Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State |
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.
Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State |
*Kathleen* |
![]()
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. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
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. |
|
|
![]()
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. |
|
|
![]()
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). ![]() 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. ![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() |