Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State
*Kathleen*
post Jan 15 2005, 07:48 PM
Post #1





Guest






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.
 
 
Start new topic
Replies
anoniez
post Jan 22 2005, 07:24 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Nov 2004
Member No: 63,312



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
post Jan 22 2005, 09:49 PM
Post #3


Quand j'étais jeune...
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 6,826
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 1,272



QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 22 2005, 7:24 PM)
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.


QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
-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.

QUOTE
-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
post Jan 23 2005, 12:21 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Nov 2004
Member No: 63,312



QUOTE
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). stubborn.gif
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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. mellow.gif
 

Posts in this topic
Kathleen   Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State   Jan 15 2005, 07:48 PM
azn_r4pf4n   good job, praticing on debate, haha. yep, that...   Jan 15 2005, 08:25 PM
sadolakced acid   yes, democracy need strict separation of church an...   Jan 15 2005, 08:34 PM
Kathleen   QUOTEgood job, praticing on debate, haha. yep, t...   Jan 16 2005, 07:04 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(Kathleen @ Jan 16 2005, 4:04 PM) [Remem...   Jan 16 2005, 09:22 PM
tweeak   i think that separation often gets out of hand at ...   Jan 16 2005, 08:29 PM
Azn Kid from NY   QUOTEOur morals, beliefs, and values come from rel...   Jan 16 2005, 08:42 PM
Kathleen   QUOTETHAT RIGHT THERE is the exact reason there sh...   Jan 16 2005, 09:33 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(Kathleen @ Jan 16 2005, 6:33 PM) Right,...   Jan 16 2005, 09:58 PM
Azn Kid from NY   actually i DID read ur entire Post.....and its a l...   Jan 16 2005, 09:59 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(Azn Kid from NY @ Jan 16 2005, 6:59 PM)...   Jan 16 2005, 10:01 PM
Azn Kid from NY   ok...i could respond and rip Kathleens ignorant po...   Jan 16 2005, 10:09 PM
kryogenix   QUOTE(Azn Kid from NY @ Jan 16 2005, 10:09 PM...   Jan 17 2005, 04:21 PM
avalon*   hm. i think that the country should stay the way i...   Jan 16 2005, 10:11 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(allthatglitterss @ Jan 16 2005, 7:11 PM...   Jan 16 2005, 10:34 PM
Kathleen   Wow. Thanks for all of that information, azn_r4pf4...   Jan 16 2005, 10:23 PM
Kathleen   QUOTEno prob. ya thats true, the seperation of chr...   Jan 16 2005, 10:45 PM
sadolakced acid   there is however the first admendment. Freedom ...   Jan 17 2005, 01:15 AM
iiiiiiiYON   LET FAiTH RUN YOUR LiFE...   Jan 17 2005, 02:06 AM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(iiiiiiiYON @ Jan 16 2005, 11:06 PM)LET ...   Jan 17 2005, 01:11 PM
sadolakced acid   I have faith that those two posts are NOT supporte...   Jan 17 2005, 01:53 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 10:53 AM...   Jan 17 2005, 07:20 PM
tweeak   on the subject of the pledge of allegance banning,...   Jan 17 2005, 02:22 PM
Kathleen   QUOTEthere is however the first admendment. Free...   Jan 17 2005, 02:58 PM
sadolakced acid   because then the people who are not monotheistic a...   Jan 17 2005, 04:01 PM
sadolakced acid   because i do not wish to have to acknowledge god e...   Jan 17 2005, 04:37 PM
kryogenix   QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 4:37 PM)...   Jan 17 2005, 04:49 PM
sadolakced acid   it's not my religion to acknowledge that there...   Jan 17 2005, 06:10 PM
tweeak   but youre perfectly willing to ackowlage God every...   Jan 17 2005, 06:21 PM
anoniez   hey.. i have to admit that I haven't read the ...   Jan 17 2005, 10:36 PM
sadolakced acid   QUOTEhey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol....   Jan 17 2005, 11:00 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 17 2005, 8:00 PM)...   Jan 17 2005, 11:55 PM
anoniez   actually, de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies ...   Jan 17 2005, 11:36 PM
sadolakced acid   No, the united states is a republic. I pledge a...   Jan 17 2005, 11:41 PM
anoniez   A republic is a form of government where the head ...   Jan 18 2005, 12:05 AM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 17 2005, 9:05 PM)A republ...   Jan 18 2005, 12:26 AM
anoniez   QUOTE(azn_r4pf4n @ Jan 17 2005, 11:26 PM)I ju...   Jan 18 2005, 12:55 AM
sadolakced acid   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 17 2005, 11:05 PM)A repub...   Jan 18 2005, 04:49 PM
tweeak   its a representitive democracy, also known as a re...   Jan 18 2005, 03:26 PM
tweeak   a republic is like a democracy, where the people v...   Jan 18 2005, 05:13 PM
anoniez   sadolakced acid: With all due respect, your defin...   Jan 18 2005, 08:07 PM
sadolakced acid   you are using a contemporary definition. It is a...   Jan 18 2005, 09:19 PM
anoniez   Since I find it annoying and unnecessarily aggress...   Jan 18 2005, 10:05 PM
sadolakced acid   Please tell me the last time you voted on a nation...   Jan 18 2005, 10:11 PM
anoniez   That's why it's a representative democracy...   Jan 18 2005, 10:39 PM
sadolakced acid   The edit is an argument that democracy will be rui...   Jan 18 2005, 10:43 PM
anoniez   ohhh, gotcha. I think that most people would agre...   Jan 18 2005, 11:09 PM
Spirited Away   Very interesting read so far. Say the majority of...   Jan 18 2005, 11:14 PM
sadolakced acid   A democracy has the power to destory itself. it...   Jan 18 2005, 11:57 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTEA democracy has the power to destory itself. ...   Jan 19 2005, 12:02 AM
sadolakced acid   hmm... well, by it's nature a democracy can ...   Jan 19 2005, 12:04 AM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 19 2005, 12:04 AM...   Jan 19 2005, 12:07 AM
anoniez   yes, basically what the negative is saying is that...   Jan 19 2005, 12:56 AM
Spirited Away   Well, I guess I'll try..... *shrugs*. How lo...   Jan 19 2005, 01:14 AM
anoniez   We could just say to continue on as we are now- I ...   Jan 19 2005, 08:37 PM
Spirited Away   jefferson has more to say, will post more later. ...   Jan 19 2005, 09:33 PM
anoniez   Well, your first and second quotes, at least, seem...   Jan 20 2005, 10:16 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 20 2005, 10:16 PM)Well, y...   Jan 20 2005, 10:46 PM
anoniez   QUOTEFor example, if you are Christian, would you ...   Jan 21 2005, 08:59 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 21 2005, 8:59 PM)I'll...   Jan 21 2005, 10:19 PM
racoons > you   QUOTEwould think that most debaters would agree th...   Jan 21 2005, 03:30 PM
tweeak   it doesnt matter, hes a cool british newbie hes a...   Jan 21 2005, 09:35 PM
azn_r4pf4n   QUOTESo then my question is, would a Christian fee...   Jan 21 2005, 11:56 PM
tweeak   QUOTE(azn_r4pf4n @ Jan 21 2005, 11:56 PM)lol,...   Jan 22 2005, 02:46 PM
Spirited Away   Well, what I was leading into was this: If we agr...   Jan 22 2005, 12:04 AM
sadolakced acid   traditionally, the two ways to take over a country...   Jan 22 2005, 02:27 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jan 22 2005, 2:27 PM)...   Jan 22 2005, 04:52 PM
racoons > you   shut up, darling whom i adore   Jan 22 2005, 03:08 PM
tweeak   see, i shouldnt bother. i was working in your defe...   Jan 22 2005, 03:10 PM
racoons > you   i know. im just not particularly friendly   Jan 22 2005, 03:11 PM
tweeak   im aware   Jan 22 2005, 03:12 PM
sammehmyst   No. There will always be, even if it's a small...   Jan 22 2005, 06:17 PM
anoniez   oh my. It seems that we have some major, major mis...   Jan 22 2005, 07:24 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 22 2005, 7:24 PM)oh my. I...   Jan 22 2005, 09:49 PM
anoniez   QUOTEI had a long response in tow and then one cli...   Jan 23 2005, 12:21 AM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 23 2005, 12:21 AM)Argh. s...   Jan 23 2005, 01:15 AM
anoniez   QUOTEIt wouldn't be fair to refer other religi...   Jan 23 2005, 06:40 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 23 2005, 6:40 PM)If we di...   Jan 24 2005, 06:35 PM
sammi rules you   ^ i agree (besides the having doubts on homosexual...   Jan 23 2005, 02:43 PM
anoniez   Alright, first of all, I must now retire from the ...   Jan 24 2005, 07:32 PM
Spirited Away   QUOTE(anoniez @ Jan 24 2005, 7:32 PM)hmm. I w...   Jan 24 2005, 08:10 PM
sadolakced acid   i believe that the word 'church' is synono...   Jan 25 2005, 09:40 PM
Spirited Away   Wait, what does that mean?   Jan 25 2005, 11:53 PM
sadolakced acid   i've heard the word "church" used as...   Jan 27 2005, 03:56 PM
Spirited Away   Oh, that's the first time I've heard of th...   Jan 27 2005, 06:55 PM
xGlovex   [QUOTE]Our morals, beliefs, and values come from r...   Feb 3 2005, 12:53 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: