does it matter whether they care or not? People care about what they care about, and it doesn't chagne what the Bill of Rights actually means."

People generally have an aversion towards hypocrisy, right? Why then would it be so absurd to call someone out for that hypocrisy when it seems evident that a younger generation is being lied to?

Let me just give you an illustration. The ACLU is suing over a case that posits that a San Diego county monument honoring fallen soldiers is "unconstitutional." Why? Because on the monument is prominently displayed a large crucifix. The fallen people honored there are almost all Christian with the exception of one or two Jewish soldiers. Somehow a cross and manger scenes are a travesty of epic proportions to the ACLU. But they forget the fact that this is not on government land, and the fact that its so ridiculously asinine. It would be just as silly for a Christian in the IDF and die in Israel with his comrades, then someone protesting that a large Star of David was used instead of a cross. Well, its a predominantly Jewish nation. America is predominantly a Christian nation.

This relatively small and insignificant. On the flip side, its not so insignificant. The institution of marriage is religious in connotation and always has been until a relatively short time ago. The government decided to come in and regulate marriage, basically telling pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, and the like what they can and can't do. That is a huge affront to the 1st Amendment, as it was never intended for the government to have anything to do with marriage. This, I can only suspect, is why the Framers of the Constitution were completely silent on the issue -- because it was not their right, being, themselves government officials.

... Yet no one utters a word in protest. The Separation of Church and State has become so one-sided over the last 100 years or so, that one wonders how that even happened.

"The issue here today is whether or not the First Amendment gives us the seperation of church and state. My opponent seems to think that the seperation of church and state means more than what it actually does, yet he has not actually said what it does mean. I have illustrated what it means for you"

I apologize for the incredulity, but I'm astonished that you might actually believe what you are saying is even remotely accurate. Please read what I've written again and respond accordingly.

I can only guess as to what is causing this confusion. I speculate that it derives from my comment that society generally sides with the State. No one seems to care when religion is being trampled, they only seem to care when religion is trampling the state. Based off of the clear lucidity of the 1st Amendment, shouldn't both the State and the Church be protected equally from one another?
Geekis_Khan

Con

Well, I found the Jefferson stuff very interesting. I especially liked the date.

1802.

Do you know what year James Madison completeld the Bill of Rights?

1789.

It was ratified in 1791.

More than a decade before that letter.

You can't point to Jefferson as the origniator of the establishment clause here.

Either way, it doesn't matter in this debate. We're debating how people today view it. Not how Jefferson viewed it.

Continuing.

I said:

"Then you go on to talk about how secularists use it to keep the church out of government. Yeah. The government can't have a religion in it. That's what the Establishment Clause means."

You responded:

"I said nothing of the sort. I naturally defy you to substantiate the claim that I said, or even made allusions to your assertion."

If you insist:

"The trend of today's zeitgeist is that the 1st Amendment has been manipulated to extend to anti-religious sentiments. The most common citing of the 1st Amendments have always been the assertion that the Church has infringed upon the State."

Moving on.

"People generally have an aversion towards hypocrisy, right? Why then would it be so absurd to call someone out for that hypocrisy when it seems evident that a younger generation is being lied to?"

Just because people want to use the 1st Amendment hypocritically doesn't mean that their interpretation is wrong. They're just being selective about using it. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a compeltely different debate. They still ahve the right interpretation. The difference is, they only care about part of it.

As to your ACLU rant, look here:

http://www.forward.com...

Some favorite parts:

"In response, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans, which is protesting the monument on church-STATE grounds."

'"We're saying it's unconstitutional and it shouldn't be allowed to exist there," said Bob Zweiman, chairman of the organization's national coordinating committee. "We have no problem if it's on private property, even 5 feet away, but you can't use federal land to push one religion over any other, especially not at a time when you have soldiers sacrificing for values that are not specific to any one religion or another."'

It's on public land. Quite contrary to what you're trying to make us believe.

If you're going to make references to anything, please, know what you're talking about. That's twice I've had to correct you.

Of course, you might be talking about something different, and my Google search just didn't come up with anything. I'll ask that you start sourcing your references so that there is no confusion.

Now going on to one of your assertations:

"he government decided to come in and regulate marriage, basically telling pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, and the like what they can and can't do. That is a huge affront to the 1st Amendment, as it was never intended for the government to have anything to do with marriage."

First of all, this is within their bounds, as marriage is also a legal contract.

Second, give me one instance where a pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam has been forced by the government to do it their way. You're making a claim without any evidence. I'm pretty sure a priest can refuse to wed anyone.

"... Yet no one utters a word in protest. The Separation of Church and State has become so one-sided over the last 100 years or so, that one wonders how that even happened."

Again, you're giving absolutely no evidence! You must prove that relgiious rights are being trampled on before your case even begins to hold any weight! You have not given one example!

"I can only guess as to what is causing this confusion. I speculate that it derives from my comment that society generally sides with the State. No one seems to care when religion is being trampled, they only seem to care when religion is trampling the state. Based off of the clear lucidity of the 1st Amendment, shouldn't both the State and the Church be protected equally from one another?"

There is no confusion. You're claiming that these relgious rights are not being equally protected. But you've given no evidence for this. Look at America. We have so many religious interest groups in this country (in fact, here's an entire book about it: http://www.questia.com... ), how can you possibly say that no one is standing up for religious rights? From Quakers to the religious right, how can you make such an assertation? Once again, the bruden of proof lies on you.

Until you can prove that the rights of the church against the state are taking a back seat to the rights of the state, your case holds no weight.

So cut out all of the extraneous garbage in the final round. Please, give us some evidence for your claims. Otherwise, the only logical decision is to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"You can't point to Jefferson as the origniator of the establishment clause here."

I most certainly can! Let me know if you tire of being wrong.

It was THOMAS JEFFERSON who drafted and co-authored a bill for religious freedom which he began in 1777, and was completed in 1779 by both Madison and Jefferson, 10 years before the ratification.

(Note the timeline)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This later became the basis for the Bill of Rights, written by Madison, Jefferson, and three others.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The fact that you think Madison was the only one working on the Bill of Rights says it all. All of this distraction comes after YOU claimed that you didn't even want to discuss it. The point I am making now, and was making from the beginning was that the basis for the First Amendment (the topic of this discussion) came from the mind of Thomas Jefferson, which is well-attested for and which can be corroborated unequivocally by history, is the source. And who better than the source to uncover the intent. It is on topic 100%

"If you insist:"

The key word you should be looking at in the sentence you outline is "manipulation." I have no qualms now, nor have I ever, with the 1st Amendment. You are, in fact, guilty of the very manipulation I speak of by attempting to mangle the meaning that I very clearly portrayed from the beginning. Once again, you even quoted me saying:

"The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin's Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion, such as we have historically seen in Constantine's, Rome. That's it! That's all that the 1st Amendment means."

You allege that I have alleged that there is some hidden meaning. I have said NOTHING of the sort. You either misspoke or you are being disingenuous. Either way, you are incorrect, a trend which you've remained steadfast to throughout the last two rounds.

"Whether or not that is right or wrong is a compeltely different debate. They still ahve the right interpretation."

It is not a "completely different debate" since this is the ENTIRE PREMISE OF MY DEBATE! I have established from the beginning, as the instigator, what I wanted done. You accepted it under those very pretenses, which means that you are going to be held liable for understanding what we are talking about.

You are wasting everyone's time with this meaningless distraction, most of all, your own.

As to the ACLU controversy, you stated "It's on public land. Quite contrary to what you're trying to make us believe." I've said nothing about it not being on public land, whatsoever. Again, I defy you to substantiate that I did. Let me break this down for you. A cross has been on that site since 1913, long before World War II, and much longer than when a monument in their honor was placed there. It would be like removing the thousands upon thousands of crosses at Arlington National cemetery. Are you going to desecrate the crosses at Arlington because its on federal land?

Voters overwhelmingly signed petitions to keep the Mt. Soledad monument intact because it is an inimitable landmark in San Diego. I've been there a few times myself, as a matter of fact, when I used to live in San Diego. It is a beautiful monument, and it would be a real shame to tear it down because of some uppity anti-religious people. The point is that this is the tyranny subjugated by the likes of the ACLU, a group so irreverent that it boggles the mind how any one could actually believe they aren't a special interest group.

"I'm pretty sure a priest can refuse to wed anyone."

No, you misunderstand me. An ordained figure has to follow procedures set forth by the government. If marriage itself started out as a religious ceremony, how is that not a gross infringement of the 1st Amendment for the State to instruct the Church?

"You must prove that religious rights are being trampled on before your case even begins to hold any weight!"

What have we been talking about for the last two rounds?!?!? The State's intrusion into the institution of marriage! You couldn't possibly believe that is somehow insignificant, especially when juxtaposed by something as innocuous as a war memorial with a cross that has existed there since 1913! There is no comparison.

"You're claiming that these relgious rights are not being equally protected."

What I am actually claiming, as evidenced by the dialogue and the topic, is that in the minds of the average citizens there is a deep misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. Secularism is viewed as being a neutral position, and therefore must somehow be non-threatening, where as religion cannot be seen or heard in the public sphere. This is so far from false.

Religions can legally be in the public sphere. The 1st Amendment only applies to government where actual neutrality on religious matters are preeminent on the basis of not siding with any particular dogma.

For instance, prayer in school. A kid is legally allowed to pray in public school. That is their inherent right afforded to them under the Constitution. Where the Establishment Clause would come in to play is if school officials were leading students in to prayer -- students that may be irreligious or may conform to a faith not espoused by the teacher. I agree that school officials should not be indoctrinating children of any religion, as this is a clear example of the 1st Amendment in action.

The very fact that in the Declaration of Independence, it reads, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

is evidence that religious belief was ever to have been suppressed. But note the careful wording chosen. The words "God," "Jesus," "Buddha," "Allah," or whatever else are missing so as to retain the respect for the people to believe in what ever seemed satisfactory to them.

Let me give you another example: Military chaplains

Military chaplains have been around since before, and after, the Bill of Rights formulated. All of the Founding Fathers knowingly supported such endeavors, and no where was it ever considered unconstitutional until now, by the likes of rabid anti-religious zealots.

Military Chaplains have their own faiths and often lead worship to a specific service. I've met Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Catholic chaplains, who, for the sake of posterity, separated themselves from their own faith in order to better serve someone's undeclared spirituality. Its not like they are out there indoctrinating people. The people come to them. Yet, there is this lobby going on trying to undermine them, and many people not understanding the 1st Amendment are buying in to this nonsense.

Like I said, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of this Amendment if secularism is viewed as the ultimate neutrality and religious freedoms are being suppressed under that guise of neutrality. It is indoctrination in reverse and unabashed hypocrisy, all of which I have convincingly outlined in my arguments.

Despite the best efforts of the opposition to detract from the argument with inaccuracies, I have given a plethora examples in the interest of preserving the actual historical intent and significance of the 1st Amendment. Because as it stands now, a clear bias exists. This should not be.

Vote PRO
Geekis_Khan

Con

First of all, you're citing Wikipedia as your source. Please use real sources.

Second, even if you accept the source, it's for the VIRGINIA Bill of Rights. Not the U.S. Bill of Rights. These are tow different documents, and they can have completely different meanings, especially having been completely at least a decade apart. Political evolution allows for this.

And it doesn't even matter, because Madison was STILL the author of the Bill of Rights:

http://www.loc.gov...

It reads:

"On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced his proposed amendments to the Constitution, which would eventually become known as the Bill of Rights. Additional debate related to these proposed amendments can be located in this collection by searching on the words "amendments constitution" in the First Congress."

I think just about any source here can outweigh Wikipedia. (And I didn't even see anything on the Wikipedia page about Jefferson writing the US Bill of Rights. I think you're confusing this with the Declaration of Independence.)

But it's still irrelevant to the debate. I just want clarity.

Moving on.

"It is not a "completely different debate" since this is the ENTIRE PREMISE OF MY DEBATE! I have established from the beginning, as the instigator, what I wanted done. You accepted it under those very pretenses, which means that you are going to be held liable for understanding what we are talking about."

No. It IS A DIFFERENT DEBATE. We are debating whether this misunderstanding exists, NOT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ARE MISUSING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. Misunderstanding and misusing are two different things.

"As to the ACLU controversy, you stated "It's on public land. Quite contrary to what you're trying to make us believe." I've said nothing about it not being on public land, whatsoever. Again, I defy you to substantiate that I did."

Alright:

"But they forget the fact that this is not on government land, and the fact that its so ridiculously asinine."

Please, try to keep track of what you're arguing.

"Let me break this down for you. A cross has been on that site since 1913, long before World War II, and much longer than when a monument in their honor was placed there. It would be like removing the thousands upon thousands of crosses at Arlington National cemetery. Are you going to desecrate the crosses at Arlington because its on federal land?"

Is the cross unconstitutional? Either way, the answer to that question is the same answwer to your question.

"Voters overwhelmingly signed petitions to keep the Mt. Soledad monument intact because it is an inimitable landmark in San Diego. I've been there a few times myself, as a matter of fact, when I used to live in San Diego. It is a beautiful monument, and it would be a real shame to tear it down because of some uppity anti-religious people. The point is that this is the tyranny subjugated by the likes of the ACLU, a group so irreverent that it boggles the mind how any one could actually believe they aren't a special interest group."

TYRANNY?!? YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THEY'RE IMPOSING THEIR WILL OVER PEOPLE, YET PEOPLE ARE RECTING AND DEFENDING THE MONUMENT! THE BALANCE EXISTS BETWEEN CHURCH RIGHTS AND STATE RIGHTS, SIR!

"No, you misunderstand me. An ordained figure has to follow procedures set forth by the government. If marriage itself started out as a religious ceremony, how is that not a gross infringement of the 1st Amendment for the State to instruct the Church?"

No, you misunderstand me. You have given no such procedures taht they have to follow. You have given no regulations or anything. WITHOUT PROOF, YOUR CASE MEANS NOTHING!

And even if you had produced some proof, marriage has been a legal institution as long as it has been a religious institution thanks to theocracy. When we have the division between church and state, it is completely natural that marriage becomes both a legal thing and a religious thing.

"What have we been talking about for the last two rounds?!?!? The State's intrusion into the institution of marriage! You couldn't possibly believe that is somehow insignificant, especially when juxtaposed by something as innocuous as a war memorial with a cross that has existed there since 1913! There is no comparison."

Again, you have no proof of any infringements.

"What I am actually claiming, as evidenced by the dialogue and the topic, is that in the minds of the average citizens there is a deep misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. Secularism is viewed as being a neutral position, and therefore must somehow be non-threatening, where as religion cannot be seen or heard in the public sphere. This is so far from false."

The "dialogue of this topic" proves nothing. You have given NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CASE.

"For instance, prayer in school. A kid is legally allowed to pray in public school. That is their inherent right afforded to them under the Constitution. Where the Establishment Clause would come in to play is if school officials were leading students in to prayer -- students that may be irreligious or may conform to a faith not espoused by the teacher. I agree that school officials should not be indoctrinating children of any religion, as this is a clear example of the 1st Amendment in action."

And doesn't this prove that the state doesn't infringe on religious rights? What was the point of that?

Anyways, you go through a lot of irrelevant facts. (What does the wording of the Declaration of Independence have to do with the Establishment Clause?)

At the end of your arguemnt, you finally bring up the example of military chaplains. But this isn't really valid, because you're the one misunderstanding the issue, or you're focusing on the wrong part. The issue is that these people are paid by the government. Thus, they are receiving public funding for religious services. This is a valid case for something being unconstitutional, using the valid interpretation of the First Amendment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent says that he's given you a "plethora of examples" to prove that this misunderstanding of the First Amedment exists. But he hasn't. With one exception, he's only sourced Wikipedia and he used that source wrong. His "examples", he's just claiming that there is some infringement of religious freedom, but HE HS GIVEN YOU NO PROOF FOR THIS.

Sicne the PRO case lacks any actual evidence, you must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Haunted-Soul 7 years ago
Haunted-Soul
Freedom is measured in the distance between church and state.

Too much of anything, even if its good, can cause you harm.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Damn. I was *just* about to take this debate. I signed on a minute too late.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
I had a bit of a typo on the last line that needs clarification for my prospective opponent.

The revision is this:

"In closing, my opponent must refute that MY interpretation of the 1st Amendment is flawed, and must give compelling reasons detailing the alleged flaws."

[capitalized letters indicate the correction of typo]
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Haunted-Soul 7 years ago
Haunted-Soul
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 8 years ago
Lenfent
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ramper0987 8 years ago
Ramper0987
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ss0987 8 years ago
ss0987
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dave23456 8 years ago
dave23456
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03