Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

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.

Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Yes, I concur.

Q.E.D.

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.

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

Democracy is best served by a strict separation of..... soft money and candidates.

The best definition I've heard since long about democracy.
And, what has religion to do with a politic system?

The first amendment "establishment clause" is both a protection of religion and a protection from religion.

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?"

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. ; )

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.

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?

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?

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.)

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.

I don't think the framers expected the theists to take over the government.

Nor have they. The Framers definitely expected the theists to be in government and saw no problem with that whatsoever.

-- 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)"


-- 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


-- 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)


-- 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

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.