The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

I'd like to wish Pro good luck in this debate. That said, let's take note that the only way Pro can win this debate is if he proves that the Conservative Bible Project is good (beneficial) to the United States of America. His only argument in support of the benefits he's provided thus far is that this endeavor would be good for America because we are a Christian nation. If I dismantle this argument, and/or if Pro can't properly negate mine, I will win this debate. I will begin by proposing that the United States is not a Christian nation. A nation by definition cannot believe in a religion. Instead, the people living in the religion may by a majority believe in the same or a similar faith, i.e. the U.S.A. having mostly Christian residents. However, the fact that Christians make up a majority of this nation's population in no way makes the U.S.A. identifiable with Christianity. First, there is a separation of Church and State meaning religion does not dictate our laws, and in fact, we have laws ensuring or encouraging the opposite. Second, the U.SA. is essentially a democratic nation. As such, our government is set up as to protect the rights of the minority. So, just because the U.S. is dominated by Christians really means nothing in terms of the nation as a whole, since we do not always make decisions in favor of a majority just because it is a majority opinion (fallacy in the gallery). Because I have demonstrated how the U.S. is not in fact a Christian nation, we can now break down Pro's proposed benefits and see if they match up with the resolution at hand. First, Pro notes the first benefit as being mastery of the Bible which he calls "priceless." I contend that this skill is beneficial only to scholars and Christians who deem such mastery to be necessary or relevant to their livelihood. For atheists, people of other faiths, or the government in general, this mastery as it pertains to religion or morality is completely useless and therefore does not sustain the resolution. Second, Pro notes that this endeavor promotes mastery of the English language, which he considers valuable. I agree that mastery of the English language is valuable; however, this mastery is only applicable to those who participate in the project or read the updated version of the Bible. For everyone who doesn't - which is most people - they won't learn anything of substance as it pertains to diction, so this point is irrelevant. Further, the English used in Pro's translation of the Bible is different than the English used/spoken today. Much like Shakespearean English, this kind of English could be fun to know/understand, but in the end isn't essentially valuable or useful in every-day life. Pro's third point reads, "Thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version" ... which seems as if it's only half a though, meaning there's no real argument here or point for me even to bother refuting. This incomplete assertion makes no sense, and I doubt it would have even a little relevance even if it were completed. Next, Pro writes, "Benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses." This is the worst possible argument in Pro's favor. A right and necessary separation of Church and State exists; it is unlawful and immoral for public school to promote or favor the teaching of one religion over another in the United States of America. Thus, the fact that Pro suggests the Bible could or should be taught in school as an educational source is absurd and wrong on so many fundamental levels. Finally, pro says, "Liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds." This is a non-sensical statement in so many regards. First, it does absolutely nothing to support Pro's position in the debate as it pertains to the resolution. Plus, the problem is that many "liberals" HAVE read the Bible, and still find it to be complete BS based on the content/claims of the Bible, and not necessarily the particular wording. Furthermore, it is not liberals who condemn the Bible; it's atheists. These are two distinct groups of people, and Pro makes a huge mistake in saying that it is liberals who oppose this useless idea. So, in checking out all of Pro's listed benefits, we can see that none of them are directly applicable to the United States of America, Additionally, Pro fails to mention certain problems with this endeavor, even if you think of it separate from America. For instance, to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bible's authenticity. Not to mention that Conservepidia is known for its bad misinterpretation of history; who's to say that their hired translators would be accurate and fair? Moreover, Pro has failed to demonstrate how the Bible is liberally biased. A copy pasta from this extremely biased conservative site about the so-called bias isn't at all evidence in Pro's favor. In conclusion, I agree that the Conservative Bible Project may be good for Christians. It may help to further their understanding, or help them convert and convince others to join their ranks. However, Pro's position in this debate is that this endeavor is good for AMERICA. I have proven that this is most definitely not the case.