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]

Alright, first of all, I must now retire from the battlefield, as this (and cB in general) is interfering way too much with my schoolwork. But I'll make a few token arguments, and thank you very very much, it's been extremely informative and entertaining.

Oops, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone is familiar with debate terminology. OK well you are on the affirmative side, which is for strict separation of church and state. I am on the negative, negating the resolution (saying that democracy is NOT best served by a strict separation of church and state).
I guess I should've phrased it more clearly- as the affirmative, you are restricting people's right to vote, because to keep the church (regardless of definition) from influencing the state, you must not allow citizens who are members of the church to vote, because that would be influencing the state.

I am a her.
Yeah, it's just that I've had that phrase used on me a bit too many times. So I go up in flames. Heheh. :p Shouldn't do that.

Well, referring to the absolute separation of church and state, you could contradict my definition that strict means absolute, and say that it means rigid. That would get around the absolute/not absolute thing.

'church' doesn't always have to mean Christian. I'm sure there are other religions that have churches. And that's the definition right there in the dictionary, even with a little example saying 'separation of church and state.' This shows that that definition is what the resolution is clearly referring to.
PLUS- the 'Church' is the Christian church. the 'church' (not capitalized, like in the resolution) is the definition from the dictionary. If you want to get nitpicky about grammar. heheh.

Addressing loose separation: For example, you can have oil and water mixed together in a beaker. They are in the same container and mixture(the government), yet they are still separate, but are both in the government. The oil(religion) is still in the beaker, and part of the mixture. By making religion part of government, which is what we're doing with a loose separation (permitting religion into the government in certain situations), we make it able to be affected by the government in situations.

But yeah.. that's a problem I've been encountering in my rounds- judges don't understand the definition of 'loose/moderate separation' clearly enough. hmm.

Oh, and I was referring to the 'minority' as atheists. (in response to touch my monkey)

hmm. I wonder where the original creator of this post is, and if she got anything out of this.
Alright, well I bid thee adieu. I'm going to try to stick to my resolution of no more cB, at least until spring break or so. good luck all.