The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

I do clarify, however, that my opponent has not yet given us a sufficient outline of how "a small portion of the United States income should be sent towards the religion" and what that process may entail. That is a question worth asking whilst considering the validity of my opponent's claims. Essentially, my case rests on the assertion that funding the Christian church constitutes a violation of equality under the law, especially when considering the religious affiliations of non-Christians, which are a growing demographic, currently representing over a quarter of the US population. I will explain further. Here are my opening arguments.1) Funding ecclesiastical institutions constitutes a violation of equality under the law. Non-Christians represent a growing American demographic, one that now comprises of just over a quarter of the population of the United States. [1] By giving money to the Christian Church, the USFG legitimizes a preferential treatment of what I concede to be the "majority religion". Be aware that the resolution specifically sets aside the Christian church for funding; it can be inferred that other religious institutions are not given the same funds. Even if Christians represent the majority of the US population, American religious minorities are therefore treated unequally before the law. I'm sure my opponent would agree that a just society upholds the principle of equality under the law. A society in which minority religious institutions are not "given their due" is one that is wholly unjust and unfair. [2] It is the same as saying to a particular supermarket or a specific labor union that they can receive federal funds; even if they provide a service, and even if a majority of Americans may shop there or belong to their organization, the act preferential treatment, in this sense, constitutes an unjust society.2) The act of funding a religious institution is unconstitutional. My opponent very curtly dismisses the claim that this funding would be unconstitutional. On the contrary, the funding of any religious institution, regardless of their size, is a violation of the Constitution. The 1971 Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman established that the funding of non-state, non-secular institutions violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. [3] The plaintiff established and the court reinforced a process known as the Lemon Test, for determining the constitutionality of legislation dealing with the funding of these institutions. Several criteria were set forth to define the legality of funding involving religious groups and institutions, including that the statute being considered must have a "secular purpose" and must not result in "excessive government entanglement in religious affairs". Lemon's test also defined several factors to determine what constitutes this "excessive government entanglement", including the nature of the aid provided and the resulting relationship between the government and religious institutions. [4]Clearly, federal funding of the Christian church, for whatever reason, is not secular in nature. The funding establishes a direct link between the USFG and the Christian church, resulting in this "entanglement" Lemon describes. It follows that federal funding of the Christian church is obviously unconstitutional; SCOTUS ruled in this manner to specifically avoid this type of legislation from being permitted under the Constitution. --------------------------------It is clear that federal funding, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of equality under the law, and is clearly unconstitutional. As a fair, just society, we cannot allow the USFG to fund religious institutions. I await my opponent's rebuttal. [1] . http://www.pewforum.org...[2] . https://www.scu.edu...[3] . https://www.oyez.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.adherents.com...