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.

[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.

[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.