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

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.