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

My opponent opens the third round by repudiating the idea that using the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and on US currency does not represent infiltration of religion in State or Government matter and explains her argument by writing that "the definition of God, is rooted in referring to religion" and that "as a whole the word God still has religious leanings" and writes that "By default, one can see that the definition of God, is rooted in referring to religion, or any other supernatural being." People have worshipped the sun, the moon and the stars - non of which is a supernatural being - as Gods well before today's organized religions have been established, which shows that my opponent's definition of "God" as "...a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship" is at least misleading if not blatantly false. My opponent also fails to prove that the the use of the word "God" does indeed represent a breach between the wall of separation of Church and State and does not entertain the idea that the word "God" can be used in a context that is not religious. The WordBook Dictionary defines "god" as: 1) Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force . 2) A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people. 3) A material effigy that is worshipped. Therefore, believing or trusting in "God" does not necessarily need to be coupled with religion. Some people worship their favorite sports team or a certain celebrity, making them by definition their "God", but those cases are not considered to be a "religion". My opponent, confronted with the fact that The Pledge of Allegiance is neither a law nor mandatory, goes on asking: "If a government was indeed a government separated by Church and State why should a work having a phase such as "One Nation Under God" be recognized by a law making part of its government?" This question provides insight in my opponent's lack of understanding of the Government of the United States and of the legislative process. The Pledge of Allegiance, even though ratified by law, is not a law of the United States itself and therefore not a "part" of the United States Government. My opponent also fails to understand that even if the Pledge, or the National Anthem as she argues in her next point, may have phrases or wording that could be interpreted as having their roots in religion, are not laws of the United States and do not affect or influence State and Government business in any possible way. In her next point, my opponent tries to argue that if there was separation of Church and State in the United States then "we as a nation would not set aside a day for a holiday that is defined as,"A worldwide holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ." My opponent fails to recognize that a federal holiday does not require any citizen to part take in any religious event. Furthermore, I have also already explained to my opponent that even though Christmas has been associated with Christianity for several hundred years, its celebration is rooted in the celebration of the Winter Solstice by Germanic tribes. I have provided my opponent with a link that explained the origin of Christmas and of many of its customs, for example the lighting of a tree. It is interesting to note that even though my opponent has been very happy to try to prove the roots of the word "God", she completely ignored the root of Christmas Day when it became apparent that it did not support her argument. My opponent's next point deals with the issue of which institution in the United States is in charge of printing money, saying that "my opponent states that I made a mistake on where our currency is printed." This is correct. In the first round of debate my opponent has clearly stated that "Currency is only printed by the Federal Reserve Banks, which is a government institution." I have already provided proof that currency is not printed by the Federal Reserve Banks and that the Federal Reserve is not a government institution, my assertion was therefore correct. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that The Congress shall have Power: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" ... "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". The statement that Currency is only printed by the Federal Reserve Banks is false, and its formulation shows my opponent's lack of a rudimentary understanding of monetary policy and of constitutional law. I think it would have been more appropriated for my opponent to admit her mistakes, since a debate has to be argued with facts and not with misinformation. My opponent furthermore accused me of failing "to recognize that the Department of Treasury is headed by a man named Timothy F. Geithner". I have not denied Mr. Geithner's role as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, this attack is therefore unfounded. My opponent closes her argument by asking if there has been any President without religious belief. As far as I personally know, no President has ever openly declared to be an atheist. Atheism however is a relatively new concept that followed the European Enlightenment and Darwinism, which gained prominence after the year 1900. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, who in 1802 wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association saying "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.", therefore coining the term "Separation of Church and State", along with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and even George Washington, were, according to several historian, deists.[2] Deism, in the philosophy of religion, is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God has a plan for the universe that he does not alter by intervening in the affairs of human life. [3] Considering the time period in which they lived, I personally assume that they would rejected a modern definition of religion and see themselves as atheists. This question is however irrelevant, because a Separation of Church and State, which is according to your own definition "the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state" does not require every or any member of the legislative, judiciary or executive to be personally non-religious. I reject my opponent's accusation that I fail to recognize "the many signs of in which the government has traces of any religion in this country, which are ingrained in American government". You don't need an atheist President to ensure the separation of Church and State, and the US Constitution bans through the 1st amendment any form of interference of the Government in religious matters, therefore the answer to this question is very simple and clear: There is a separation of Church and State in the United States! VOTE PRO! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.atheist...