Should Separation of Church and State be more Heavily Enforced? (US)

I assume that since Pro provided rebuttals in the last round, that it is permissible for me to do the same, or at least to defend my arguments. So without further ado: Rebuttals: “but what about Atheism? Or Buddhism? … you haven't proven anything about this. ” You stated earlier that “It [the word “God”] also implies Christianity, because Jewish people believe in Yahweh, and Muslims believe in Allah. ” Did you not? Were you not saying that it implied Christianity? I simply countered your argument that “God” implied Christianity. “Just because I think the Separation of Church and State… it from the public eye. ” I never accused you of being one. I simply said that though you may not agree with the ruling, that ruling would be “more heavily enforced” if “Separation of Church and State” is “more heavily enforced. ” Please don’t misconstrue my words for the sake of having something to refute. Link 6 The point I was attempting to establish was that there is no absolute proof that her reason for denying the student to write about Jesus was because she did not want her students “to dwell on something on which they already had strong, personal opinions. ” People come up with excuses all of the time. I guarantee that there were other students in that class that wrote on topics that they had strong feelings about. Link 7 So you did not believe that the event took place. If it did not take place, then why were there not any news media sources with liberal and anti-religious biases denying it? Questions “Let's go back a little bit… not just the US. ” I appreciate you laying out the groundwork for my rebuttal, it saves me from having to spend vast amounts of characters in order to argue. You asked me, “Do you think Christians are persecuted? ” to which I replied, “Yes. ” You then go on to argue that Americans are not persecuted in the US, which is not what you asked, and not what I answered. I merely observed that there are Christians out there somewhere that are being persecuted. I did not specify where. So it is still a Straw-man. “No true Scotsman? ” I committed a No True Scotsman Fallacy? Most certainly not. An example of a No True Scotsman fallacy would be as follows: “If you do not like Barbecue, you are un-American. ” The problem with this phrase is that liking Barbecue is not an integral part of being American, nor does it what defines what “American” is. It is simply an attribute that many Americans possess. Now, the distinction between my No True Scotsman example and my statement about there being “actual” Christians and those that only say that they are Christians is this, There are many that claim to be Christians, but do not display the integral traits of what a Christian should be (Or does not believe an integral part of the Christian faith). For instance, one of my old friends claimed to be a Christian, but she did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead (an integral belief of Christianity). “Did you pay attention in health class? It is a fetus, not a baby. ” Of course not. The main reason being is that I did not take health class, I took Army JROTC instead. Also, I am inclined to disagree with you that a fetus is not a baby (or human). My reasoning behind this is that a fetus is Genetically indistinguishable (within reason) from a human. But again, that is for another debate. “overpopulation is a problem” A Simple Solution to a Hard Problem: If you are worried about overpopulation, don’t conceive. "As far as using religious arguments, have you taken a look at my debates? " I didn't accuse you of that. Plenty of other religious people have done it, however. I never said that you accused me. What I was trying to convey was that there are usually secular arguments for things that happen to back up religious beliefs. “Atheism is not a religion. ” That is exactly my point. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” [2] How can you prohibit the free exercise of Atheism if it is not a religion? Conclusion: The Court handed down an unprecedented ruling by applying a the 14th Amendment to the States. On top of that, it misconstrued Jefferson's words, which were borrowed from a Baptist preacher. I proved that America was founded on Christianity, and argument which Pro ultimately dropped. Religion is being taken out of our society, not being inserted into it. Since Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to voluntarily pray over your lunch during school. It is unconstitutional for students to arrive early to school to pray with other Christians. The goal of the Phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not to "respect the establishment of a religion," rather it is meant to reinforce our Founder's Idea that rights are unalienable. As the word "God" is a general term in multiple religions, not just Christianity. Any state laws requiring religious tests to run for office are unconstitutional and not applicable today. Teachers are refusing to students the right to exercise religion, by not allowing them to read Bibles in free time, and not allowing them to write research papers on the life of Jesus. Sources:1) . http://www.britannica.com... 2) . http://constitution.findlaw.com...