Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State Options

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[azn_r4pf4n]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*Kathleen*]

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.

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.

[*tweeak*]

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

[Azn Kid from NY]

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?

[azn_r4pf4n]

[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.

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)?

[*Kathleen*]

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.

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?

[azn_r4pf4n]

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)

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...

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."

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

[Azn Kid from NY]

actually i DID read ur entire Post.....and its a load of ignorant bullshit

[azn_r4pf4n]

actually i DID read ur entire Post.....and its a load of ignorant bullshit

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

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.

[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

[avalon*]

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.

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[azn_r4pf4n]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[iiiiiiiYON]

LET FAiTH RUN YOUR LiFE...

[azn_r4pf4n]

LET FAiTH RUN YOUR LiFE...

amen to that =)

[sadolakced acid]

I have faith that those two posts are NOT supported by facts. ^

please make them so that facts are involved, at least.

[*tweeak*]

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?

[*Kathleen*]

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).

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

  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.

  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.

How does the pledge interfere with practicing any religion?

[sadolakced acid]

because i do not wish to have to acknowledge god every time i wish to pledge allegaince to my country.

[*kryogenix*]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

it's not my religion to acknowledge that there is only one god.

[*tweeak*]

but youre perfectly willing to ackowlage God everytime you want to curse or make any sort of exclamitory comment?

[azn_r4pf4n]

I have faith that those two posts are NOT supported by facts. ^

please make them so that facts are involved, at least.

hey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol.

[anoniez]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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...)

[anoniez]

actually,

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[azn_r4pf4n]

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".

[anoniez]

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.

[azn_r4pf4n]

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."

[anoniez]

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.

[*tweeak*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*tweeak*]

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

[anoniez]

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:

de·moc·ra·cy  (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

  1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

-The American Heritage® 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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[anoniez]

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!

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[anoniez]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[anoniez]

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?)

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[anoniez]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[anoniez]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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).

i don't think any religious minorities feel violated currently.

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.

and the constitution was actually created to keep the government out of the church, not religion out of government.

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

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.

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...)

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..)

"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.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jan 20 2005, 08:29 PM

[anoniez]

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:

"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).

"civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents"

(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.

"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).

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.)

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?

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.

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.

Everyone is affected by their religion, therefore it must enter the government, unless we want a completely robot government.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[racoons > you]

would think that most debaters would agree that the US is the best example of a democracy out there..

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.

[anoniez]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

we are discussing about restricting people of religious backgrounds from enforcing their religious ideals in to the government once they are in office.

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.

[*tweeak*]

it doesnt matter, hes a cool british newbie

hes a lot smarter than it seems, really

[Spirited Away]

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.

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?

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.

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) 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.

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.

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

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.

[azn_r4pf4n]

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

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.

it doesnt matter, hes a cool british newbie

hes a lot smarter than it seems, really

lol, u mean MarchHare2UrAlice?

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*tweeak*]

lol, u mean  MarchHare2UrAlice?

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

[racoons > you]

shut up, darling whom i adore

[*tweeak*]

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

[racoons > you]

i know. im just not particularly friendly

[*tweeak*]

im aware

[Spirited Away]

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.

*Nods*...

That is exactly my concern.

[sammehmyst]

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.

[anoniez]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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 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 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.

-People will not be allowed to worship/pray/express their religion in any state-sponsored activity. e.g. public schools.

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 will not be allowed to vote or go into politics, because that would mean religion would be influencing the state.

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.

[anoniez]

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.

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).

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?

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.

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...

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.

[Spirited Away]

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). 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[sammi rules you]

^ 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.

[anoniez]

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. 

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

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.

thx. I know, I have inferiority issues.

I do not think our Founding Fathers want the separation to be so absolute.

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.

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.

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:

church
n.
  5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

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.

[Spirited Away]

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

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.

thx. I know, I have inferiority issues. 

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

I think what it all boils down to is this.
First of all:
church
n.
  5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

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.

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.

...

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".

Third:
You didn't address my argument about having to take away the right to vote on the affirmative side.

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

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.

... 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?

[anoniez]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

although it is mostly used for christianity.

[Spirited Away]

Wait, what does that mean?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[xGlovex]

[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