The Outlaw of Public Prayer in the United States

Please read the description carefully for what the resolution is before voting. The title is not the resolution.

As this is a resolution where the BoP is clearly on pro and con is clearly unable to do anything except respond to pros arguments and as pro has insisted that I be the one to speak first because they want to have more rounds to argue than me I will simply open this debate with an interview with a law enforcement expert which I recently performed before turning the debate over to pro.

I now turn the debate over to my opponent.

Before starting I wish to clarify something to avoid unnecessary potential misunderstanding. My opponent says:

To clarify I the prayer was out loud, in Arabic, and I was facing East. I was not using a prayer rug at the time. Now back to the debate.

My position in this debate is that public prayer (defined by pro as praying out-loud in public) is not outlawed by any act of the United States government. First we will discuss a bit what it means for a thing to be outlawed then we will review the arguments made by pro. If after review the voters do not find any of pros proposals for substantiating the claim made in the resolution to be sufficient then it is reasonable to vote for con. In today's era of technology it is a simple matter to provide an example of a law or judicial decision which might make a particular thing illegal and therefore if pro is unable to do so it is reasonable to assume such does not exist.

If something is not allowed by law then it is illegal. Important to note here, however, is that if you are breaking the law while doing something that thing is not necessarily illegal. For example if one steals a car and drives it down a street that person is breaking the law but to say that driving down a street is illegal would be incorrect. The act of driving played a critical role in their violation of the law but driving is not illegal. The distinguishing factor is which of these two acts (the theft or the driving) is a violation of the law. The easiest way to do this would be to ask "If I did only one of these things but not the other then would I be breaking the law?" In this case if you drove a car you had not stolen you would not be breaking the law.

Therefore if going forward we find some law or judicial decision that seems to forbid an act related to prayer in some way that doesn't necessarily mean that it forbids prayer. One may discern whether prayer is forbidden by such a law by asking themselves "If I simply start praying would I be violating the law or is there something else I need to do as well to be considered in violation of the law?" If there is some other act that is needed in addition to prayer for an action to be a violation of the law then perhaps that act is what is illegal.

In short voters, please keep the auto theft analogy at the front of your mind while reading the rest of this debate.

Pros argument can seemingly be divided into two main parts. The second part seeks to establish that certain court rulings can be said to outlaw public prayer while the first part of his argument attempts to lay out a background for why pro considers these rulings to be invalid. This first part is the more extensive and makes up the majority of pros round one submission. It includes a brief overview of certain events in history including the origin of the phrase 'separation of church and state', the establishment clause, etc. Voters can safely ignore this first part of my opponents round for the most part as being irrelevant to the resolution of this debate.

Obviously I and just about everyone else in the country does not want prayer to be illegal. Therefore to expect me to argue against arguments that say prayer should not be made illegal is ridiculous. Furthermore the validity of these court decisions is not the subject of the debate. As was made clear in the debate description we are not debating what the law should be. We are debating what the law is. What it should be, therefore, is irrelevant.

Let's look at the second part of pros argument that I mentioned. Two Supreme Court cases are claimed by pro to outlaw public prayer. We can look at each of them starting with the one pro brought up first.

We need look no further for a simple enough summary of this ruling than my opponents own argument. A quote from pro (emphasis mine):

We can either reject this as a fair summary of the case, in which case we reject that pro has accurately portrayed the case that his argument relies upon and therefore using this case as a basis is invalid and no more needs to be said about it, or we can accept this as a fair summary. If this is a fair summary of the case the question becomes whether we can interpret from this that "public prayer is outlawed".

Remember from the previous round pro establishes the definition of public prayer as 'praying out loud in public'. Reading pros own summary of the case above we can see a clear mismatch between not being allowed to pray in public and what is being forbidden above. The above quote is very specific about the fact that what is being outlawed is government sponsorship of a prayer program, not prayer itself. Returning to our earlier auto theft analogy we can ask "If I establish a public program in which the government drafts up a prayer to be read by a segment of it's population as in the quote above then am I violating the law?" the answer is yes, but is it because prayer is outlawed? Imagine a person going into the school in question and praying on their own without attempting to establish any sort of government-sponsored religious program to do so. Would that person be violating the above ruling? The answer is no, as the ruling is very clear that what it forbids is government sponsorship.

The second of the two rulings claimed by pro to supposedly outlaw public prayer suffers from the same problems as the first. My opponent does not provide as lengthy a summary of the ruling here as he did before. The basic idea is the same, however. The ruling puts no restrictions whatsoever on what individuals may do with regards to their religious preferences or practices. The only restrictions either of these rulings places is on governments ability to influence or sponsor such practices. As I said before my opponent can argue all they want that these decisions are legally invalid, I may even rhetorically agree with them, but that is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

As long as it is legal for a person to pray in public the statement "it is illegal for a person to pray in public" is a false statement, and thus con should get the vote in any resolution making this claim.

I Rebuttal: What is illegal?
 
I.a Among other things, contrary to my opponent’s claim in his round 1, “The distinguishing factor is which of these two acts[the theft or the driving] is illegal,”is that assumptions do not counterweigh facts. It’s a bit like Joe Biden preferring “truth over facts.”[1] I don’t think that’s what Biden meant to say, but it is what he said, and his propensity to put his foot in his mouth is legendary. My opponent assumes only the theft of a motor vehicle is the illegal act, while the driving of it is not. This assumption of faux law,in fact a book I recently wrote and published [not seeking sales opportunities here], concerns this matter of faux law;what is assumed to be law that is not, and the reason I use this username.
 
1.b Enter: 18 USC §2312, which stipulates that not only the theft of a motor vehicle, but driving it when stopped and apprehended, or apprehended later and found to have driven the stolen vehicle, is two charges. It is illegal to both steal a vehicle andto drive a stolen vehicle. Period. Then why steal it? Well, there’s the rub; why indeed? This stuff is so easily researched it should cause no wonder why so much faux lawfloats among us. In fact, 18 USC, Section 2 will be thrown at anyone riding as a passenger in a stolen vehicle, and this, alone, is even a felony for minors.[2]
 
So, let’s not get too wrapped around the axle on that score when voting on this debate point, regardless of Con’s auto theft analogy. Do keep it in the front of your mind, but know the law while you’re at it. Some analogies, though just analogies and not the forefront of the argument, fail to make the argument stand. Done.
 
II. Rebuttal: the old cause and effect routine:  Engels v. Vitale [1962]
 
II.a Sure, by actual language, the “summary” quoted by Con regarding the Engels v. Vitale [1962]case, which was not some hair-brained commentary by a journalist, or anybody else after the case concluded – it is particularly not my summary – it is taken from the Court Syllabus. It’s official summary, so the question whether it is to be believed, or not, speaks for itself. As the Syllabus is official language of any Court result, its language is dependable, albeit assailable on its merit. Assailable, that is, by the Court itself, which Court has overturned fully 12% of its decisions in its 230-year history.[3]
 
II.b As a result, one must look not only to the Court’s decision [the cause] but also as to the consequences of that decision [the effect] relative to the conduct of prayer in schools. That effect is that although the exacting verbiage of the Vitaledecision forbids school sponsored prayer, even if voluntary,the effect, the consequence, is that unless a student prays for straight As or to be on the football team, or to be the prom queen, and those prayers are said in silence, the audible utterance of some prayers will be met with charges of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 
II.c “The principles of Engel have been extended by Court decisions invalidating an Alabama law requiring a moment of silence that appeared to have been rewritten specifically to encourage school prayer in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), a middle school graduation school prayer in Lee v. Weisman (1992), and prayer at high school football games in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000).”[4]
 
II.c.1 This effect goes beyond the assumption that forbidding school-sponsored prayer is the only mode of prayer forbidden by Vitale; it extends to setting precedent in the other three Supreme Court cases cited in the quote above, which extend beyond just a sponsored prayer.
 
II.c.2 The effect of the Court finding in Abington School District v. Schempp [1963], which cited Vitale, was similar to the extensions by additional Court rulings following Vitale.
 
II.c.2.a This is due to the biblical encouragement for people to pray in all circumstances, such as, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”[5] In other words, pray always; even students in school.
 
The conflict religious students have is to reconcile this advice from the Apostle Paul, and their government.
 
II.d The result of the conflicting attitudes presented to students is not, as Con suggests, a red-herring argument [not Con’s choice of argument mode, but a red herring is the fish it is] because the original Vitalecase prohibited, I acknowledge, only school sponsored prayer, while presumably allowing any other modes of prayer. But, no. As the title of this rebuttal section says, there is cause and effect. The effect being, after all, Wallace v. Jaffree [1985], Lee v. Weisman [1992], and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [2000], as described above in II.c.
 
Con asserts “As long as it is legal for a person to pray in public the statement "it is illegal for a person to pray in public" is a false statement, and thus con should get the vote in any resolution making this claim.”
 
II.d.1Con may make as many resolving assumptions as he wishes. If wishes were fishes, and that was all there was to it, he might be correct. However, Court actions yield other Court actions [that cause and effect thing] that say more than, “just this fish is banned.” According to the three cases cited above [II.c and II.d], just the school-sponsored fish is no longer the only fish banned, is it? Therefore, Con’s conclusion, to date, should not win the vote because it is a red herring, which should always be banned.
 
 
III. Argument: A school-sponsored fish, a moment of silence fish, a graduation fish, and a football fish.
 
III.a Four different fish over 38 years does not send a comforting signal that straight As, and prom queen fishes are safe to keep swimming, considering that the First Amendment was ratified in 1788. We have already also lost the football fish, and three other fish in 38 years, against 232 years of promise that all fish had the right to be exercised freely. That is 1.7% lost since 1788. That means, math friends, that in another 1,000 years, approximately, all fish are at risk trying to swim in the American Republic. 
 
III.a.1 It’s actually worse that that. We didn’t lose any fish until 1962. We have lost four fish in a mere 38 years; from 1962 to 2000, not 1788 to 2020. All were safe until 1962. So the percentage of allowed tolerance for prayer in school is much worse: 10.5% lost. Meaning that all will be lost in another 300 years, approximately, should the trend continue. 
 
III.b I do not argue that all prayer in school is prohibited. That any mode of prayer is prohibited is a trend in the wrong direction, let alone, now, four modes of prayer prohibited. The debate is not that all modes of prayer are prohibited. It is that any mode of prayer is prohibited; a generalized “prayer.” I am not, as Con is likely to claim, changing the goal post. There are clearly many modes of prayer, and not just silent or out loud. “Prayer” is a relative word, an all-inclusive word to describe all modes of communication with deity for all purposes such efforts are made.
 
The very word is assailed. Not just sponsored, nor moment of silence, nor graduation, nor football.  
 
Nor do I contend that Pro has already won the debate. There are two rounds remaining before voters begin to tally the score. I only contend that, to date, Con is premature. He has not yet assailed my case. That is his burden. I am demonstrating mine, to date, and have still another round remaining to introduce all my arguments. Steppenwolf may start singing at any time, but they’re off key. I do not fire all of my guns at once.
 
I yield to my opponent.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Driving a stolen car is illegal. Driving is not illegal.

Phrased another way:

[IF] stolen = true [THEN] legal = false

Now that I have secured the vote of the compdemographic let us continue...

In my previous argument we examined a summary of the court decision of Engels v Vitale and I explained why this summary was, if accurate, . In round two pro presents the following overly verbose little paragraph full of redundancoes and repetition:

the essence of what pro is saying here "sure I agree that summary is a pretty accurate description of the decision but it's validity can be questioned".

As I have already established in my previous round whether any laws or court rulings are "valid" is completely irrelevant to this debate. This debate is merely about whether the act of praying in a non-private place is actually in fact illegal.

Pro accepts this and even goes on to accept that the verbage of the decision only forbids school sponsored prayer. In short he conceeds the point that Engel v. Vitale does not support his argument on the grounds that it does not forbid prayer but instead only forbids school sponsored prayer. He continues to argue in favor of the resolution, however, by bringing up three additional cases which he says do in fact outlaw prayer. Since the Engel v Vitale case was conceded on the basis of the fact that it only covered prayer sponsored by the government then if it can be shown that these three cases do the same then pro must also concede that these cases do not support the debate resolution. The cases my opponent brings up are as follows:

Wallace v Jaffree*

Lee v Weisman*

Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe*

In each of these three cases we see the same pattern as before. My opponent fails to bring up any case of a court decision being rendered against "individual prayers to become prom queen". In every case the decision has been against government interference, not individual action.

I say again that as long as it is legal for a person to pray in public the statement "it is illegal for a person to pray in public" is a false statement. No laws or court decisions have been shown in this debate that would imply the Supreme Court is against the act of prayer itself and thus the resolution is unjustified.

*Sourced from opponents link to this court case in their argument, emphasis mine.

As my opponent has insisted upon neither of us making new arguments in the final round I will simply make a few short bullet points summarizing the debate.

I end this round with a second reminder to the voters that pro insisted on a rule that no new arguments be made by either side in the last round.