An Atheist Should Not be President of the United States

Response to 1st Counterargument: You claim that I haven't supplied a reason to explain why I cited the Declaration of Independence. That is completely false. The Declaration was used to show that the United States is founded on Religious principles. You claim that the notion that "America was founded on Christian principles is false." Obviously you are incorrect because I quoted the Declaration of Independence which states that rights are endowed by God. How can you say America was not founded on religious principles when our Declaration of Independence says that rights come from God? Almost all of the founding fathers were religious as well. For example... a. In a 1794 letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, Samuel Adams wrote, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator" b. John Adams said ""Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." c. John Hancock said "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us." d. Benjamin Franklin said "Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped." My opponent also claims that "these two founding fathers (Jefferson and Madison) obviously favored secularism." This is also not true. Again, in the Declaration, Jefferson said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson believe that rights were given to humans by God himself. On the other hand Madison said (in his writings) that "religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government." My opponent also claimed that the Constitution does not mention God in it. Let us take a look at the constitution to see if his statement is true. Article Seven states that "the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America." The Constitution does mention God. My opponent also claimed that the Constitution is a more important document. Not only is that statement highly subjective but he seems to think that this would negate the fact that our country was built on religious principles. The words of our founding fathers (as shown above) expressed their religious principles, the Declaration states that rights are given by God, and the Constitution mentions God and advocates religious freedom (1st amendment) and not secularism. My opponent also says that I failed to give the importance of this argument. Lets take a look at what I wrote. I said that "Atheists can't make an objective claim about people having rights. With atheism...rights are all subjective. No rights/privileges really exist. Who wants a person in power that sees rights as subjective?" In other words, Atheists should not be President because they believe rights are subjective. That is my first reason. I don't know how I could have made that any clearer. Response to Second Counterargument: It was stated that "morals are subjective, and that's the truth." I find it interesting that my opponent believes that morals are subjective but also believes that truth exists objectively. I would be interested to find out why my opponent believes that morals are subjective but at the same time believes that there is a such thing as truth. It was also stated that what I believe "to be moral probably isn't the same as what other people believe." Is this true? Not really. Almost all people believe that murder is wrong, lying is wrong and etc...This is not to say that people do moral things all the time or that there aren't some people with completely different values (Hitler). After all, even though most people can walk, it doesn't mean that there aren't a few that can't. But most people agree on what is moral and on what is immoral. It was also stated that "Another alarming thing that my opponent states is that people have no reason to be moral without fear of reprisal by an all powerful god." This was never said once in round one. It was merely claimed that religion gives the only reasons to be moral. Fear may be a reason but it is not the reason most religious people use. Most religious people are moral because they love their God and want to do their best to honor him. Fear was not even discussed in the opening argument. It was asked by my opponent what created ethical standards if humans do not? Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration would claim that humans get their rights from God. Actually, 70% of the people in the United States would agree with this. After all, 70% of the people in the United States are Christian. If rights are subjective like my opponent claims, then humans could take away rights and no person could claim whether that was right or wrong (objectively) because rights would merely be a matter of opinion. Another thing that was said is that he would "rather have a person in office who believe in their morals based on their subconscious and their own reasoning." This is a problem considering he hasn't given a reason for being moral. And he won't be able to do this because religion gives the only reasons (not just fear) for being moral. My opponent also completely misunderstood what the objections were for. They were there to show what other people would use as reasons to be moral. I refuted those objections because my claim is that people have no objective reason to be moral. I don't actually make those objections myself. Lastly, it was stated that the original argument inferred that the term "moral describes only one final set of proper morals." Let me affirm this, there is an objective moral code given by God. At least, that is what is believed by our founding fathers and by 70% of the people in the United States. The fact that he views morality as subjective is one of the reason why an atheist shouldn't be President of the United States. And as already explained, it would be much better to have a President that believed in God given rights and in objective morality. Thanks again to my opponent. I will enjoy continuing this debate.