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.

[*kryogenix*]

because i do not wish to have to acknowledge god every time i wish to pledge allegaince to my country.

it's against your religion to acknowledge a god?

[sadolakced acid]

it's not my religion to acknowledge that there is only one god.

[*tweeak*]

but youre perfectly willing to ackowlage God everytime you want to curse or make any sort of exclamitory comment?

[azn_r4pf4n]

I have faith that those two posts are NOT supported by facts. ^

please make them so that facts are involved, at least.

hey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol.

[anoniez]

hey.. i have to admit that I haven't read the previous posts completely, but I just wanted to get these out before I forget.
1) remember, the resolution states "democracy" in general- therefore strictly using the US constitution and the United States isn't necessarily resolutional. There are many democracies that do not follow the US Constitution. So you can't necessarily use that as a basis off of which to measure democracy.
2) the negative could also argue that democracy is BEST served by something other than strict separation of church and state- voting, or homeland security, for example.
3) i liked this argument and I hope this'll help people with cases: (this is neg btw)
basic connotations:
democracy- majority rule.
voting- a person influencing the state.
strict separation- not letting the church influence the state. (to clarify the following argument. most affs will agree with these definitions.)
therefore, affirming this topic means that the affirmative would be taking away the right to vote from members of churches, because they would use their religion in their voting decisions, making them influence the state with their religion. so in order to achieve a strict separation of church and state, you must take churchgoers' right to vote away from them to prevent the church from influencing the state. and of course taking away the right to vote obviously does not best serve democracy.

also, democracy means majority rule, correct? what if the majority votes to merge the church with the state? the affirmative would be hindering democracy by preventing the majority from accomplishing their decision.

yeah, so i hope that helped those who need cases. sorry that it's mostly neg, but the aff seems pretty straightforward. good luck on your tournaments everyone. :)
ooh. and last weekend i got 1st place speaker in CLD. harr.

[sadolakced acid]

hey.. i wasn't debating right there, lol.

check the name of the forum.

true, what you said about democracy.

which actually will make me wonder.

America is a republic.

why the heck are we using the consitution in this (i didn't bring it up...)

[anoniez]

actually,

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

The U.S. is a democratic republic, and I think that most debaters will agree that the United States is an example of a democracy- however, it is not the only example, and should not be treated as such. The U.S. Constitution also should not be treated as the epitomy of democracy, or as the last word on anything democratic.

Oh, and try looking at democracies that don't have a strict separation of church and state, and see how well they run. That could be a good argument as well.

[sadolakced acid]

No, the united states is a republic.

I pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

you really should have known that.

anyways: here's a parody pledge i made in the elections:

i pledge allegaince to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republicans, and the democrats. One nation, under bush, divided, with liberty and justice for half.

just added that... no real reason.

[azn_r4pf4n]

check the name of the forum. 

i was debating, just not at the part where that person said, "LET FAITH RUN YOUR LIFE," and I said "amen".

[anoniez]

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.

[azn_r4pf4n]

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.

mmm hmmm, exactly. we aren't just a democracy. we're a democratic republic. You're details r great. Republic is definied as a government that isn't a monarchy and democracy is defined as the government of the people electing represenatives and senators and presidents. Therefore, we are a democratic republic.

I just want you to answer a question: How does a democracy differ a republic? The meaning really confuses me a lot when i hear "republic" or "democracy."

[anoniez]

I just want you to answer a question: How does a democracy differ a republic? The meaning really confuses me a lot when i hear "republic" or "democracy."

OK, it's basically like I stated before- a republic is defined as a government that isn't a monarchy. (the head of state serves for a limited term). However, the term is very broad and can include dictatorships as well as democracies and other forms of government- as long as the head of state is not a monarch.

So basically, a democracy, if it has an elected head of state(for a limited term), is a republic, but a republic isn't always a democracy. Got it? xP That's basically my understanding of it, although I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

If you like bio, think of it as phylums and classes, or phylums and subphylums. heheh.

[*tweeak*]

its a representitive democracy, also known as a republic

thats my final answer, as this is not what were debating. history is the only class i actually pay attention in, so im fairly certain that im right

[sadolakced acid]

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. This specifies nothing about whether or not the state is a democracy, therefore the term 'republic' is not mutually exclusive to democracy. So, saying the U.S. is a republic cannot refute the statement that it is also a democracy. And since the United States fits the definition of democracy, in which government is by the people and exercised through elected representatives, it must be democratic. Therefore it is a democratic republic.

with all due respect, you are wrong. utterly and completely wrong.

a republic is where the people choose someone to represent them and make thier choices.

a democracy is where everyone votes on everything.

when was the last time you voted for the procedures for importing cabbages into the united states? if we were a democracy on the national level in any form, you would have (if you could vote)

On the national level, we are simply a republic.
the only democracy is a town meeting.

upon which i will use that as democracy.


in a town meeting; the people can voice thier opinions. Mob mentality can arise. A majority can easily pick on a minority.

the introduction of religion into this causes the democracy to crumble.
because there are religious leaders in and of themselves, who are not elected. These leaders can use thier religious influence to sway a majority.

In effect; if religion is introduced into democracy; the church MUST allow EVERYONE (even non-members) to vote on ALL church actions, including who the leaders are.

this is not something that religion will allow, and therefore religion needs to remain separate from democracy.

[*tweeak*]

a republic is like a democracy, where the people vote for everything, with elected officials to vote and represent the people. this is also known as a representitive democracy, as stated before

[anoniez]

sadolakced acid:

With all due respect, your definition of a democracy is a bit outdated and abusive.
The definition of democracy as one in which everyone has to vote on everything is, again, quite a bit abusive in the context of this debate and topic. Would NFL have chosen this topic for us to only debate on town meetings? Using such a specific and outmoded definition would mean limiting the round to just that, as you stated yourself. This also limits the ground for your opponent to stand on and will not be seen as a fair debate by the judge.
That definition should only be applied to ancient democracies in, say, Greece, and the more common and modern definition does not limit a democracy to being direct. If the 'direct democracy' version applied, then there would be no democracies listed in the world today, whereas there are quite a few.

Anyway, my point is, the U.S. can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A democracy is included in a republic, and it better benefits the round to use the more specific definition.

Again:

de·moc·ra·cy  (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

  1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Is the U.S. a government by the people? Is the government exercised through elected representatives? I would say yes to both of these questions. Therefore America must be a democracy.

[sadolakced acid]

you are using a contemporary definition. It is a definition which has been adapted in order to make the phrase "The United states is a democracy" correct.

yet i still don't see kids going to the flag and saying

" I pledge alleigance to the flag of the united states of america. and the the representative democracy (or democracy, or democratic republic) for which it stands..."

democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. you live in a democracy, (that's usually city or state government) but the national government is only a republic, and nothing more.

[anoniez]

Since I find it annoying and unnecessarily aggressive when people go through and quote each part of someone's post to argue against it, I'll just outline my main points:

1) Yes, I am using a contemporary definition, which in my view is more valid than an antiquated definition of requiring "direct" democracy- however, I have not modified it in any way to make the phrase "The United States is a democracy" correct. That is simply the official definition of democracy according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

2) The Pledge of Allegiance is symbolic. You can't use the Pledge of Allegiance to define a whole nation's government. And like I said, a democracy is a republic. It's just a more specific term.

3) You said it. Democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive. And if municipal governments can be democracies, why not national governments? Don't they both vote through a system of representatives? What's preventing a national government from being a democracy when it operates on essentially the same system as a municipal government, only on a larger scale? You'll have to explain this argument more, because I don't understand where you're coming from on this.

btw- this is turning out to be quite an interesting and enjoyable debate. i never thought online debates could be like this, and I'm coming up with some cool new ideas for my cases. Thanks!

[sadolakced acid]

Please tell me the last time you voted on a national issue. there is NO national issue that people vote on.

all you vote on are the people who make the decisions.

all those laws and such... you don't vote on them...
the people you elect do.

(if the pledge of alleigance is symbolic, why do school kids say it? why do you say it when you become an american citizen?)
(but i like breakdowns of the opposition's posts... haha. yes it is unnecissarrily agressive. but it usually leaves them without anything to say back. i find it fun to use. )

edit:

likewise, if you wish to argue about whether church and state should be separated at the national level, then you must take into consideration, once again, that church officials are not elected. therefore, if any church official has extra power, democracy has been wounded.

[anoniez]

That's why it's a representative democracy- the people elect representatives, who then vote on national issues. A representative democracy is still a democracy.

School kids say it precisely because it's symbolic. Same for when you become an American citizen. It symbolizes your loyalty to your country.

Okay, I'm still a little confused about your last point. You state that church officials will have extra power- explain how this will happen? And is this under the AFF or NEG? I am left with a very unclear picture of your argument.

[sadolakced acid]

The edit is an argument that democracy will be ruined without separation of church and state.

i've given up the whole democracy republic thing. it's getting in the way of the real debate. and, apparently, we are both correct.

[anoniez]

ohhh, gotcha.

I think that most people would agree that strict separation of church and state means not letting the church influence the state, without exception.

Here is the exception: The people voting to merge the church with the state. Under the affirmative, you would be forcing the strict separation of church and state, therefore denying the people their decision. Wouldn't this go against all the ideals of democracy?
So, in effect, democracy will be ruined with strict separation of church and state.

Also, the neg could push for moderate separation of church and state, rather than strict- not a complete merger, but enough separation that allows every religion to do its own thing. And you don't say anything to prove that religion into the state is a bad thing- neg could say that religion brings morals, which equals better legislative decisions.

btw, are you in debate? (squad?)

[Spirited Away]

Very interesting read so far.

Say the majority of the country, which happens to be religious, votes for someone who is religious and he/she wins due the majority rules. This new leader brings his/her religious ideals into politics (no separation of Church and State), doesn't that means the minority is not represented well?

Where I mean to lead this is back to the fact that early Americans were the "minority" when America was under British's rule. It was not fair for England to persecute people for practicing religion a certain way back then. Not to say that Church and State together would persecute minority religions today if they happen hold hands, but it would still hinder in some way.

[sadolakced acid]

A democracy has the power to destory itself.

it a democracy were to vote that it have a king, it would destory itself. likewise if church and state were merged.

i'm not in debate, because my school is stupid and doesn't have a real debate team.

[Spirited Away]

A democracy has the power to destory itself.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "-Declaration of Independence.