The United States Is A Christian Nation

Pro dropped my argument that in claiming that the US is a Christian nation, he is claiming that it is a uniquely Christian nation. This drop should be kept in mind when viewing the remainder of my rebuttals.“PRIMARY CONCESSION OF CON” OR MAYBE NOTIn the final round, we are faced with a new challenge upon what this debate is truly about: Are we discussing the United States of America as a country at the federal level, or are we discussing the way the country at all levels? It is unfortunate that this key dispute is only truly occurring in the final round, so Pro will not have a chance to respond to my arguments, and so the voters will be forced to judge which side has better justified their point on this matter. Pro has offered no other justification for his contention other than the fact that he meant this latter interpretation from the beginning and therefore it is correct.I contend that the invocation of discussing the union of the states as a nation necessarily refers to the federal government. My support for this contention is the following: The federal government (a product of the union made by the states) is what allows the United States to be a nation. If this union was not in place, we would have a group of states of various natures, not one united nation. Thus, in discussing whether or not the nation is Christian, we are discussing the union of the states, which manifests itself as the federal government. HITCHSLAPPING THE SELF-PROCLAIMED HITCHSLAPPER As Hitchens would probably point out in a much more interesting fashion than me, Pro now commits the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. It is he, not I, that is making the claim that the Declaration is evidence of a Christian nation. I am not making any positive claims about the Declaration with regard to the resolution. I am arguing that as the maker of the claims, Pro has not proven that the Declaration has any significance with regard to the resolution. Thus, my argument that “Pro has offered no reason to believe that the change in diction from ‘God,’ to ‘Creator is not intentionally and demonstrates that Jefferson wanted the final version to be more inclusive” is not a positive claim attempting to negate the resolution, but rather a notice that Pro has not demonstrated that Jefferson’s intention is what he claims that it is. I don’t have to make the claim that the Declaration negates the resolution, just that Pro has not shown it to affirm the resolution.Regarding my quote of Jefferson: Pro pointed out that historians often look at several writings by a historical figure to figure out exactly what he or she meant and I did just that. My quote is useful in evaluating whether or not a God that Jefferson referred to was or was not the Christian God. In the quote, Jefferson clearly says that the story of Jesus that is central to the Christian religion should be classified as a fable along with ancient mythology. Thus, it is clear that Jefferson was not referring to the Christian God any more than he would have been referring to the god Jupiter. The quote is not irrelevant and specifically addresses whether or not Jefferson would have been likely claim that a “fable” God was the giver of rights.ON THE ATTACK OF PRO’S QUOTES... AGAINI don’t know what else there is to say on the John Adams quote as I’ve already explained how the quote was taken out of context. I guess I’ll just say it all one more time. Pro claims: “Obviously the quoted paragraph that I gave in R3 disproves this interpretation,” referring to my argument that the Principles that are referred to are the principles that brought the founders together, not the principles used in designing the nation. The quoted paragraph given in R3 did not prove this, as all Pro presented were stuck together pieces of the quote that show nothing about the context or the words that were eliminated.He also says: “I have re-read the entire letter, just to make Con happy, and noticed that the general principles of Christianity are both the principles that united the Founders and the principles that the Founders used to “[achieve] Independence.” Once again, Pro just grabs a snippet from the letter. First, these are the principles on which the Founders came together to achieve Independence, not necessarily the principles the Founders used to achieve Independence. The difference is subtle but important, and it can be verified in the quote below.Also, before this part of the letter, Adams talks about how difficult it could have been to unite the different sects of Christianity that the various founders subscribed to, and so he says that the general Principles of Christianity united these various sects, and more importantly, it was the principles of Liberty that United them all: “The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence” [1].Additionally, the source Pro cites for this quote in a previous round does not contain the entire quote in context, so I can understand why his rereading may not have yielded understanding.Regarding the Washington quote: Con addresses the part of my claim that the occasion was rather informal. He explains that this does not completely disqualify the point that Washington makes and I concede this. Nevertheless, the occasion is important when weighing conflicting evidences, for example this quote vs. the Treaty of Tripoli. The formal occasion for the Treaty gives it higher standing than this quote, assuming they are equal in other regards (which they are not). A TALE OF TWO TREATIESFirst, it should be noted that here Pro is using a syllogism that was not actually part of my arguments, but what I posted in the Comments upon his request, as, what I thought, was a means of clarification. I did give the disclaimer that this was just a summary from “the top of my head.” Therefore, it is not entirely fair for Pro to use this syllogism rather than the actual arguments I made in my speech. But not considering this fact, Pro does a poor job of turning this syllogism against my argument, given that he in no way proves P2. In my R3, I clearly explained why parts of the Treaty of Paris are in direct opposition to our founding values, thus confirming P2. Pro’s only argument to affirm this premise is that the Treaty references a Muslim date. This is absolutely ridiculous as the reference does not invoke Islam and serves an absolutely secular purpose: To identify the date that the Treaty was signed: “Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Jumad in the year of the Higera 1211-corresponding with the 4th day of Novr 1796” [2]. It is absolutely obvious that Pro’s argument here fails completely.TREATY OF TRIPOLIResponse to Pro’s numbered arguments:1. Already addressed this.2. Already addressed the R3 Adams quote. The additional Adams quote in no way proves the Christianity of the US.3. The word God does not signify Christianity.All three of Pro’s rebuttals are incredibly weak and mostly go back to points I’ve already addressed.CONCLUSIONThanks to Pro for this debate.Throughout the debate, Pro has given very little valid evidence that the Founders concerned the US a Christian Nation. Even more importantly, he has not shown how Christian values manifest themselves in the way our nation was set up. It is clear that Pro did not fulfilled his BoP. Therefore, I strongly encourage:VOTE CON!!Sources[1]-http://www.constitution.org...[2]- http://candst.tripod.com...