The pitcher of the 10 commandments should not be taken down nor edited from Giles county school.

My opponent says "imposing secular purposes" is the equivalent of "favoring of non-religion or atheism." This is false - a secular purpose simply requires that the law has a purpose that stands apart from any particular religion. For example, there is a secular reason that people are not allowed to steal - but that doesn't mean that having a law against theft favors atheism or non-religion. Just because the law must have a secular purpose does not mean the law cannot have a religious purpose as well - the issue at stake is whether a particular religion is favored over another. As long as a legitimate secular purpose exists for a law, then the law cannot be said to favor any religion over another, nor can it be said to favor atheism over religion (because secular laws do not pass judgment on religion).The pitcher is on state property. It thus transmits a message to the community that is directly traced back to the state. My opponent claims the pitcher represents the "school board," not the state. But this completely effaces the fact that the school board is an official public group that represents the state's interests. Creationism cannot be taught as science in schools, regardless of whether the school board thinks it should be taught as science or not. Likewise, regardless of what the school board thinks, its actions must reflect the state's interest, not their own. And the state's interest does not permit a pitcher of the Ten Commandments to be displayed on state property.My opponent claims that pointing out that someone is different is of no consequence. I disagree. Blacks were enslaved for over a century because they were different, homosexuality was considered a medical disorder for a long time because it is something different. When the site of difference promotes the marginalization of a particular group, it is impermissible. In the case of the Ten Commandments, displaying it on state property would transmit a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders. This would marginalize a group of people, and this is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral and undemocratic.There is a reason our Constitution promotes religious liberty and religious tolerance - it is because wars are waged over religious differences. To have a society in which liberty prevails as well as social stability, it is necessary that the government remains neutral with respect to religion. If the government passes judgment on religion, favoring one over another, it in effect marginalizes a group of people, and this creates social instability, inequality, and ultimately, infringes on the liberty of everyone involved. The right to hold your own religious beliefs is fundamental to a democratic society. By favoring one religion over another, you deny people the right to hold their religious beliefs - it is a form of psychological coercion.My opponent quotes George Washington, but the personal beliefs of George Washington are irrelevant to this debate - George Washington also had slaves, as did many of the founding fathers. The issue at stake in this debate is religious liberty - and to preserve religious liberty and religious tolerance for different religious views, it is necessary that the government not pass judgment on religion. If the government passes judgment on which religious beliefs are better than others, then the government will have effectively become a theocracy, dictating which religious beliefs are better than others. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the first people to advocate a strict separation of chuch and state - the purpose? Religious liberty. The pitcher of th Ten Commandments should be taken down from Giles county school to preserve the religious liberty that makes the United States what it is. It would be unconstitutional to allow the pitcher to be displayed on state property. The U.S. Supreme Court has made this clear, so the outcome of this debate should be a non-starter. The resolution is negated.