There should be a Christian nation

Firstly I would like to complement my opponent for crafting an interesting and pleasant argument. Now onto my opponents mistakes in his opening remarks. Point 1. The fact of the matter is that Bin Laden's official written decoration of war against America and the West does not state anything to do with religion. My opponent's claims that this is false, due to some 'video' which he apparently has seen (nice of him to show it to us through a link) is irrelevant as it is the documented fatwa itself which is the decoration of war, not Bin Laden's words. . http://www.pbs.org... Point 2. Unfortunately my opponent missed the point I was making here; as quite obviously Israel is a Jewish state. What I was highlighting to my opposition was that his view of 'Religious Nation' is very deluded. My opponent uses Israel as an example of his idealised religious nation where the population can 'fight as brother and sister for their god'. But over a third of Israel's population is not religious (which is more than the number of atheists in the USA), so I am pointing out to him that the religious nation which he is attempting to create does not exist anywhere around the globe (and on a side note that if my opponent is complaining about the lack of religion in the US army; then creating an army similar to that of Israel's would be even worse, as there are even more atheists in it) . . http://www.jcpa.org... . http://religions.pewforum.org... Point 3. I would just like to copy out the definition of murder from the Oxford dictionary (which has defined definitions for both US and UK law since 1901. ) 'the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another' So my opponents argument that murder is related to 'cold blood' is simply false. From this I would like to reaffirm my point. That according to the Christian book of law; good men should not 'kill another human'; so why would a 'Christian state' want an army. And on a side note, i would be very pleased if my opponent could any examples of 'god creating army's' as I have studied the Christian faith and have no recollection of such acts. . http://oxforddictionaries.com... Now onto the arguments in hand. Attack 1) I would first like to state that being beaten for ones beliefs is wrong; and I feel very sorry for my opponent that such a monstrosity has occurred to you. But if anything I think that just shows that my opponents judgement has been clouded by the events in the past; and that he is unfit to debate logically on a debate such as this. But I would like to reaffirm my statement that Christianity is a personal choice which people of today make; but it does not need to be reaffirmed with such a violent physical presence as a military (along with the fact that a 'Christian army' is in many way's a contradiction (see point 3)) Christianity is not threatened on a physical level in today's modern society. And in the few examples where it could be argued to be true, for example in 'Africa' as my opponent bluntly puts it, I think that the reasons behind the attacks can be blamed more on the social and economic difficulties of these underdeveloped country's than the safety of the religions themselves. I would also like to point out that many other faiths a persecuted in other rare occasions; so why should Christianity itself be an exception? But let's for the sake of argument consider that Christianity is persecuted against unfairly on some occasions; believing that the reasonable solution to issues of these is to create a 'Christian army' in it's own 'state' is completely ludicrous. My opponent is suggesting that just because a few thousand individuals get unfairly treated, that 2 billion people should leave their country and create their own nation! Attack 2) I would like again to see examples of these so called 'army's' which my opponent refers to. Also please see my points made in Point 3 where I clearly show that God did not intend Christians to kill. I also will assume that my opponent can think of no physical threats to Christianity; as he does not answer that question in the argument i made. From this it seems fair to conclude that even if a Christian army was not a contradiction; that there would be no need for it, as there is nothing for it to fight. I would also like to point out to my opponent that a large number of Christians are pacifists who for obvious reasons would not want a military. So while creating your 'Christian nation' you would soon discover that only a small percentage of your population would want to 'fight next to their brothers and sisters'. Therefore it is fair to sate that a large number of Christians would not want your 'Christian sate'. Attack 3) . http://en.wikipedia.org... I ask my opponent to see the number of 'official and recognised' religions which exist on the globe; this being his method of deciding if a religion deserves a nation of his own. Now I hardly think I need to make an argument here; as this evidence itself proves just how ridiculous my opponents suggestions really are. But just for arguments sake. How do you plan to create this? How would politics work? Would there be any global economy? How do we decide which religion get's which territory? . .. . And so on and so on. The questions could go on for ever; but unfortunately i don't have enough characters to last forever. But this argument shows just how much of a joke this resolution really is. Attack 4) Again my opponent seemed to of missed the argument which I was raising to him. History has shown us again and again that religion creates war (most of the time). . http://www.religioustolerance.org... Here is just a few examples of wars which started over religion. So surely Creating a world which is shaped by religion (from Argument 3, the idea suggested by my opponent that the world's lands should be split and every religion have it's own nation) will only increase the number of wars. To conclude. I think that I have fairly overturned every point my opponent has made; and shown this resolutions to be just plain wrong.