There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States.

My opponent opens the last round of the debate by writing that my statement according to which neither the sun, the moon or the stars are supernatural beings is false, because according to a travel website "Ra was the almost universally-worshiped king of the gods and all-father of creation. A sun god, he was said to command the chariot that rode across the sky during the day." I encourage my opponent to use, as far as the topic allows it, peer-reviewed academic sources for research. I understand that sometimes it is hard to find those sources, but Egyptology is a widely studied subject and I am sure there are more accurate sources that travel websites. The point that my opponent makes is however still invalid. First of all, I did not specify the Egyptian civilization, which by itself nullifies her argument. And second, just because according to a specific people the Sun "was said to command the chariot that rode across the sky during the day" it does not mean that it actually is a supernatural being. Today we know for a fact that the Sun is a star and that our planet, the Earth, rotates around it. The Sun being a supernatural being is beyond any reasonable doubt so I don't understand what point my opponent has being trying to make by contesting my argument. Furthermore, even if the egyptian religion ended up being organized at some point, it probably started as a disorganized and individual set of beliefs, the same way that Joseph Smith's reading into a hat turned into Mormonism, Jesus' speeches into Christianity and Mohammed's teachings and military expansion into Islam. In her next point, my opponent, confronted with the fact that The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law of the United States of America, tries to find a definition of law that fits her argument. This is not the way to have a reasonable debate. It is beyond any doubt that the current and widespread understanding of law in a political context means a rule that is binding for persons within the jurisdiction of the body that passed it. Following your logic we could argue that The Pledge of Allegiance is a physical phenomenon like rain because there are "laws" of nature and "laws" of physics. My opponent tries to discredit my assertion that Christmas' origin is in fact pre-Chrestian and probably pre-religious by citing a website called lasttrumpetministries.com which states that "A pagan... ...is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions." and that "This practice is still religious, and pagans practice a organized religion." This argument fails to recognize that most probably, every religion started as a disorganized set of beliefs at some point and that in remote times, science - or more correctly a lack thereof - and religion were intertwined. Furthermore, most people, including my opponent before this debate, aren't even aware of the origin of celebrations such as Christmas, which in turn makes them lose their religious value. I myself as an atheist do celebrate Christmas, not because of religion but because of tradition. The same way that other atheist and agnostics and buddhists and moslems celebrate Christmas every year, as well as Christians who only take part in traditional customs such as lighting the tree and exchanging presents but do not go to mess. My opponent, who according to her own profile is an atheist herself, has asked me before if there has ever been an President who was not religious.There have been and there still are religions that do not worship a God but which are still religions [1]. If we declare a religion an organized set of beliefs, we can argue that Atheism is a religion itself, since there are atheist organizations.[2] If we follow my opponent logic under which since the President is personally religious then there is no separation of Church and State, than even an atheist President would because of his belief in Atheism violate the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. This is of course non-sensical. My opponent closes her argument asking "why should there be such a phase as,"In God We Trust" on our dollars. The reason that that word is on the One Dollar Bill is that the institution responsible for designing it deemed it appropriate and acted within its Constitutional powers. That phrase is not legally binding in any way, does not represent the recognition of religion or for that matter of God itself by the Federal Government of the United States and does have no influence whatsoever in policy making in the United States. We have a Constitution and a system of Checks and Balances in this country that ensures the strict separation of State and Organized religion. During the course of this debate my opponent has failed to bring up even one single example that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the wall of Separation between Church and State has ever been breached in the history of the United States and has decided to debate on the design of currency and on the wording of The Pledge of Allegiance, which may or may not be controversial, but definitely do not represent an intervention in State affairs by the hand of Organized Religion. The effective Separation of Church and State is in place in the United States and it's foundation is enshrined in the Constitution. [1] http://www.religionfacts.com... [2]http://www.atheists.org...