Separation of church and state

I apologize If all you received at the end of my point was that if it were right for religion to be taught in schools. you seemed to have missed the point. those were simply examples and one that I felt necessary to make sure I wasn't debating with someone with a severe bias with one religion. And to be quite frank, you yourself mentioned these and non so in passing. In this debate, try not to bring up subjects you don't want talked about and scrutinized. I'll give you an example. " I have concluded that expression and teaching of religion by public employees, such as teachers, are very much constitutional and efforts to restrict these expressions are unconstitutional. To give an example, I would say groups like American Atheists have no constitutional authority to do things like sue to have a cross memorial removed from a public 9/11 memorial." While it may not be a subject of morality, it's still a subtle hint of what particular groups "should" be able to do. I built off of what was to me, a fairly solid base. However, A lot can be debated about for that topic and would gladly debate you later on if religion should be taught in schools. So if all you have as far as what to build on, I'm afraid It would be very difficult to expand upon. It's sort of a "trap debate" where one party clearly knows that the "not-so-clear" interpretations of a particular section of constitution exists. It's like arguing if the sky above us is blue, or that the sun goes down. you could have simply let yourself win by making one round and saying "This isn't here! look it up" anyone who takes perhaps ten minutes to research the constitution will find this to be an incredibly obvious statement. but the question is, where does one go from here if not on a slight tangent? (one which you perpetuated) or were you simply wanting to find someone who wholeheartedly believed that such restrictions in our constitution were there and have a fun time picking away at them like chickens to laying mash? But I digress, I shall by your request stay on topic and even attempt to humor the situation a bit. "The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion." in fact here is a more specific quote said by our wonderful Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 and State." To me, this is a powerful statement. There are some religions that cannot and will not believe in the god of the Christian bible. If students were forced to learn about deities of other religions, I can see how this is considered and infringement. like i said before "I'm not quite certain that the very definition of the clause is being "misinterpreted" but rather, expanded upon to include the new age." I'm sure you are aware of this term we know as "De Facto" It's when something is in effect, but not formally recognized. English is the "De Facto" language of the U.S. despite not actually coining an official Language on the Federal level. It's the same for several (and I do mean SEVERAL) laws practiced in each individual state and state constitution. This of course goes for our Official constitution. by default allowing teachers to teach their religion to students not belonging to this denomination, would therefore be infringing on the rights of not only the students, but the parents right to free worship. By placing a cross on a monument (such as a memorial) might be seen as that religion taking upon itself of being the "official" religion of a given region. regardless of what that person might actually be doing, It makes a statement. A statement that our government would much rather say "keep it to yourselves" than put emphasis on. De Facto may not be official enough for you, (since you're arguing that since it's not there, these people should be able to Teach religion in schools, Place monuments in public sects, and more) but it is more than enough for our government, and a large population of it's people. I urge the Audience, and my opponent to please read these cited sources. they Have some good material. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) http://www.usconstitution.net... http://www.usconstitution.net... http://civilliberty.about.com... http://scienceblogs.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... A better definition of De Facto would be: "in practice, but not necessarily ordained by law".