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]

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.