Religious classes should be permitted in public schools.

My opponent doesn't seem to accept that a Religious class is a class that is the study of a particular religion and its beliefs, not a multi religious course. There is a difference in between the two and my opponent needs to stop trying to change the topic. It clearly states Religious Classes, not a class that teaches about religions, there is a major difference between the two. Furthermore my opponent needs to stop pretending that the Engel vs. Vitale case didn't exist. Please provide evidence that this case didn't exist. Here is another source: . http://www.uscourts.gov..., it would be extremely surprising if you call this source invalid. Also an extracurricular activity doesn't relate to school. It may be taught at a public school, but it is not managed by the school. For example Tae-Kwon-Do classes are extracurricular activities that are not taught by schools. The definition is educational activities not falling within the scope of the regular curriculum, , your classes don't effect your GPA so therefore it is not an official class at your school. If the class is not included in the GPA then it isn't a official class taught by your school. No proof backing this up once again. Also you forgot the "? " again. And the reason for being such is because people make mistakes. The bible is there to remind them of the consequences. Is the bible their to send criminals to jail? Does the bible tell them what will happen today if the break the law? The answer is no. The law is what states the consequences, not the bible. When a person is tried to court are they charged by what rules they broke in the bible or law? People are sent to jail because the broke a law, not a rule in the Bible. The law is there to tell what people can and can't do and what happens when they break it. "But religion classes are about various religions, thereby showing a variety of religions and cultures, therefore promoting diversity! Read my arguments properly before responding, and you would understand such. " My opponent is getting diversity and knowledge mixed up. As I said early diversity is the state of being varied. Just because so one knows that Christians read the Bible, it doesn't make them more varied, it just mean that they know a bit of knowledge that they won't know for the rest of their life. For example, I know that Hindus believe in multiple gods, does in affect me? Not really, do I feel more varied? Of course not. If every one in the world knew Hindus were polytheistic would the population be more diverse? Again the answer is no. "This is a racist inappropriate hasty generalization. This is completely wrong. This is unacceptable behaviour, and should be reported. " My opponent clearly does not have a rebuttal for this. What I'm saying is that people of the same religion hate each other anyways. My opponent is implying that knowing about someone else's religion will stop racism. I just gave a clear counter example to his point about how some African Americans and Whites still hate each other, even though they are both Christian. If the K. K. K are still listed as an active organization, this is proof that some Whites and African Americans still hate each other. "It doesn't, when did I mention that? Religion is a good way to tell the students that hating others for their colour of skin is wrong. " Nice spelling of color. Also racism is normally generated by the fact that a person is different from you, physically, or mentally. Reminding racist people that a person has a different religion would solidify there hate towards them. "There is nothing wrong with religious classes in school. It does not negatively affect anyone, especially if it is optional. People should have the right to join a religious class if they wan't to. Since it does no harm, there is no reason to which it should be banned. " This was discussed in the Engel vs. Vitale case, which was over an optional school prayer. If the side that wanted the prayer banned, what is going to happen to a religious class. If a school was to offer a particular religious class, it would be seen as an attempt to interfere with the freedom of religion by influencing a child's opinion on religion. For example if a Hindu child went to a school with optional christian classes, but not Hindu classes, the child will start to think that the school offers only Christian classes because Christians are right and Hindus are wrong. This kind of reasoning was shown in the Supreme Court during the Brown vs Board of Education. During the time period when segregation was legal, africans and whites went to separate schools. One of the arguments that the side that didn't support segregation presented was that when African American children were presented with dolls that were the exact same except for skin color, the African American children choose the White dolls over the Black ones. This was because the kids used the chain of reasoning were they thought there must be a reason why we aren't allowed to go to the same schools as white children, it must be because we aren't as good as them. "I continue to give small arguments since my opponent does not counter my previous arguments. Furthermore, he is constantly explaining irrelevant points, incapable of relating to the topic, on why religious classes should be banned. He goes against the rules established, has terrible grammar, and posted an inappropriate, racist comment of hate. His points have unreliable sources backing them up. Because of all these reasons, I urge that you vote for pro. " My opponent has listed four sources, which are just things like the Constitution and a High School course selection sheet, therefore is in no position to complain about my sources, because at least I show were my evidence is coming from. Also I was not being racism, only realistic, if my opponent wants to pretend that racism doesn't exist it is fine. Also he make ridiculous claims about my grammar in a desperate bid to try to earn additional points, then person with the bad spelling and grammar is my opponent, I might have accidentally replace an question mark once or twice, but my opponent can't even spell color.