Separation of Church and State

Thanks, Guidestone! I can definitely sympathize with being pressed for time. I will use this speech to address Con's arguments. Con's sentences shall be in italics, mine shall be in regular script.REBUTTING CON"The first amendment states...states nothing about separation."On face, this remark may appear true, but on a closer reading, I think we can see that it doesn't hold much water. Separation indicates that things are distant or apart. The first amendment bans Congress from "establishing" a religion or religions in the U.S. Clearly, this prohibition forces a distance between the state and the church. As my earlier evidence has illustrated, this separation has been further emphasized by a string of Supreme Court rulings affirming, and in some cases enlargening, the gap between the state and the church.Thus, while not literally stated, the first amendment does intimate at a separation of church and state."The term 'comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote.'"The actual text of that letter reads as follows: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [1] As one of our foremost Founding Fathers and drafter of the Declaration of Independance [2], Jefferson has unique insight into the intent behind the laws of our Constitution. He believed, as evidenced in this letter, that faith was a personal matter, and not one in which the state ought to become embroiled. That, were the state to promote certain religions over others, it would infringe on individuals rights to have, practice, and share their own beliefs. Quite simply, Jefferson did believe that the First Amendment intended to, and did, create a separation between church and state."The Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate."Arguably, this is inaccurate. The Founding Father undoubtedly thought faith mattered, but they (by and large) never wanted the government to morph into a theocracy, supporting a specific religion or religions over others. They did want some distance to be maintained. As I said about Jefferson: they believed "that faith was a personal matter, and not one in which the state ought to become embroiled."The quote from Adams that Con references supports my view. Adams writes that a government must be informed by religious and moral people, not that a government itself should be the mouthpiece of religion. A government can be run by a devout Christian, without supporting the Christian faith or codifying that faith into law. Adams wants people to have personal faiths and moral standards, but he does not say that he wants the government to be an engine of religion or for the government to establish one faith over others. That is a key point to make here.OFF-CASE OVERVIEWCon's whole argument is based on the intent of the first amendment. But intent is largely irrelevant to this debate. Let me use the following example to illustrate my point:I pass a law saying that "No vehicles may ride in the park." My intent was to ban cars from driving in the park. Instead, police and the courts decide that bicycles and babystrollers are "vehicles" and so order them out of the park. What happened was very different from what I intended to do. In other words, the intent of X is not a predictor of what X actually does in the status quo.The resolution posits: "there is" separation of church and state in the U.S. It does NOT ask "did they intend for there to be" separation of church and state. Therefore, what the Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant. Rather, we must focus exclusively on what is currently going on in the status quo. Therefore, we can dismiss Con's arguments as extratopical right off the bat.SUMMARY The intent of the First Amendment is disputable. I believe that it did intend to foster a separation between church and state, and have provided reasoning as to why this is plausible. Even if you buy into Con's interpretation of the intent, it's clear that intent is irrelevant in this debate. Thus, I affirm the resolution. Con has the floor.