Democracy & Strict Separation of Church and State Options

[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.

[sammi rules you]

^ i agree (besides the having doubts on homosexual marraiges).

and religion doesn't affect my life at all. nothing i do has anything to do with religion, since i'm not religious. not everyone's life revolves around religion, and neither should a country's reasoning for laws.

president bush is trying to pass a law to ban gay marraiges. his reasoning is his religion. if he had a legit reason, i wouldn't have a problem with it. however, our laws should not be controlled by one religion when there is a great multitude of religions in our country.

[anoniez]

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. 

If we did that, there would be no clash, because I'd be talking about the resolution under one thing, and you'd be talking about it under another. Therefore we must resolve the definitions. :p

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.

thx. I know, I have inferiority issues.

I do not think our Founding Fathers want the separation to be so absolute.

But that's the definition of strict separation- absolute. And there aren't levels of absoluteness- it either is, or it isn't. You basically just agreed with the opposition.

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.

No, it isn't, if they take their religion into their office. And if it affects anyone, then religion would be part of the state. Keeping church and state separate means keeping them from affecting each other, completely.

I think what it all boils down to is this.
First of all:

church
n.
  5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Second:
The government will be able to interfere with the church. You say that the government can only regulate itself- but when we allow the church into the state, religion will be part of the government, and therefore able to be regulated.
Third:
You didn't address my argument about having to take away the right to vote on the affirmative side.
Fourth:
The vast majority of people in the United States are religious. Sure, there may be a couple people who aren't religious whatsoever, but we have to look to the majority rather than focusing on the minority and small isolated cases.

[Spirited Away]

If we did that, there would be no clash, because I'd be talking about the resolution under one thing, and you'd be talking about it under another. Therefore we must resolve the definitions. :p

If we must resolve, I will not compromise unless the Church is used in reference to the Christian religion and the word religion is used to describe all religion.

thx. I know, I have inferiority issues. 

You were fine at first until you popped out with that accusation... I was like "since when did I say anything to offend her/him?"

But that's the definition of strict separation- absolute. And there aren't levels of absoluteness- it either is, or it isn't. You basically just agreed with the opposition.

Well, seeing how I agree with the opposition in the first place makes it extremely hard for me to argue the other way. I am trying (and struggling) you know, so it is permissible, I'm sure you agree, that I forget myself now and then.

I cannot argue that seperation of religion and state must be absolute because I agree with you that it is almost impossible to withhold one from the other without causing democracy some harm, or change the government to something not of democracy. I'm not bright enough to think of how absolute separation would be possible. So, since we are merely trading ideas and practicing, I will correct myself.

Instead of being on the defense about strict separation, I would ask that you convince me of how and why a loose structure would reasonably satisfy everyone. I would ask that you explain to me how loose is "loose" and I will endeavor to argue how your answer would not be good enough. It will certainly makes things better for me (as I do not have the passion to argue for the other side), and you will still have your practice.

No, it isn't, if they take their religion into their office. And if it affects anyone, then religion would be part of the state. Keeping church and state separate means keeping them from affecting each other, completely.

It would because so long as they do not force their religion into the law it will not affect anyone.

I think what it all boils down to is this.
First of all:
church
n.
  5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Remember when I asked you "would America expect its citizens to conform to the Christian culture"? The definition presented by this dictionary is a perfect example of why I fear conformity is what the Church is after by entering politics. By the by, if I were Buddhist, and someone asked me how often do I go to Chruch even though they know that Buddhists pray in temples, I would think the person is either stupid or very closed minded.

Second:
The government will be able to interfere with the church. You say that the government can only regulate itself- but when we allow the church into the state, religion will be part of the government, and therefore able to be regulated.

...

I don't get it? For religion to be regulated while in the government it would still be a violation. You say that government cannot interfere with what religion does so why would government be able to regulate religion if they were to embrace? I would understand that would be the case if they were one, but you are arguing that they are in a loose separation which makes them two separate entities. Under that rule, religion should be able to do what it wants with the government and the government wouldn't be able to do anything or else it'd be interfering. Maybe we should define this "loose structure".

Third:
You didn't address my argument about having to take away the right to vote on the affirmative side.

That's because I didn't get what you mean by voting on the affirmative side... what is the affirmative side? hihihihi

Fourth:
The vast majority of people in the United States are religious. Sure, there may be a couple people who aren't religious whatsoever, but we have to look to the majority rather than focusing on the minority and small isolated cases.

... Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are minorities, however, combined, they are not so few in numbers. If one religion that is not of the listed come into power, would they be spared from its authority?

[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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

Sorry, but I have to say that no matter what, when people say church, I think Christian. If I want to say other religions, I'll say other religions. Buddhists go to temples and Muslims go to mosques. I cannot see why the word church must represent all relgions.

I think the definition is pointing out exactly what I said I when I explained why I "pick" on Christianity:
"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."

The definition gave the example Church and State because it has to do with Christianity, I think.


Kathleen is everywhere... she's just biding her time...
Anyway, nice talking to you. I almost didn't stick around cB. In fact, I was bombarded with new commitments this new year, but I just couldn't help myself.

Hope to see you around cB again.

[sadolakced acid]

i believe that the word 'church' is synonomous with an established rigid religious order.

although it is mostly used for christianity.

[Spirited Away]

Wait, what does that mean?

[sadolakced acid]

i've heard the word "church" used as a word for a religious order.

like, "the two ways to take over a country are by its church or its army."

in that sentence, chuch doesn't refer to a christian church, but an established religious order.

[Spirited Away]

Oh, that's the first time I've heard of that... haha, thanks!

But to me, if someone wants to take over Tibet, and says, I'm going to take over its church or army... that just doesn't make sense. But hey, if people want to call it church... I guess that's possible.

[xGlovex]

[QUOTE]Our morals, beliefs, and values come from religion - they're what the government officials use to help them with their law-making decisions.[QUOTE]...
yea thats definitly true.
also, i read the whole thing to and its NOT BULLSHIT