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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

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?

mmmhmm.. thats true.



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)?

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)



started on 1892. read more...



He was a Baptist, yet he didn't inclue the term "one nation under God."



I'm surprised Congress adopted that change. Didn't they remember the seperation of church and state?



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.



iite.. as i said above... the term "Under God," was placed during 1954, a time when immagration wasn't allowed until around 1965.



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

actually, her post isn't ignorant. they are facts.



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.

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.

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.



- umm... yea, Christianity has a tremendous infulence, especially in the south.



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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

We'll see about that.



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.



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.