hmm...

well, by it's nature a democracy can destroy itself, or else it wouldn't be a democracy.

anyways: if a religious leader were elected, that would be allowed under a democracy, but the democracy would be killed.

Or at least, those who aren't of the majority would have the freedom to pursue happiness (by practicing their faith) violated?

I guess, a loose structure would ensure that both sides, majority and minority, are reasonably satisfied?



And yes, I like to quote specific comments and break them up to better refute an idea rather than bunch them all together and miss out on important points.

yes, basically what the negative is saying is that we should have a moderate (loose) separation to ensure that the minority can still practice their religion while the majority follows the principles of democracy (majority rule).

Someone needs to refute that. I need to see what people will say to my args. It seems we're all on the same side now.

Well, I guess I'll try..... *shrugs*.

How loose is loose without violating the rights of those minorities?

Consider: it is evident that Christian ideology controls some part of the law where homosexual marriages are concerned.

The Constitution doesn't give power over religion to fed government, so why should religion be involved in government?

As Thomas Jefferson eloquently puts it:

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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."




I have to do Stats homework now... Snap.

We could just say to continue on as we are now- I would think that most debaters would agree that the US is the best example of a democracy out there.. so a judge probably wouldn't object bringing it into a round.. anyway
Right now the US obviously does not have strict separation of church and state (faith-based initiatives, and so forth) and it is the best example of a democracy. this is deviating into policy a bit i suppose, but why not continue on as we are now? i don't think any religious minorities feel violated currently.

and the constitution was actually created to keep the government out of the church, not religion out of government. (your thomas jefferson quote agrees with this). most of our founding fathers were christian, and there were many obvious religious influences- references to God, dating of documents as "In the Year of Our Lord, yadadadada" and so on. they didn't object religion influencing government- all they objected to was government interfering with religion. so the statement that strict separation is "not allowing religion to influence the state, without exception" and justifying it with quotes from the founding fathers about separation of church and state wouldn't be accurate. (i think someone did that.. earlier in this thread..)

ok yea, sorry about the incoherency. a bit rushed.

thx btw.

jefferson has more to say, will post more later.

reference to god does not mean they were christian. ben franklin, george washington, thomas paine, as well as jefferson were deists.

as for minorities, i do not mean religious groups alone, but all who would feel voliated, perhaps oppressed, under a govt w/ One religion's influnce.

i apologize 4 the horrid grammar n such. it's time consuming 2 type this out on pocket pc. i will reply 2 u in full in a later post. :)



EDIT::

Alright, here's more:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises" (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents" (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).


"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man" (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).



The people who did not wanted "under God" in the pledge certaintly felt violated. But again, such violation need not to be applied to religious groups alone, but to all groups.



What would be the difference when we have already seen the consequences of religion and govt working hand in hand?



Jefferson was a Deist, therefore, reference to God is no surprise. However, he does not like Government interfering with religion AND vice versa (read the above quotes) with good reason. Vice versa, because there is no difference in the outcome. (Note: I wouldn't know what the outcome would be, so I guess you can argue that there are differences...)



"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man" (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

AND

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).


The above quotes proved that at least one Founding Father thought seperation of Church and State is a good idea.

Well, your first and second quotes, at least, seem to agree with my argument that the constutition was created to keep the government from interfering with religion, not religion from entering the government. (more explanation later in the post.)
For example:




(e.g. the government can't interfere with the church.)

The government interfering with religion and religion affecting the government are two very separate things. First of all, the former violates the right of freedom of religion- the latter does not. Religion must affect the government in some way at any time- there's no way to prevent it. The fact that it affects the government doesn't mean that the government will try to force everyone to conform to that religion. Everyone is affected by their religion, therefore it must enter the government, unless we want a completely robot government. However, the government interfering with churches and telling them what to do does violate the first amendment. This is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.


If you restrict the clergy from entering the government, isn't this actually hurting democracy, which is based on equality, including equality of opportunity? Denying someone the right to participate in the government based on their religious background, which I suppose you plan to do to fix this, doesn't conform to the principles behind democracy.

So, if government can't interfere with religion, then government, once embraced by religion, should no longer have to worry about seperation . Of course, then this would void Jefferson's intention completely. Why have government not interfere with religion, when religion OWNS government, and vice versa?



No force is necessary.

For example, if you are Christian, would you feel comfortable in a setting where a throng of people pray for 10 different gods? I'm sure a person who has no affinity to Christianity would feel uncomfortable, pershaps even threatened, by it's affiliation with the government.

Example, there are Catholic/Christian private schools, why do people of other faiths not attend? Because they would not feel comfortable in that environment.



If so, let ALL religion enter into the government. If not, minorities will be left out yet again, and that defeats the purpose of equality.



So who is there to make sure that once Church and Government are connected intimately, the government will not interfere into the religions of others?



What is the purpose of the Church going into politics anyway?

Again, if we are to push equality and democracy, then why not allow all religions to have a stab at going into government?

We're not discussing restricting people of religious backgrounds to enter office, therefore, we are not limiting democracy; we are discussing about restricting people of religious backgrounds from enforcing their religious ideals in to the government once they are in office.

The US isn't a democracy its a Republic.

The Church has no place whatsoever in Government.

It is one set of guidelines clashing with another.

I'll use the example of a self-proclaimed Catholic college in my city- self-proclaimed catholic, yet 40% of the student body is of other religions. Obviously people of other faiths do attend.



ALL religion does have the opportunity to enter the government, if they so wish. No one said that under the negative we would be restricting religions. The idea is freedom of opportunity.


1) the church and government are not going to be connected intimately.
2) the U.S. government will place restrictions on itself. Just like it does now for the bill of rights.
3) The CHURCH is not going into politics, but people like priests etc. will be given the opportunity to- not for the Church, but for themselves or for whatever reason. It's not going to be for the purpose of furthering the Church, that would be going over the boundary line of moderate separation. Under the affirmative, we would not be allowing people like priests to go into politics simply because of their religious affiliation.


Under the negative, no such thing will happen. Moderate separation does not mean merging church and state- there will still be restrictions.

And to MarchHare2UrAlice, it's painfully obvious that you did not read the previous 2 pages of debate, so I'm not going to waste time repeating all the arguments. Also your statement is so vaguely worded and unsupported that I'm not even sure what you mean.

it doesnt matter, hes a cool british newbie

hes a lot smarter than it seems, really

Why go to a Catholic school when there is a choice of going to a non-Catholic or non religious school? Obviously those 40% do not care, but for the rest of the population, the choice is not to attend at all. So if people might as well move out of the country if they do not like to be under so much Christian influence, eh?

So then my question is, would a Christian feel comfortable being under Buddhist, Atheist, or Agnostic rule?



So once the Church has established its authority in the government, there will be no threat of discrimination towards those who are not of the Christian faith? How does one make sure of that?



1) Why wouldn't they be connected intimately. If they're not, then what is the point of giving the Church power over the government?
2) The US government will place restrictions on itself, but those restrictions would not apply to the Church. So how do we have checks and balances over the power of the Church? As in, what is there to stop the Church from becoming too powerful? If the Church happens to want to discriminate, how would the government stop it without violating the commandment where government is not supposed to interfere with religion?
3) Do priests not represent their faith? Though the Church is not going into politics, it would be allowing its KEY people into it, and by that, there would be no difference from the Church going into politics. They are pawns as they must do things to the convenience of the leaders of their faith. If the priests do not want to press their religious views into the government, then we wouldn't have a problem with separation of Church and State.


Wait.. sorry, I'm lost... what's negative and positive? Neg is neg to Separation or neg to lose separation?

Anyway, there IS NO restrictions upon the Church. If there were restrictions then that would go against what you have been trying to argue for: governments cannot interfere with religion. But because religion can interfere with the government, but not vice versa, there IS NO checks and balances. Meaning, there is no stopping the Church from, lets say, forcing students of all religions to pray to God.





Okay, for the records, you're doing a good job, I'm just bringing up some details that you might face.

good question. It would depend on the personality of the Christian. I'll say it like this:

I'm a Christian myself, and it'd depend on how the Buddhist/Atheist/Agnognistic/Other Relgion rules the country. Seperation of Church and State is a vital thing, and religion and state don't mix.

Religion shouldn't have more control than the state, and the state shouldn't have more control than religion. They both should be balanced. If I was forced to do another thing by the government that has nothing to do with the state and mostly a different religion, that tells me that religion might be going too far, therefore religion and state don't mix.

I go by the seperation of church and state because I don't want a country that doesn't balance religion/state properly and has religion take over state or state take over religion. It doesn't work that way, and it makes other people of the other religion offended.



lol, u mean MarchHare2UrAlice?



nice way of saying it. I know a Chinese Christian School next to my school and some of the parents forced the kids to go there and some of the parents don't even care about what religion the kids are learning there.

Well, what I was leading into was this:

If we agree on a loose structure instead of complete seperation, how would we deal with checks and balances of power when the government cannot interfere with religion. So while the government has restrictions, the Church does not. Which makes the Church the most powerful entity in the country... Hmmm... tyranny anyone?

traditionally, the two ways to take over a country is to take over it's army or take over it's church.

the United states solved this problem by 1. making the head of the army the head of state.
2. making the church powerless.

let the church have power, and the United States is open to revolution.

yes, i feel the need to compensate for james. i shouldnt bother though

shut up, darling whom i adore

see, i shouldnt bother. i was working in your defence, by the way

i know. im just not particularly friendly

im aware

*Nods*...

That is exactly my concern.

No. There will always be, even if it's a small group, people who disagree or something that doesn't work. We shouldn't change it right now.

oh my.
It seems that we have some major, major misunderstanding issues here.
This is why we should have definitions. I was talking about 'church' as in, religion. NOT the christian church.
Negative is the side that is negating the resolution. Affirmative is the side affirming the resolution.
Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state.

Here is what is going to happen under the negative side:
-People will be allowed to worship/pray/express their religion when they choose, where they choose. The government will not restrict people's worshipping. ex. have nativity scenes in their front yards if they want, or wear yarmulkes. This would not happen under the affirmative.
-Religious people will be allowed to go into politics if they so wish, but see the point below:
-The government will not allow religions to force people to convert.
-Religion will NOT be taking over/ruling/dominating the government. This seems to be the biggest issue on the affirmative side. There will, of course, be restrictions on the church as well as the government. This is just like the Bill of Rights today. You ask who will enforce these restrictions. Who enforces the bill of rights? The government. Who will enforce the restrictions of loose separation? The government.
-Religion already influences the government, since people's religion->their morals-> their decisions, you can't ever have religion completely separate from the state anyway, unless you force everyone to be an athiest, which would be violating the principles of democracy. This is why the affirmative does not best serve democracy.

Here is what is going to happen under the affirmative side:
-People will not be allowed to worship/pray/express their religion in any state-sponsored activity. e.g. public schools.
-Religious people will not be allowed to vote or go into politics, because that would mean religion would be influencing the state.
-See last point under the neg.

I had a long response in tow and then one click brought me to a "page cannot load/find" and I lost it all. Oh well.

I didn't think to have the Church symbolize all religion because the Church cannot symbolize all religions/beliefs. It would not be sound to refer to Atheists as "Church" to me.




Here we go again, I hope it will go through this time:

The government can check its own power because of checks and balances of the branches and even the govern have some say at times, however, how would we place restriction on the Church (or any group of religion) once it's in power? The government cannot interfere with the Church or else it defeats the purpose of the government allowing the Church into politics in the first place. Why have the government interfere with what the Church does then say that they government cannot disallow the Church into government?

Religion already influences the government... indirectly. Yet, not even at full force, the Church has already hinder several minority groups from their pursuit of happiness and stifling their life styles, i.e homosexuals, people who are angry at the sticker that claims evolution to be a theory and not fact, people who are upset at the "under God" phrase in the pledge...

We do not need to convert everyone to Atheism; we only need to require that they leave their religious ideals at home and not at the office where their decisions will effect those who do not share their belief.


Why would that be a bad thing? Students can still pray in front of schools if they want so long as what they're doing doesn't bother other students. If the school have a prayer and forces everyone to pray, lets say to Yaweh, how would students who do not believe in Yaweh feel about that? Left out? Yes. Uncomfortable? Yes. Unfair? Definately.



Religious people would still be able to go into politics if they do so for the sake of politics/government and not for the best interest of their religion. They can still have common sense to be fair and just without asking, lets say God this time, for guidance.

Argh. same here just now, lol.

First of all, It would be unfair to other religions to limit the debate to just the Christian church.
And please don't be condescending(as a favor- i had a bad experience with it once, and it really pisses me off, and i don't like being pissed off).

Because there are different levels of allowing the religion into the state. For example, a theocracy would be the most extreme. Then we have state-sponsored religions. You get the point. What the negative is aiming for is the minimum. We have to allow some religion into the government- not that we could stop it anyway- but we can't allow religion to control the government. This is why we must have restrictions.

Well, these disads are all well and good and dandy. But you can't separate church and state strictly; it's not possible, because religion affects everything each person does, all the time. So even though there are all these disads (disadvantages)- you can't fix them. They're still going to exist no matter what, because, again, strict separation of church and state isn't possible. And there are always going to be people upset at anything- I bet a lot more people would be upset if we took "under God" out of the pledge, or allowed gay marriages. Hmm. utility or no utility? That is the question.
And the only way to accomplish strict separation of church and state is to prevent those who are religious from affecting the government in any way- that is, to prevent them from voting. This would obviously not benefit democracy.
But my point is, you can't just take religion out of people's lives at certain times. Like, "okay from 8-3 o'clock today you will not be religious." Religion is an integral part of each person that you can't just take out.
I could dig up some philosophers to support that argument, but after a day filled with apps and SAT IIs I feel too tired.

Micron was doing some updates I bet.

It wouldn't be fair to refer other religions as "Church", in my humble opinion. I guess, I'll just stick to my definition and you'll just stick to yours.

Hmm, I was not aiming to condescend you in any one of my rebuttal. I would like you to point out when I am so I may clarify it. If I wanted to belittle, I wouldn't have praised you like I did in one of my previous posts. If you feel like I'm doing it on purpose, let me know and I'll cease this discussion.



Again, my question was, how do we place such restrictions when the government cannot interfere with the Church. This is my main concern.



Okay, I have my own doubts about homosexuals marriages but my reserves are not rooted from any religion. However, I wonder how many in the government who disapprove of homosexual marriages can say the same? No, we cannot completely disconnect the link religion has with government completely, and I do not think our Founding Fathers want the separation to be so absolute. I think they had in mind that, when religious institutions seize power and has the authority to punish, torture, or persecute, they are a threat as was the case with King Henry the VIII, the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials aka witchhunt (not federal but is still a good simulation)...etc.

I need to digress from this a little to introduce something that I will lead back into my arguement:

I've read and heard by ear from many Christians, as I work at a Christian organization, who like to think of America as a Christian nation, and that people, regardless of their religious affiliation, should be accounted for comprehending and adapting to Christian culture.

With that in mind, I would like to know if THAT is US of America where the Church, by my definition that would be the Christian Church, is involved in government, would be like. As in, would America expect its citizens to conform to the Christian culture?

Know that I'm picking on Christianity simply because it's true that I've heard those remarks, and that it is evident that Christianity is why people are fussing over separation of Church and State.

Again, if that is not expected to happen, how would we stop it from happening if it were to start? There would be no preventive measures simply because the government cannot intervene with religion doings.



Perhaps they can take their religion into office but keep it out of laws that affect those who are not of the same faith? That would still be keeping Church and State separate.

Oh, I am sure there are as many philosophers who are for the separation as there are philosophers who are against the separation, and both sides would be very qualified in presenting their case. But no matter what people say, life style is why our Nation was formed. Christians who seeked religious freedom were seeking a life style where they needn't fear persecution. What I fear now is how would non-Christians be guaranteed that their life styles will not be swayed towards Christianity and they will not face persecution, discrimination if government embraces Church.

^ i agree (besides the having doubts on homosexual marraiges).

and religion doesn't affect my life at all. nothing i do has anything to do with religion, since i'm not religious. not everyone's life revolves around religion, and neither should a country's reasoning for laws.

president bush is trying to pass a law to ban gay marraiges. his reasoning is his religion. if he had a legit reason, i wouldn't have a problem with it. however, our laws should not be controlled by one religion when there is a great multitude of religions in our country.

If we did that, there would be no clash, because I'd be talking about the resolution under one thing, and you'd be talking about it under another. Therefore we must resolve the definitions. :p


thx. I know, I have inferiority issues.


But that's the definition of strict separation- absolute. And there aren't levels of absoluteness- it either is, or it isn't. You basically just agreed with the opposition.


No, it isn't, if they take their religion into their office. And if it affects anyone, then religion would be part of the state. Keeping church and state separate means keeping them from affecting each other, completely.

I think what it all boils down to is this.
First of all:

Second:
The government will be able to interfere with the church. You say that the government can only regulate itself- but when we allow the church into the state, religion will be part of the government, and therefore able to be regulated.
Third:
You didn't address my argument about having to take away the right to vote on the affirmative side.
Fourth:
The vast majority of people in the United States are religious. Sure, there may be a couple people who aren't religious whatsoever, but we have to look to the majority rather than focusing on the minority and small isolated cases.

If we must resolve, I will not compromise unless the Church is used in reference to the Christian religion and the word religion is used to describe all religion.


You were fine at first until you popped out with that accusation... I was like "since when did I say anything to offend her/him?"


Well, seeing how I agree with the opposition in the first place makes it extremely hard for me to argue the other way. I am trying (and struggling) you know, so it is permissible, I'm sure you agree, that I forget myself now and then.

I cannot argue that seperation of religion and state must be absolute because I agree with you that it is almost impossible to withhold one from the other without causing democracy some harm, or change the government to something not of democracy. I'm not bright enough to think of how absolute separation would be possible. So, since we are merely trading ideas and practicing, I will correct myself.

Instead of being on the defense about strict separation, I would ask that you convince me of how and why a loose structure would reasonably satisfy everyone. I would ask that you explain to me how loose is "loose" and I will endeavor to argue how your answer would not be good enough. It will certainly makes things better for me (as I do not have the passion to argue for the other side), and you will still have your practice.



It would because so long as they do not force their religion into the law it will not affect anyone.



Remember when I asked you "would America expect its citizens to conform to the Christian culture"? The definition presented by this dictionary is a perfect example of why I fear conformity is what the Church is after by entering politics. By the by, if I were Buddhist, and someone asked me how often do I go to Chruch even though they know that Buddhists pray in temples, I would think the person is either stupid or very closed minded.



...

I don't get it? For religion to be regulated while in the government it would still be a violation. You say that government cannot interfere with what religion does so why would government be able to regulate religion if they were to embrace? I would understand that would be the case if they were one, but you are arguing that they are in a loose separation which makes them two separate entities. Under that rule, religion should be able to do what it wants with the government and the government wouldn't be able to do anything or else it'd be interfering. Maybe we should define this "loose structure".



That's because I didn't get what you mean by voting on the affirmative side... what is the affirmative side? hihihihi



... Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are minorities, however, combined, they are not so few in numbers. If one religion that is not of the listed come into power, would they be spared from its authority?

Alright, first of all, I must now retire from the battlefield, as this (and cB in general) is interfering way too much with my schoolwork. But I'll make a few token arguments, and thank you very very much, it's been extremely informative and entertaining.

Oops, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone is familiar with debate terminology. OK well you are on the affirmative side, which is for strict separation of church and state. I am on the negative, negating the resolution (saying that democracy is NOT best served by a strict separation of church and state).
I guess I should've phrased it more clearly- as the affirmative, you are restricting people's right to vote, because to keep the church (regardless of definition) from influencing the state, you must not allow citizens who are members of the church to vote, because that would be influencing the state.

I am a her.
Yeah, it's just that I've had that phrase used on me a bit too many times. So I go up in flames. Heheh. :p Shouldn't do that.

Well, referring to the absolute separation of church and state, you could contradict my definition that strict means absolute, and say that it means rigid. That would get around the absolute/not absolute thing.

'church' doesn't always have to mean Christian. I'm sure there are other religions that have churches. And that's the definition right there in the dictionary, even with a little example saying 'separation of church and state.' This shows that that definition is what the resolution is clearly referring to.
PLUS- the 'Church' is the Christian church. the 'church' (not capitalized, like in the resolution) is the definition from the dictionary. If you want to get nitpicky about grammar. heheh.

Addressing loose separation: For example, you can have oil and water mixed together in a beaker. They are in the same container and mixture(the government), yet they are still separate, but are both in the government. The oil(religion) is still in the beaker, and part of the mixture. By making religion part of government, which is what we're doing with a loose separation (permitting religion into the government in certain situations), we make it able to be affected by the government in situations.

But yeah.. that's a problem I've been encountering in my rounds- judges don't understand the definition of 'loose/moderate separation' clearly enough. hmm.

Oh, and I was referring to the 'minority' as atheists. (in response to touch my monkey)

hmm. I wonder where the original creator of this post is, and if she got anything out of this.
Alright, well I bid thee adieu. I'm going to try to stick to my resolution of no more cB, at least until spring break or so. good luck all.

Sorry, but I have to say that no matter what, when people say church, I think Christian. If I want to say other religions, I'll say other religions. Buddhists go to temples and Muslims go to mosques. I cannot see why the word church must represent all relgions.

I think the definition is pointing out exactly what I said I when I explained why I "pick" on Christianity:
"Know that I'm picking on Christianity simply because it's true that I've heard those remarks, and that it is evident that Christianity is why people are fussing over separation of Church and State."

The definition gave the example Church and State because it has to do with Christianity, I think.


Kathleen is everywhere... she's just biding her time...
Anyway, nice talking to you. I almost didn't stick around cB. In fact, I was bombarded with new commitments this new year, but I just couldn't help myself.

Hope to see you around cB again.

i believe that the word 'church' is synonomous with an established rigid religious order.

although it is mostly used for christianity.

Wait, what does that mean?

i've heard the word "church" used as a word for a religious order.

like, "the two ways to take over a country are by its church or its army."

in that sentence, chuch doesn't refer to a christian church, but an established religious order.

Oh, that's the first time I've heard of that... haha, thanks!

But to me, if someone wants to take over Tibet, and says, I'm going to take over its church or army... that just doesn't make sense. But hey, if people want to call it church... I guess that's possible.

[QUOTE]Our morals, beliefs, and values come from religion - they're what the government officials use to help them with their law-making decisions.[QUOTE]...
yea thats definitly true.
also, i read the whole thing to and its NOT BULLSHIT