The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG

Here are my final points.1) The argument that other countries' governments have links to their domestic religious groups displays no warrant nor an impact. Simply put, there is no substance to this argument. Just because a handful of countries around the world display connections between the church and the state does not mean it is beneficial for us to do so. And where is the evidence this advances their communities? Where is the evidence that this conflation of church and state really helps their society? These questions have not been answered by Pro.2) The role of legal precedents as established by the Supreme Court is not assumed. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law and set legal precedents for the future courts to act upon to ensure consistency. Lemon v. Kurtzman set a very clear precedent regardless of who Lemon and Kurtzman were; excessive government entanglement in religious affairs is constitutionally unacceptable. The funding of the Christian church, whether or not for redistribution's sake, is not secular; it is the government interfering within the religious sphere and injecting federal funding to advance an institution. All of the criteria of the Lemon test, as I have clarified in the previous rounds, are violated in full. Pro displays a very clear misunderstanding of the judicial system within the US government when he claims I am assuming the unconstitutionality in this particular case; legal precedents exist, and are in effect. The Supreme Court rules based on these precedents, and ardently upholds them, in many cases. The source I mentioned in the last round proves that. There is a specific legal precedent set in Lemon v. Kurtzman which Pro dismisses without thought, case or rebuttal. The claim that the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of separation of church and state, and how it may apply in these cases, is ludicrous. The Lemon test, as I have brought up countless times, is clear in its application.3) The USFG funding the Christian church is preferential treatment nonetheless. Just like whites vs. blacks under the Jim Crow laws. It may be a crude comparison, but it is certainly valid; preferential treatment by discrimination does not belong in a just society, a point that has not been addressed at all by Pro. Pro makes no effort to refute the core of my argument, and only points out tiny details without addressing the fundamental concepts I have brought forth in the previous rounds. -------------------------------As of now, at the end of this debate, the validity of my opponent's arguments rests on his assertion that government welfare programs need to be replaced by this new church-run welfare system. Pro never brings up any evidence to suggest this would be beneficial at all. I see no data, nor any sources suggesting countries benefit from diverting welfare through the church. All we got was a list of countries that have done so. Pro made the bare-faced assumption that the affirmation of the Lemon test has not set a legal precedent, and that the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman does not directly address funding religious institutions. I have made clear arguments on how funding the Christian church would violate the Lemon test regardless of whether it is for the purpose of welfare. These specific points have not been refuted nor even responded to. I ask voters to consider the validity of my opponent's arguments and weigh them against mine, and one will clearly notice the lack of substance to Pro's claims. There is simply no basis for the Christian church to receive federal funds; it puts minority religious institutions at an inherent disadvantage and is obviously unconstitutional. There is nothing more to say. I humbly ask for your vote. Thank you all.