That's our new debate topic, and I'm posting it here for a very good reason. I need opinions on how strict separation of church and state isn't best for democracy. I have my aff case (supporting the resolution) worked out, but I'm drawing a huge blank on the neg.

I have a month, so I'll think on it more, but my bias is really obvious on this resolution.

Hmm, does it have to be "to democracy" or can it be "to society" ?

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Hmm, does it have to be "to democracy" or can it be "to society" ?

unfortunately it has to be democracy; wording is really strict in this event.

Well I would see how a "lax" seperation could be good for democracy if there was a sense of inclusivness of religions instead of just being a matter of whether or not the 10 Commandments can be displayed.

Id on't see how a lack of seperation could be beneficial. And I'm not talking as an atheist, just a reasonable person. The seperation protects religious minorities from the tyrrany of the majority.

Unless this was a democracy where they just did whatever the majority wanted, to hell with anyone else, then it could form common bounds, but there you're getting closer to fascism.

On the other hand I could see how accepting religion as a normal function within society and government could lead to religious tolerance. Christians, muslims, and jews openly practicing their faith within society and government could lead to the end of these stigmas placed upon religion in government. As long as doctorine isn't used, I see no problems with incorporating religion into governmental processes.

This is interesting, because I recently heard this thing by T.R. Reed on NPR called "The United States of Europe."

In it, he describes Europe's general opinion of the US. I mentioned somewhere...I think in the political forum about the death penalty in Europe, but the most interesting is that in the haven of (western) religious culture and (western) origin, they have the largest seperation of church and state. Even fundamentalists mostly stay out of governmental/political issues. There are no debates in politics about abortion or gay marriage or the like (legalized in spain--woo!), because it would be ridiculous to even mention.

You know how you might titter a bit if you see a movie about hicks (honestly, you know you do)? You think, "how backward." Well, it is interesting to note that it is completely normal for any politician, especially the president, where it is almost required, to end a speech with "God Bless America." If Tony Blair said "God Bless Britain," he would be laughed off of the stage, despite the fact that probably all of Parliament is religious. As Reed put it, "people in Holland laugh when they see that, like, 'what a backwards country.'"

Anyway. Seperation of church and state should be and is a legal requirement. If there was a mix, then it would be like basing political decisions off of something even more fickle and subjective, like ice cream flavors.

Me thinks that there is good seperation from the state, and bad seperation from the state. Forgive my talking exclusively in terms of xians though...

Good seperation from the state is the kind that allowed the liberal democracies of the west to develop, where christians strongly advocated for a secular government, in order to ensure religious freedoms.

Bad seperation is where christians think that their beliefs have no political aspects, where christianity is reduced to merely an inner spirituality.

To me, the very basis of christianity (the kingdom of God) is highly political, and very subversive. However, that vision has been so mutilated by (particularly American) xians that the intended message has been hijacked and harnessed by the system it was meant to undermine.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:

This is interesting, because I recently heard this thing by T.R. Reed on NPR called "The United States of Europe."

In it, he describes Europe's general opinion of the US. I mentioned somewhere...I think in the political forum about the death penalty in Europe, but the most interesting is that in the haven of (western) religious culture and (western) origin, they have the largest seperation of church and state. Even fundamentalists mostly stay out of governmental/political issues. There are no debates in politics about abortion or gay marriage or the like (legalized in spain--woo!), because it would be ridiculous to even mention.

You know how you might titter a bit if you see a movie about hicks (honestly, you know you do)? You think, "how backward." Well, it is interesting to note that it is completely normal for any politician, especially the president, where it is almost required, to end a speech with "God Bless America." If Tony Blair said "God Bless Britain," he would be laughed off of the stage, despite the fact that probably all of Parliament is religious. As Reed put it, "people in Holland laugh when they see that, like, 'what a backwards country.'"

Anyway. Seperation of church and state should be and is a legal requirement. If there was a mix, then it would be like basing political decisions off of something even more fickle and subjective, like ice cream flavors.

Coming from a (geographically) European country I can assure you that abortion is very much an issue here. It's just debated under the aspect of ethics and not religion. We also have Christian political parties (two, as far as I know in my country...) of which one behaves a little religious from time to time. But never to the extent of 'God bless you' after a speech.

It's true that we see it as being a little bit funny to hear your president say this everytime he ends a speech. In my opinion church and state are two seperate things which should not be mixed. It's not a problem if a politician is religious in his private life, that's non of my business. But in parliament it's about the people and they are of different ethnic/religious origin and therefore the issue of religion should be personal and only what is common to all/most citizens should be discussed in politics. (e.g. taxes, foreign affairs, military, etc.)

For the pro side I could only see benefits of 'non-separation' if all citizens were of the same religious belief or if other religious groups were accepted with no difference in rights and privileges AND if those belonging to other religious groups accept that the government is based on a different religion than their own. Additionally to that you must consider foreign affairs with a secular government or even with one basing its government on a different religion. (e.g. Jewish vs. Muslim, to take an extreme example.)

In conclusion: In order for a state to call itself truly democratic, it has to be secular. Otherwise it would have a bias against other religions (which could occur within that nation) and would therefore not respect those minorities' rights correctly.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

That's our new debate topic, and I'm posting it here for a very good reason. I need opinions on how strict separation of church and state isn't best for democracy.

Nobody seems to be helping you, so I'll try:

First, since you said the wording is strict, make sure you know the words.

quote:www.dictionary.com reveals:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

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

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

You might stress the 'by the people, for the people' bit, especially definition # 4. If a democracy is supposed to represent the people, and people want religion, then surely it has a part in democracy.

Another angle: if church and state are strictly separated, then the state has no laws regarding religion, even laws providing religious equality. So a religion could run rampant, persecuting other religions and running outside the law. This isn't good for any system of government.

Church and State should never mix, ever. This is what scares me so much about Bush. That can only lead to problems, as idiots try to force their religions on others.

quote:Originally posted by Parallax:

Church and State should never mix, ever. This is what scares me so much about Bush. That can only lead to problems, as idiots try to force their religions on others.

What about situations like in Latin America where people like Oscar Romero (a priest) whose religious beliefs cause them to challenge unjust and repressive governments? Isn't that a situation where the church becomes involved (legitmately?) in the affairs of state?

church should've never existed, and we should start 2day, 2 eliminate this despicaple mental disease called religion.

quote:Originally posted by belladonnakillz:

church should've never existed, and we should start 2day, 2 eliminate this despicaple mental disease called religion.

Capital idea.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

What about situations like in Latin America where people like Oscar Romero (a priest) whose religious beliefs cause them to challenge unjust and repressive governments? Isn't that a situation where the church becomes involved (legitmately?) in the affairs of state?

There's no such thing as a "legitimate" mixing of church and state. THE TWO SHOULD NEVER MIX, EVER.

Parallax, fundementally, i agree. However, does that mean only atheists can hold political office? Even in that case, are the atheists allowed to talk about their lack of faith?

Are we talking about the physical church being present in government or religion being present in government? I can't really tell.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Parallax, fundementally, i agree. However, does that mean only atheists can hold political office? Even in that case, are the atheists allowed to talk about their lack of faith?

No, people of any or no faith should be allowed to hold political office, and they should be able to talk about it as much as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with their jobs. That's all that matters, that the two NEVER mix.

quote:Originally posted by Parallax:

No, people of any or no faith should be allowed to hold political office, and they should be able to talk about it as much as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with their jobs. That's all that matters, that the two NEVER mix.

Then where do morals come from? Since morals = political views, and most people from age 10-20 aren't farsighted enough to use an objective morality device (categorical imperative?) they use religion or societal bias. Religion is just morals.

You can have morals without religion.

quote:Originally posted by Parallax:

There's no such thing as a "legitimate" mixing of church and state. THE TWO SHOULD NEVER MIX, EVER.

And that's where I disagree. Although I suspect we have different concepts of the role of church, and role of state.

What role do you see the church, or any other religious organisation having in any society?

People shouldn't have to deal with any kind of religion if they don't want to. If religion becomes part of the government, it will be forced on people, and that's unacceptable.

Yeah i agree that religious institutions and government power aren't a good mix.

I suppose my question is, do you see religiously motivated people having a place in political/social debates?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:



I suppose my question is, do you see religiously motivated people having a place in political/social debates?

Of course, because if they weren't allowed then it really wouldn't be much of a democracy then would it?

Yes, it's part of our 1st Amendment rights. If Muslims want to stand up and talk about how they think all women should be forced to wear burkas, they should be allowed to.

However, I reserve the right to laugh at them and belittle them endlessly, as I am also within my rights to do so.

It's no ones place to decide who can and can't speak about their views. Anyone, and I mean anyone, should be allowed to say whatever they want with no exceptions.

[This message has been edited by Parallax (edited 12-10-2004).]

Secularity is best. Is prevents and bias by the state towards religion.

Religion is a set of rules, which are not supposed to change. But the whole point of democracy is that the governtment should change, and adapt to the people it governs.

Religious beliefs have become outdated. All major religions are critically flawed. For example, the Bible says "thou shalt not kill". But if the government is not allowed to kill, then how do they deal with those threatening lethal force?

There is nothing wrong with practicing religion, just so long as it does not infringe upon human rights.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

Secularity is best. Is prevents and bias by the state towards religion.



But what about having a congress where the majority of them are deeply religious? As long as the state doesn't side with a religion, would it be ok for the leaders to use religion? I mean is it wrong for the president to use faith and prayer to guide him or her when making decisions? Is it wrong to use morality for the basis of lawmaking? Is it wrong for religious leaders(bishops, imams, rabbis) to also hold political positions?

I think everyone agrees that the church should not be directly tied to the government, but what about religion in the government?

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

There is nothing wrong with practicing religion, just so long as it does not infringe upon human rights.

Bingo.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Is it wrong to use morality for the basis of lawmaking?

You can have morals without religion. Besides, most of the religious morals are stupid, pointless, and outdated.

quote:Originally posted by Parallax:

You can have morals without religion. Besides, most of the religious morals are stupid, pointless, and outdated.

In your opinion.

Anyways what about people already religious? Should they just disregard their faith system when making important decisions?

Do you think it is alright for politicians to use their faith when making decisions?

quote:There is nothing wrong with practicing religion, just so long as it does not infringe upon human rights.

Neither is there anything wrong with practicing governance, as long as it doesn't infringe on human rights. Part of religion's role (and a number of other groups) within a society should be to ensure that human rights are being protected.