Resolved: Democracy is best served with a strict separation of church and state.
Okay...now...just post about what you believe in. I need some practice for the next two months' LD debate.
Full Version: Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State
good job, praticing on debate, haha.
yep, that's true. Democracy is best served with a strict seperation of church and state, but lately, that hasn't been enforced well.
Remember the California atheist that wanted the pledge of allegiance banned from the US? just recently, i read the newspaper and found out that he wanted to ban prayer during the inauguration but the court DENIED to ban prayer from the inauguration.
remember: our nation grew up with mostly Christianity until immigrants came. The Pledge of Allegiance was created in the time when most people were Christians. The term "In God We Trust" was started during a time when most people were Christians. But now our country is VERY DIVERSE, and this really brings the government in a confused state at the moment. With gay marriage and abortion strongly opposed by Conservative Christians who want the US to become a Christian nation, it's hard to have it enforced right.
yep, that's true. Democracy is best served with a strict seperation of church and state, but lately, that hasn't been enforced well.
Remember the California atheist that wanted the pledge of allegiance banned from the US? just recently, i read the newspaper and found out that he wanted to ban prayer during the inauguration but the court DENIED to ban prayer from the inauguration.
remember: our nation grew up with mostly Christianity until immigrants came. The Pledge of Allegiance was created in the time when most people were Christians. The term "In God We Trust" was started during a time when most people were Christians. But now our country is VERY DIVERSE, and this really brings the government in a confused state at the moment. With gay marriage and abortion strongly opposed by Conservative Christians who want the US to become a Christian nation, it's hard to have it enforced right.
yes, democracy need strict separation of church and state.
for this i will use the example of Alabama Cheif Justice Roy Moore.
Roy Moore was known as the Ten Commandments judge. Most the state supported him. It's well know he's a christian.
He allowed christianity a place in his courtroom. It would not matter if he were not a member of the government.
because of this; if a christian and non-christian were in his court, who would he favor?
this seems pretty obvious.
anyways: if religion is allowed in democracy, those with the favored religion will enivitablly be favored.
for this i will use the example of Alabama Cheif Justice Roy Moore.
Roy Moore was known as the Ten Commandments judge. Most the state supported him. It's well know he's a christian.
He allowed christianity a place in his courtroom. It would not matter if he were not a member of the government.
because of this; if a christian and non-christian were in his court, who would he favor?
this seems pretty obvious.
anyways: if religion is allowed in democracy, those with the favored religion will enivitablly be favored.
QUOTE
good job, praticing on debate, haha.
yep, that's true. Democracy is best served with a strict seperation of church and state, but lately, that hasn't been enforced well.
Remember the California atheist that wanted the pledge of allegiance banned from the US? just recently, i read the newspaper and found out that he wanted to ban prayer during the inauguration but the court DENIED to ban prayer from the inauguration.
remember: our nation grew up with mostly Christianity until immigrants came. The Pledge of Allegiance was created in the time when most people were Christians. The term "In God We Trust" was started during a time when most people were Christians. But now our country is VERY DIVERSE, and this really brings the government in a confused state at the moment. With gay marriage and abortion strongly opposed by Conservative Christians who want the US to become a Christian nation, it's hard to have it enforced right.
yep, that's true. Democracy is best served with a strict seperation of church and state, but lately, that hasn't been enforced well.
Remember the California atheist that wanted the pledge of allegiance banned from the US? just recently, i read the newspaper and found out that he wanted to ban prayer during the inauguration but the court DENIED to ban prayer from the inauguration.
remember: our nation grew up with mostly Christianity until immigrants came. The Pledge of Allegiance was created in the time when most people were Christians. The term "In God We Trust" was started during a time when most people were Christians. But now our country is VERY DIVERSE, and this really brings the government in a confused state at the moment. With gay marriage and abortion strongly opposed by Conservative Christians who want the US to become a Christian nation, it's hard to have it enforced right.
[Remember, playing the opposite side here] Right, but have we not, as the most democratic democracy there is, been okay? Furthermore, the terms "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" are no longer directed towards the singular Christian God, but rather, as this entity that just basically wishes our country the best. Besides, many religions share various common beliefs that isn't only found in the Christian religion. That's why we should have a loose separation of church and state; this is why it exists in our country. And, our country being the most democratic democracy (as I mentioned before), shows that this is the way it best works. On top of that, religion is ultimately tied to history. You point out that our country was founded by Christians - to deny and separate religion from our country is denying its roots. Besides, the President of the First National Convention, George Washington, was a deist, not a Christian. There was another man present without Christian beliefs (I can't remember his name), but this even shows that if they believed there needed to be a strict separation of church and state, they would've included it in the Constitution itself.
QUOTE
yes, democracy need strict separation of church and state.
for this i will use the example of Alabama Cheif Justice Roy Moore.
Roy Moore was known as the Ten Commandments judge. Most the state supported him. It's well know he's a christian.
He allowed christianity a place in his courtroom. It would not matter if he were not a member of the government.
because of this; if a christian and non-christian were in his court, who would he favor?
this seems pretty obvious.
anyways: if religion is allowed in democracy, those with the favored religion will enivitablly be favored.
for this i will use the example of Alabama Cheif Justice Roy Moore.
Roy Moore was known as the Ten Commandments judge. Most the state supported him. It's well know he's a christian.
He allowed christianity a place in his courtroom. It would not matter if he were not a member of the government.
because of this; if a christian and non-christian were in his court, who would he favor?
this seems pretty obvious.
anyways: if religion is allowed in democracy, those with the favored religion will enivitablly be favored.
Don't worry - I'm not saying we shouldn't have any separation of church and state, but simply a loose one - there'll still be restrictions. Once again, if you think about it, we have a loose separation present today. Our morals, beliefs, and values come from religion - they're what the government officials use to help them with their law-making decisions.
i think that separation often gets out of hand at schools. while you dont want to ostrisize kids of different beliefs, they shouldnt try so hard to make everything is unoffensive either. will supply decent arguements later
QUOTE
Our morals, beliefs, and values come from religion - they're what the government officials use to help them with their law-making decisions.
THAT RIGHT THERE is the exact reason there should be strict seperation between Church and State....America is a country that has people of MANY DIFFERENT BELIEFS AND RELIGIONS....THAT is why government officials CANNOT make laws or decisions BASED ON THEIR CHRISTIAN BELIEF....what are u a f**king idiot?
QUOTE(Kathleen @ Jan 16 2005, 4:04 PM)
[Remember, playing the opposite side here] Right, but have we not, as the most democratic democracy there is, been okay? Furthermore, the terms "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" are no longer directed towards the singular Christian God, but rather, as this entity that just basically wishes our country the best. Besides, many religions share various common beliefs that isn't only found in the Christian religion. That's why we should have a loose separation of church and state; this is why it exists in our country. And, our country being the most democratic democracy (as I mentioned before), shows that this is the way it best works. On top of that, religion is ultimately tied to history. You point out that our country was founded by Christians - to deny and separate religion from our country is denying its roots. Besides, the President of the First National Convention, George Washington, was a deist, not a Christian. There was another man present without Christian beliefs (I can't remember his name), but this even shows that if they believed there needed to be a strict separation of church and state, they would've included it in the Constitution itself.
mmmhmm.. thats true.
QUOTE
Furthermore, the terms "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" are no longer directed towards the singular Christian God, but rather, as this entity that just basically wishes our country the best.
yepp... true. it also raises the question, "Which god?" even though some gods have different names. The term "One nation under God," can also raise further questions like, "Is God watching over other countries that we are enemies towards?". Christianity defines God's love as the most merciful love ever so it claims the Lord loves all, yet people today don't want the Lord to love enemy countries.
So remember, the term "One nation under God," brings up very complicated and sensitive questions.
1. Who's god?
2. Which god?
3. Is God watching over our enemy countries?
4. Is there a god at all (a question that agnognistics have to deal with when they hear that term)?
QUOTE
THAT RIGHT THERE is the exact reason there should be strict seperation between Church and State....America is a country that has people of MANY DIFFERENT BELIEFS AND RELIGIONS....THAT is why government officials CANNOT make laws or decisions BASED ON THEIR CHRISTIAN BELIEF....what are u a f**king idiot?
Dude. Who's the idiot that didn't even read my entire post? Then you would've been able to produce a somewhat-intelligent response without looking like a complete dumbass.
QUOTE
yepp... true. it also raises the question, "Which god?" even though some gods have different names. The term "One nation under God," can also raise further questions like, "Is God watching over other countries that we are enemies towards?". Christianity defines God's love as the most merciful love ever so it claims the Lord loves all, yet people today don't want the Lord to love enemy countries.
So remember, the term "One nation under God," brings up very complicated and sensitive questions.
1. Who's god?
2. Which god?
3. Is God watching over our enemy countries?
4. Is there a god at all (a question that agnognistics have to deal with when they hear that term)?
So remember, the term "One nation under God," brings up very complicated and sensitive questions.
1. Who's god?
2. Which god?
3. Is God watching over our enemy countries?
4. Is there a god at all (a question that agnognistics have to deal with when they hear that term)?
Right, but what I was trying to say (I'm never good at getting my actual point across, so I'll try again) was that "God" could mean anything in those phrases. If you look at the phrases themselves, they don't impose the Christian belief or imply it in itself. "God" is chosen here simply because there is no other common enough word to relate to - it just simply attempts to summarize everything which essentially implies looking to something to help us compel as a nation. Eh. Did you understand that?
QUOTE(Kathleen @ Jan 16 2005, 6:33 PM)
Right, but what I was trying to say (I'm never good at getting my actual point across, so I'll try again) was that "God" could mean anything in those phrases. If you look at the phrases themselves, they don't impose the Christian belief or imply it in itself. "God" is chosen here simply because there is no other common enough word to relate to - it just simply attempts to summarize everything which essentially implies looking to something to help us compel as a nation. Eh. Did you understand that?
ohhh... i get you now. yeahhh.. i read about the pledge of allegiance on wikipedia somewhere.
(article about pledge of allegiance) (iite, these quotes on the bottom r all from wikipedia)
QUOTE
The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on 11 October 1892. It was intended as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day, 12 October.
started on 1892. read more...
QUOTE
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
He was a Baptist, yet he didn't inclue the term "one nation under God."
QUOTE
In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and echoes the Declaration of Independence. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change.
I'm surprised Congress adopted that change. Didn't they remember the seperation of church and state?
QUOTE
Versions of the Pledge:
* 1892 to 1923: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
* 1923 to 1954: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
* 1954 to Present: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
* 1892 to 1923: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
* 1923 to 1954: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
* 1954 to Present: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
See here... The pledge of allegiance included the term "under God," around 1954.
As I said before, the Pledge of Allegiance was created during a time when most people were Christian. But when it was added the terms "under God," it was during a time when immagration wasn't allowed.
QUOTE
The original pledge did not contain the words "under God". Those words were added on 14 June 1954 when then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law that placed the words "under God" into the pledge.
iite.. as i said above... the term "Under God," was placed during 1954, a time when immagration wasn't allowed until around 1965.
QUOTE
Opposition to the ruling was vehement by many. Some conservative Christians, heirs to a tradition long believing itself persecuted by secularism in government, considered it an attack on faith in God. Some moderates and liberals felt that pursuing the matter was stirring up trouble, but many supported the ruling, especially atheists, secularists, and civil libertarians, most of them on the grounds that including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge violated the separation of church and state.
exactly the point. I'm Christian, but it is not an attack on the faith of God if you remove the term "Under God," because trusting on the Lord to protect you is a choice, not forced, because God's love is not forced.
want to read more of that article? here's the link again in case you wanna read it.
actually i DID read ur entire Post.....and its a load of ignorant bullshit
QUOTE(Azn Kid from NY @ Jan 16 2005, 6:59 PM)
actually i DID read ur entire Post.....and its a load of ignorant bullshit
actually, her post isn't ignorant. they are facts.
QUOTE
Our morals, beliefs, and values come from religion - they're what the government officials use to help them with their law-making decisions.
that's true. try doing a little background check on the government officials and see if they're religious or not, Azn Kid from NY.
ok...i could respond and rip Kathleens ignorant post into pieces.....but its just not worth my time...and i dont feel like writing alot right now....maybe tomorrow
hm. i think that the country should stay the way it has been for the many years in the past. even though we have religious influences in the pledge of allegiance and our money and some other things, it's not an extremely large influence as say, if we used a Bible to pledge our allegiance. that is going beyong the separation of church and state. but if our state was founded by people that put these things there for a reason and our country has "worked" for the past 200+ years, then i don't see why it should be changed.
just my opinion; you don't have to agree.
just my opinion; you don't have to agree.
Wow. Thanks for all of that information, azn_r4pf4n. It'll help me with my debate cases. 
But see the thing is, the term "separation of church and state" can't be violated because it's not there to violate. It can't be found in the entire Constitution.
But see the thing is, the term "separation of church and state" can't be violated because it's not there to violate. It can't be found in the entire Constitution.
QUOTE(allthatglitterss @ Jan 16 2005, 7:11 PM)
hm. i think that the country should stay the way it has been for the many years in the past. even though we have religious influences in the pledge of allegiance and our money and some other things, it's not an extremely large influence as say, if we used a Bible to pledge our allegiance. that is going beyong the separation of church and state. but if our state was founded by people that put these things there for a reason and our country has "worked" for the past 200+ years, then i don't see why it should be changed.
just my opinion; you don't have to agree.
just my opinion; you don't have to agree.
hmmm... thats like saying "Okay, we're too lazy to change it, we'll just leave it there," or its also like saying we're used to it and we don't have to worry about it.
QUOTE
it's not an extremely large influence as say, if we used a Bible to pledge our allegiance.
- umm... yea, Christianity has a tremendous infulence, especially in the south.
QUOTE
but if our state was founded by people that put these things there for a reason and our country has "worked" for the past 200+ years, then i don't see why it should be changed.
thats a very puzzling thought right there. for a reason? of course: to make a perfect democracy. but it hasn't gone too well these days and the seperation of church and state hasn't been noticed too well because America's stupidity is on the rise. Only people who bothered to noticed deeply like the Californian atheist who brung up the attention of the Pledge of Allegiance knows the seperation of church and state should be changed.
QUOTE
Wow. Thanks for all of that information, azn_r4pf4n. It'll help me with my debate cases.
But see the thing is, the term "separation of church and state" can't be violated because it's not there to violate. It can't be found in the entire Constitution.
But see the thing is, the term "separation of church and state" can't be violated because it's not there to violate. It can't be found in the entire Constitution.
no prob. ya thats true, the seperation of chruch and state is not there to violate, it is there to help make a good government that doesn't mix church and state..
QUOTE
no prob. ya thats true, the seperation of chruch and state is not there to violate, it is there to help make a good government that doesn't mix church and state..
Right, but how is that essentially making our democracy more democratic? The example of the Californian atheist that wants "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance - by taking it out, what does it matter? Having it in there doesn't impose the belief of Christianity upon others (if we're talking about it as a reference to the Christian God). That's what separation of church and state is there for - to protect freedom of religion.
there is however the first admendment.
Freedom of religion.
first we'll define
freedom - the ability to do something unhindered.
religion- an establishment that belives in a higher power of some sort.
alright: freedom of religion.
suffice it to say that god is not of all religions. it acknowledges one higher being, leaving behind polytheism.
therefore: any polythiestic will have thier freedom enchroached by any refrences to 'god' in government.
therefore: in god we trust, and under god are unconstitutional.
Freedom of religion.
first we'll define
freedom - the ability to do something unhindered.
religion- an establishment that belives in a higher power of some sort.
alright: freedom of religion.
suffice it to say that god is not of all religions. it acknowledges one higher being, leaving behind polytheism.
therefore: any polythiestic will have thier freedom enchroached by any refrences to 'god' in government.
therefore: in god we trust, and under god are unconstitutional.
LET FAiTH RUN YOUR LiFE...
QUOTE(iiiiiiiYON @ Jan 16 2005, 11:06 PM)
LET FAiTH RUN YOUR LiFE...
amen to that =)
I have faith that those two posts are NOT supported by facts. ^
please make them so that facts are involved, at least.
please make them so that facts are involved, at least.
on the subject of the pledge of allegance banning, consider how many of those athiests say "oh my God". im willing to bet just about all of them. what makes that alright and not the pledge?
QUOTE
there is however the first admendment.
Freedom of religion.
first we'll define
freedom - the ability to do something unhindered.
religion- an establishment that belives in a higher power of some sort.
alright: freedom of religion.
suffice it to say that god is not of all religions. it acknowledges one higher being, leaving behind polytheism.
therefore: any polythiestic will have thier freedom enchroached by any refrences to 'god' in government.
therefore: in god we trust, and under god are unconstitutional.
Freedom of religion.
first we'll define
freedom - the ability to do something unhindered.
religion- an establishment that belives in a higher power of some sort.
alright: freedom of religion.
suffice it to say that god is not of all religions. it acknowledges one higher being, leaving behind polytheism.
therefore: any polythiestic will have thier freedom enchroached by any refrences to 'god' in government.
therefore: in god we trust, and under god are unconstitutional.
Correct, but once again - going back to the initial question: how, by taking this out, creates a more democratic democracy? What I'm saying is that this is allowed in our country today; therefore, we have a loose separation. That being said, our loose separation of church and state sets an examples to other democracies around the world (as we have been doing).
because then the people who are not monotheistic and do not belive in god will not have thier rights violated.
it is the right to practice religon without hindrance.
however, if when going to public buildings you're greated with a christian/jewish/islamic monument, and when pleging allegaince to the country you inevitably say that another religion is correct, your rights are encroached.
it is the right to practice religon without hindrance.
however, if when going to public buildings you're greated with a christian/jewish/islamic monument, and when pleging allegaince to the country you inevitably say that another religion is correct, your rights are encroached.
QUOTE(Azn Kid from NY @ Jan 16 2005, 10:09 PM)
ok...i could respond and rip Kathleens ignorant post into pieces.....but its just not worth my time...and i dont feel like writing alot right now....maybe tomorrow
We'll see about that.
QUOTE
on the subject of the pledge of allegance banning, consider how many of those athiests say "oh my God". im willing to bet just about all of them. what makes that alright and not the pledge?
Good point. Also, how many atheists say G-d damn it? Isn't this acknowledging there is a God?
Seperation of Church and State isn't anywhere in the Constitution.
QUOTE
because then the people who are not monotheistic and do not belive in god will not have thier rights violated.
it is the right to practice religon without hindrance.
however, if when going to public buildings you're greated with a christian/jewish/islamic monument, and when pleging allegaince to the country you inevitably say that another religion is correct, your rights are encroached.
it is the right to practice religon without hindrance.
however, if when going to public buildings you're greated with a christian/jewish/islamic monument, and when pleging allegaince to the country you inevitably say that another religion is correct, your rights are encroached.
How does the pledge interfere with practicing any religion?
because i do not wish to have to acknowledge god every time i wish to pledge allegaince to my country.
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 4:37 PM)
because i do not wish to have to acknowledge god every time i wish to pledge allegaince to my country.
it's against your religion to acknowledge a god?
it's not my religion to acknowledge that there is only one god.
but youre perfectly willing to ackowlage God everytime you want to curse or make any sort of exclamitory comment?
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 10:53 AM)
I have faith that those two posts are NOT supported by facts. ^
please make them so that facts are involved, at least.
please make them so that facts are involved, at least.
hey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol.
hey.. i have to admit that I haven't read the previous posts completely, but I just wanted to get these out before I forget.
1) remember, the resolution states "democracy" in general- therefore strictly using the US constitution and the United States isn't necessarily resolutional. There are many democracies that do not follow the US Constitution. So you can't necessarily use that as a basis off of which to measure democracy.
2) the negative could also argue that democracy is BEST served by something other than strict separation of church and state- voting, or homeland security, for example.
3) i liked this argument and I hope this'll help people with cases: (this is neg btw)
basic connotations:
democracy- majority rule.
voting- a person influencing the state.
strict separation- not letting the church influence the state. (to clarify the following argument. most affs will agree with these definitions.)
therefore, affirming this topic means that the affirmative would be taking away the right to vote from members of churches, because they would use their religion in their voting decisions, making them influence the state with their religion. so in order to achieve a strict separation of church and state, you must take churchgoers' right to vote away from them to prevent the church from influencing the state. and of course taking away the right to vote obviously does not best serve democracy.
also, democracy means majority rule, correct? what if the majority votes to merge the church with the state? the affirmative would be hindering democracy by preventing the majority from accomplishing their decision.
yeah, so i hope that helped those who need cases. sorry that it's mostly neg, but the aff seems pretty straightforward. good luck on your tournaments everyone. :)
ooh. and last weekend i got 1st place speaker in CLD. harr.
1) remember, the resolution states "democracy" in general- therefore strictly using the US constitution and the United States isn't necessarily resolutional. There are many democracies that do not follow the US Constitution. So you can't necessarily use that as a basis off of which to measure democracy.
2) the negative could also argue that democracy is BEST served by something other than strict separation of church and state- voting, or homeland security, for example.
3) i liked this argument and I hope this'll help people with cases: (this is neg btw)
basic connotations:
democracy- majority rule.
voting- a person influencing the state.
strict separation- not letting the church influence the state. (to clarify the following argument. most affs will agree with these definitions.)
therefore, affirming this topic means that the affirmative would be taking away the right to vote from members of churches, because they would use their religion in their voting decisions, making them influence the state with their religion. so in order to achieve a strict separation of church and state, you must take churchgoers' right to vote away from them to prevent the church from influencing the state. and of course taking away the right to vote obviously does not best serve democracy.
also, democracy means majority rule, correct? what if the majority votes to merge the church with the state? the affirmative would be hindering democracy by preventing the majority from accomplishing their decision.
yeah, so i hope that helped those who need cases. sorry that it's mostly neg, but the aff seems pretty straightforward. good luck on your tournaments everyone. :)
ooh. and last weekend i got 1st place speaker in CLD. harr.
QUOTE
hey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol.
check the name of the forum.
true, what you said about democracy.
which actually will make me wonder.
America is a republic.
why the heck are we using the consitution in this (i didn't bring it up...)
actually,
deˇmocˇraˇcy
n. pl. deˇmocˇraˇcies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
The U.S. is a democratic republic, and I think that most debaters will agree that the United States is an example of a democracy- however, it is not the only example, and should not be treated as such. The U.S. Constitution also should not be treated as the epitomy of democracy, or as the last word on anything democratic.
Oh, and try looking at democracies that don't have a strict separation of church and state, and see how well they run. That could be a good argument as well.
deˇmocˇraˇcy
n. pl. deˇmocˇraˇcies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
The U.S. is a democratic republic, and I think that most debaters will agree that the United States is an example of a democracy- however, it is not the only example, and should not be treated as such. The U.S. Constitution also should not be treated as the epitomy of democracy, or as the last word on anything democratic.
Oh, and try looking at democracies that don't have a strict separation of church and state, and see how well they run. That could be a good argument as well.
No, the united states is a republic.
I pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
you really should have known that.
anyways: here's a parody pledge i made in the elections:
i pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republicans, and the democrats. One nation, under bush, divided, with liberty and justice for half.
just added that... no real reason.
I pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
you really should have known that.
anyways: here's a parody pledge i made in the elections:
i pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republicans, and the democrats. One nation, under bush, divided, with liberty and justice for half.
just added that... no real reason.
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 8:00 PM)
check the name of the forum.
i was debating, just not at the part where that person said, "LET FAITH RUN YOUR LIFE," and I said "amen".
A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.
QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 17 2005, 9:05 PM)
A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.
mmm hmmm, exactly. we aren't just a democracy. we're a democratic republic. You're details r great. Republic is definied as a government that isn't a monarchy and democracy is defined as the government of the people electing represenatives and senators and presidents. Therefore, we are a democratic republic.
I just want you to answer a question: How does a democracy differ a republic? The meaning really confuses me a lot when i hear "republic" or "democracy."
QUOTE(azn_r4pf4n @ Jan 17 2005, 11:26 PM)
I just want you to answer a question: How does a democracy differ a republic? The meaning really confuses me a lot when i hear "republic" or "democracy."
OK, it's basically like I stated before- a republic is defined as a government that isn't a monarchy. (the head of state serves for a limited term). However, the term is very broad and can include dictatorships as well as democracies and other forms of government- as long as the head of state is not a monarch.
So basically, a democracy, if it has an elected head of state(for a limited term), is a republic, but a republic isn't always a democracy. Got it? xP That's basically my understanding of it, although I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
If you like bio, think of it as phylums and classes, or phylums and subphylums. heheh.
its a representitive democracy, also known as a republic
thats my final answer, as this is not what were debating. history is the only class i actually pay attention in, so im fairly certain that im right
thats my final answer, as this is not what were debating. history is the only class i actually pay attention in, so im fairly certain that im right
QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 17 2005, 11:05 PM)
A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.
with all due respect, you are wrong. utterly and completely wrong.
a republic is where the people choose someone to represent them and make thier choices.
a democracy is where everyone votes on everything.
when was the last time you voted for the procedures for importing cabbages into the united states? if we were a democracy on the national level in any form, you would have (if you could vote)
On the national level, we are simply a republic.
the only democracy is a town meeting.
upon which i will use that as democracy.
in a town meeting; the people can voice thier opinions. Mob mentality can arise. A majority can easily pick on a minority.
the introduction of religion into this causes the democracy to crumble.
because there are religious leaders in and of themselves, who are not elected. These leaders can use thier religious influence to sway a majority.
In effect; if religion is introduced into democracy; the church MUST allow EVERYONE (even non-members) to vote on ALL church actions, including who the leaders are.
this is not something that religion will allow, and therefore religion needs to remain separate from democracy.
a republic is like a democracy, where the people vote for everything, with elected officials to vote and represent the people. this is also known as a representitive democracy, as stated before
sadolakced acid:
With all due respect, your definition of a democracy is a bit outdated and abusive.
The definition of democracy as one in which everyone has to vote on everything is, again, quite a bit abusive in the context of this debate and topic. Would NFL have chosen this topic for us to only debate on town meetings? Using such a specific and outmoded definition would mean limiting the round to just that, as you stated yourself. This also limits the ground for your opponent to stand on and will not be seen as a fair debate by the judge.
That definition should only be applied to ancient democracies in, say, Greece, and the more common and modern definition does not limit a democracy to being direct. If the 'direct democracy' version applied, then there would be no democracies listed in the world today, whereas there are quite a few.
Anyway, my point is, the U.S. can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A democracy is included in a republic, and it better benefits the round to use the more specific definition.
Again:
Is the U.S. a government by the people? Is the government exercised through elected representatives? I would say yes to both of these questions. Therefore America must be a democracy.
With all due respect, your definition of a democracy is a bit outdated and abusive.
The definition of democracy as one in which everyone has to vote on everything is, again, quite a bit abusive in the context of this debate and topic. Would NFL have chosen this topic for us to only debate on town meetings? Using such a specific and outmoded definition would mean limiting the round to just that, as you stated yourself. This also limits the ground for your opponent to stand on and will not be seen as a fair debate by the judge.
That definition should only be applied to ancient democracies in, say, Greece, and the more common and modern definition does not limit a democracy to being direct. If the 'direct democracy' version applied, then there would be no democracies listed in the world today, whereas there are quite a few.
Anyway, my point is, the U.S. can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A democracy is included in a republic, and it better benefits the round to use the more specific definition.
Again:
QUOTE
deˇmocˇraˇcy (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. deˇmocˇraˇcies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
-The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
n. pl. deˇmocˇraˇcies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
-The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Is the U.S. a government by the people? Is the government exercised through elected representatives? I would say yes to both of these questions. Therefore America must be a democracy.
you are using a contemporary definition. It is a definition which has been adapted in order to make the phrase "The United states is a democracy" correct.
yet i still don't see kids going to the flag and saying
" I pledge alleigance to the flag of the united states of america. and the the representative democracy (or democracy, or democratic republic) for which it stands..."
democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. you live in a democracy, (that's usually city or state government) but the national government is only a republic, and nothing more.
yet i still don't see kids going to the flag and saying
" I pledge alleigance to the flag of the united states of america. and the the representative democracy (or democracy, or democratic republic) for which it stands..."
democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. you live in a democracy, (that's usually city or state government) but the national government is only a republic, and nothing more.
Since I find it annoying and unnecessarily aggressive when people go through and quote each part of someone's post to argue against it, I'll just outline my main points:
1) Yes, I am using a contemporary definition, which in my view is more valid than an antiquated definition of requiring "direct" democracy- however, I have not modified it in any way to make the phrase "The United States is a democracy" correct. That is simply the official definition of democracy according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
2) The Pledge of Allegiance is symbolic. You can't use the Pledge of Allegiance to define a whole nation's government. And like I said, a democracy is a republic. It's just a more specific term.
3) You said it. Democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. And if municipal governments can be democracies, why not national governments? Don't they both vote through a system of representatives? What's preventing a national government from being a democracy when it operates on essentially the same system as a municipal government, only on a larger scale? You'll have to explain this argument more, because I don't understand where you're coming from on this.
btw- this is turning out to be quite an interesting and enjoyable debate. i never thought online debates could be like this, and I'm coming up with some cool new ideas for my cases. Thanks!
1) Yes, I am using a contemporary definition, which in my view is more valid than an antiquated definition of requiring "direct" democracy- however, I have not modified it in any way to make the phrase "The United States is a democracy" correct. That is simply the official definition of democracy according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
2) The Pledge of Allegiance is symbolic. You can't use the Pledge of Allegiance to define a whole nation's government. And like I said, a democracy is a republic. It's just a more specific term.
3) You said it. Democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. And if municipal governments can be democracies, why not national governments? Don't they both vote through a system of representatives? What's preventing a national government from being a democracy when it operates on essentially the same system as a municipal government, only on a larger scale? You'll have to explain this argument more, because I don't understand where you're coming from on this.
btw- this is turning out to be quite an interesting and enjoyable debate. i never thought online debates could be like this, and I'm coming up with some cool new ideas for my cases. Thanks!
Please tell me the last time you voted on a national issue. there is NO national issue that people vote on.
all you vote on are the people who make the decisions.
all those laws and such... you don't vote on them...
the people you elect do.
(if the pledge of alleigance is symbolic, why do school kids say it? why do you say it when you become an american citizen?)
(but i like breakdowns of the opposition's posts...
haha. yes it is unnecissarrily agressive. but it usually leaves them without anything to say back. i find it fun to use. )
edit:
likewise, if you wish to argue about whether church and state should be separated at the national level, then you must take into consideration, once again, that church officials are not elected. therefore, if any church official has extra power, democracy has been wounded.
all you vote on are the people who make the decisions.
all those laws and such... you don't vote on them...
the people you elect do.
(if the pledge of alleigance is symbolic, why do school kids say it? why do you say it when you become an american citizen?)
(but i like breakdowns of the opposition's posts...
haha. yes it is unnecissarrily agressive. but it usually leaves them without anything to say back. i find it fun to use. )edit:
likewise, if you wish to argue about whether church and state should be separated at the national level, then you must take into consideration, once again, that church officials are not elected. therefore, if any church official has extra power, democracy has been wounded.
That's why it's a representative democracy- the people elect representatives, who then vote on national issues. A representative democracy is still a democracy.
School kids say it precisely because it's symbolic. Same for when you become an American citizen. It symbolizes your loyalty to your country.
Okay, I'm still a little confused about your last point. You state that church officials will have extra power- explain how this will happen? And is this under the AFF or NEG? I am left with a very unclear picture of your argument.
School kids say it precisely because it's symbolic. Same for when you become an American citizen. It symbolizes your loyalty to your country.
Okay, I'm still a little confused about your last point. You state that church officials will have extra power- explain how this will happen? And is this under the AFF or NEG? I am left with a very unclear picture of your argument.
The edit is an argument that democracy will be ruined without separation of church and state.
i've given up the whole democracy republic thing. it's getting in the way of the real debate. and, apparently, we are both correct.
i've given up the whole democracy republic thing. it's getting in the way of the real debate. and, apparently, we are both correct.
ohhh, gotcha.
I think that most people would agree that strict separation of church and state means not letting the church influence the state, without exception.
Here is the exception: The people voting to merge the church with the state. Under the affirmative, you would be forcing the strict separation of church and state, therefore denying the people their decision. Wouldn't this go against all the ideals of democracy?
So, in effect, democracy will be ruined with strict separation of church and state.
Also, the neg could push for moderate separation of church and state, rather than strict- not a complete merger, but enough separation that allows every religion to do its own thing. And you don't say anything to prove that religion into the state is a bad thing- neg could say that religion brings morals, which equals better legislative decisions.
btw, are you in debate? (squad?)
I think that most people would agree that strict separation of church and state means not letting the church influence the state, without exception.
Here is the exception: The people voting to merge the church with the state. Under the affirmative, you would be forcing the strict separation of church and state, therefore denying the people their decision. Wouldn't this go against all the ideals of democracy?
So, in effect, democracy will be ruined with strict separation of church and state.
Also, the neg could push for moderate separation of church and state, rather than strict- not a complete merger, but enough separation that allows every religion to do its own thing. And you don't say anything to prove that religion into the state is a bad thing- neg could say that religion brings morals, which equals better legislative decisions.
btw, are you in debate? (squad?)
Very interesting read so far.
Say the majority of the country, which happens to be religious, votes for someone who is religious and he/she wins due the majority rules. This new leader brings his/her religious ideals into politics (no separation of Church and State), doesn't that means the minority is not represented well?
Where I mean to lead this is back to the fact that early Americans were the "minority" when America was under British's rule. It was not fair for England to persecute people for practicing religion a certain way back then. Not to say that Church and State together would persecute minority religions today if they happen hold hands, but it would still hinder in some way.
Say the majority of the country, which happens to be religious, votes for someone who is religious and he/she wins due the majority rules. This new leader brings his/her religious ideals into politics (no separation of Church and State), doesn't that means the minority is not represented well?
Where I mean to lead this is back to the fact that early Americans were the "minority" when America was under British's rule. It was not fair for England to persecute people for practicing religion a certain way back then. Not to say that Church and State together would persecute minority religions today if they happen hold hands, but it would still hinder in some way.
A democracy has the power to destory itself.
it a democracy were to vote that it have a king, it would destory itself. likewise if church and state were merged.
i'm not in debate, because my school is stupid and doesn't have a real debate team.
it a democracy were to vote that it have a king, it would destory itself. likewise if church and state were merged.
i'm not in debate, because my school is stupid and doesn't have a real debate team.
QUOTE
A democracy has the power to destory itself.
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "-Declaration of Independence.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.