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.

[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.