Separation of Church and State

Thanks again to Guidestone! I will use this round to conduct a line-by-line rebuttal of Con's claims thus far. P1: The Nature of the Establishment ClauseI shall place Con's remarks in italics. My rebuttals shall be in regular script, as before."This is separation of Church from Congress, not separation of Church and State. Like I have shown in previous rounds this allowed State governments to have sponsored religion which wasn't against the constitution."I have three points to make here: 1. Con admits that the federal government may not establish an official religion(s) as per the establishment clause. Clearly, this prohibition forces a distance, or separation, between the state and the church.2. State were allowed (past tense) to have religions. They are not currently able (present tense) to have official religions, as I shall show. The point here is that what was true in the past is irrelevant in this debate, because we are debating what is going on right now. The resolution says "there is separation;" it does not say "there was separation."3. States are also bound by the establishment clause, meaning they can no longer have official religions or promote certain faiths over others. If you look back to my Round Two arguments, all the Supreme Court cases I cite, except for Burstyn v. Wilson, are applied at the State level. States control their own education systems, yet they cannot use those systems to promote specific religious ideologies. States and municipalities cannot suppress certain religions, like Santeria, in favor of others. States cannot requires people to undergo religious tests prior to taking office. Moreover, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled, "that the establishment clause is one of the 'liberties' protected by the due-process clause (14th Amendment). From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause." [1, 2] In light of this ruling, Con's whole argument collapses. He says that only the Federal Government has separation of church and state because the establishment clause only applies to Congress. I have just disproven that by illustrating that the establishment clause applies to all levels of governance. The impact of these three points is clear: no level of government can support a religion or a group of religions over others. Government must separate itself from religion, and operate as a secular entity. The establishment clause is a clear line of demarcation between church and state, and thus the resolution can be affirmed."The founders believed that there should not be a church of the United States, but not total separation."My Off-Case Overview can be applied here. What the founders intended is irrelevant, insofar as were are not debating about what the establishment clause was intended to do, but rather we are debating about what it is actually doing."It is true the founders didn't want a theocracy, but they didn't want separation either."The Founding Fathers, as I observed last round, saw faith as a personal matter, and not one in which the state ought to become embroiled. Yes, they wanted people to have a spiritual life that informed their personal morality. Adams's quote is clear evidence of this. But wanting individual people to be religious is different from wanting the government to be religious. We have had religious Presidents who have led secular administrations. What the Founding Fathers wanted was for people to believe in God and have faith, but to not force their personal beliefs on others. Jefferson's own actions are indicative of this--religion was important to him, but he believed that it wasn't the job of the state to encourage religion. Ultimate, what the Founding Fathers envisaged was a nation led by godly people, but which was secular in its operation.Regardless, this discourse over intent is irrelevant to the topic, as I have stated numerous times."To a point it is valid what the intent was is invalid, but I was using to show that the first amendment does not create such a separation."You cannot derive actual results from intent. As I pointed out last round, "intent of X is not a predictor of what X actually does in the status quo." P2: De Jure SeparationCon makes a big point about "In God We Trust" and about the mentions of God in our legal code. These references do not negate the resolution. These phrases are vestiges of America's past that reflect a culture that was largely Christian. They terms are kept around as part of our sense of tradition--they have no functional meaning.Essentially, these words have no legally-binding function in the U.S. Presidents may abstain from religious portions of the oath. In fact, the phrase "so help me God" is NOT part of the official oath. It was added on (as an adlib) sometime later. [3] Also, officials have been allowed to swear on the Constitution or on other documents instead of religious texts. [4] Finally, no one is mandated to say "under God" while reciting the pledge. If the government force you to say that, then it would be imposing religious beliefs. But, it is your choice whether to include that.Ultimately, every society is going to keep some of its traditional language--but that language has lost it's practical meaning. Can the government force you to recognize a God or gods? Can it force you to take up a religion? Is it allowed to support one faith over another? No, no, and no. As for "Blue Laws," if you read Con's source [5], you will see that the Supreme Court upheld the laws "because the employees alleged only economic injury and not infringement on their own religious practices...the present Maryland laws are based on secular rather than religious state interests." Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the laws for secular, not religious, reasons.P3: De Facto SeparationJust to refresh everyone's memory, I argued that: "the U.S. is a majority Christian nation, yet many of the policies our governments have enacted have been counter to Christian philosophy. Several prominent examples include abortion, gay marriage, and contraception covered by insurers. While not all Christians hold views opposing the liberalisaztion of these issues in U.S. politics, it is important to note that many do, and that they do so on the basis of moral and ethical beliefs informed by their religion. The fact that the U.S. can overcome such barriers and move towards a more secular society shows that, at the very least, there is some de facto separation." I will now address Con's objections."Abortion was enacted by a court ruling...Gay Marriage is often also by court ruling...Contraception coverage is not in effect as there is a supreme court case pending."Con's arguments seem to be that the examples I gave are not example of government actions, but rather judicial action. Let us not forget that the Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, is one of three branches of government in the U.S. The fact that they are making these rulings, and that the U.S. is enforcing them, shows that there is de fact separation, insofar as the U.S. government, led by it's judiciary branch, is moving towards a more secular society.Frankly, it doesn't matter which branch is doing most of the work, so long as it is tangibly impacting the status quo. I have shown throughout this debate that the U.S. is secularizing, and so there is a tangible impact."Such things are almost never by choice, but by force."The government, by its nature, is an agent of force. This is not a debate about what people want, but about what is. There is Separation of Church and State in the U.S., and thus I affirm.SOURCES1 - http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...2 - http://www.ask.com...3 - http://www.ask.com...4 - http://freedomoutpost.com...5 - http://www.oyez.org...