2
   

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:20 pm
Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it! Very Happy
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 49,179 • Replies: 1,258
No top replies

 
hyper426
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:44 pm
Sorry, I was in a hurry, and could not write much (in the middle of class). This looks fun, but i can think of more neg. arguments than aff. I need some help on that. I mean, Tom Jeff wrote about SoCS, but did not add those very words to the Bill of Rights. The BoR just says that the gov. cannot specifically enact laws to govern religion. But it will also be necessary to look at other countries, also. Rome (classical), or India, which has a successful democracy that does not practice SoCS. No clue about values and criteria yet. Heck, i just got the topic today.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:45 pm
Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...
hyper426 wrote:
Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state.

Yes, I concur.

Q.E.D.
0 Replies
 
hyper426
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:49 pm
that was quick, but would you please explain your view? Anyone can say yes or no, but can you convince me that you are right?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:55 pm
hyper426 wrote:
that was quick, but would you please explain your view? Anyone can say yes or no, but can you convince me that you are right?

I'm right because I said it. Didn't you see the Q.E.D. that I appended to my answer? That pretty much seals the deal right there.
0 Replies
 
hyper426
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 02:59 pm
Q.E.D.?????? no clue. Please explain that, and, please explain HOW you are right so that my very simple mind will understand it. ; D
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 04:10 pm
Democracy is best served by a strict separation of..... soft money and candidates.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 04:49 am
The best definition I've heard since long about democracy.
And, what has religion to do with a politic system?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 06:02 am
The first amendment "establishment clause" is both a protection of religion and a protection from religion.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:04 am
Sorry, hyper426, just having some fun with you. Actually, I find it hard to imagine taking the negative on that debate topic. How does one demonstrate that democracy is best served by something less than a strict separation of church and state?

Perhaps a better way of posing the question is: "did the framers of the First Amendment intend for there to be a strict separation of church and state?"
0 Replies
 
hyper426
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 02:59 pm
Exactly. I mixed aff. and neg. earlier. I meant that I was having trouble on neg. I am going to have to really research this one, even though i will only end up debating it once. That sucks. Anywayz, i could tell you were just playing. Oh, and Chicago is a really fun city, and I can see where you got your long windedness from. ; )
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 11:30 pm
I think even a cursory review of history shows that the vast majority of the founders and architects of the Constituion expected most Americans to be religious and involved in religious activities and that this was a good thing. Some went so far as to suggest the Constitution wouldn't work otherwise.

I believe the founders and architects of the Constitution were determined that the federal government would not have the power to declare a state religion nor would it have any authority of any kind over what a persons must or must not believe in matters of religious faith. And finally it insisted that government would have no power to prevent people from exercizing their religious faith however they wished short of being a public nuiscance, disturbing the peace, or infringing on the rights of others.

They never thought it to be a right to never have to see or hear anything religious in public settings, nor would they have ever envisioned the strenuous applications of separation of church and state as are enforced by the courts in these modern times.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 08:16 am
Foxfyre,

Your post provides a good perspective on this topic. In general, though, isn't judicial review a good thing to have in a democracy?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:24 am
Judicial review absolutely when there are conflicts in interpretation of law. The law, however, should never be made by judges. Judges should interpret the law and rule on the letter and intent of the law. Once judges start deciding for themselves what the law should be, we are screwed for who is there to judge the judges?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:48 am
Ideally, law should be made by the legislative branch of government but law is also made by judicial precedent. (This may sound like I am quibbling but it is also a characteristic of our society.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 10:40 am
It may be a characterization of our society, but it does corrupt the intent of the Constitution I think in which the judges are to keep the executive and legislative branches of government 'legal'. When judges make law themselves, especially bad law, there is no easy way to remedy it in our society.

That is one reason I support appointment of judges who are strict constiutionalists and interpreters of law and not disposed to inflict their own ideology into the making of laws.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 12:46 am
I don't think the framers expected the theists to take over the government.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 12:58 am
Nor have they. The Framers definitely expected the theists to be in government and saw no problem with that whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 01:35 am
Quote:
Civilized people -- Muslims, Christians and Jews -- all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator.

-- John Ashcroft, defining "civilized people" specifically as "Muslims, Christians, and Jews" -- specifically, monotheists -- speaking to a group of Christian broadcasters, on February 18, 2002, quoted from Rob Morse, "The gospel according to John (Ashcroft)"

Quote:
For the first time in a long time, our leaders in Washington understand what Americans of all religious backgrounds have long held to be true: through faith, all things are possible.

-- John Ashcroft, baiting atheists, separationists, and non-Evangelicals in a speech given at a January 13 political function in Denver, Colorado, on supporting faith-based initiatives, during which Ashcroft quoted the Bible and said fear and bigotry lead to discrimination against faith-based charities in the past, quoted from the Associated Press (January 14, 2003)

I could go on and on with ashcroft, but lets move on

Quote:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.

-- George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas" (Haaretz.com:June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)

Quote:
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.

-- George W. Bush, proving that he has it backwards: it's a "wall" separating religion from government, not a "bridge" joining the two, January 29, 2001, quoted from Jacob Weinberg, "The Complete Bushisms"

sorry have to end here; got sidetracked
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 08:51 am
binnyboy wrote:
-- George W. Bush, proving that he has it backwards: it's a "wall" separating religion from government, not a "bridge" joining the two, January 29, 2001, quoted from Jacob Weinberg, "The Complete Bushisms"


I agree. This point directly addresses the topic. The framers (at least in the first amendment "establishment clause") intended a wall, not a bridge. The wall works both ways: religion is protected from government and government is protected from religion.

In his autobiography, Thomas Jefferson shows concern about a phenomenon in the early colonies. Virginia had a charter with England that required their laws to be consistent with the Church of England. Citizens, regardless of their religion, were even taxed to support Church of England clerics. Jefferson wanted freedom from this "religious tyranny" and also wanted tolerance for all religions and for atheism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democracy is best served by strict separation of...
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/29/2020 at 11:47:58