Quote:Always. Actually, I am thinking about using a "melting pot" strategy for the aff., because no country is exclusively a certain religion in a Democracy (that I know of), and that protects religions from the government. And for neg., I am going to go with the morality and crime inverse relation. I need to find some statistic supporting the idea that morality (religion) promotes a more peaceful community, and therefore, a more peaceful government.
For aff., I might also just say that some things are more important, or better serve democracy than SoCS.
Any comments, or helpful ideas?
The concept is pretty simple as I see it. Our republic form of government allows for democracy when such democracy does not violate the rule of law which as much as possible protects the rights of both the minority and the majority. One of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the individuals right to believe or not believe in matters of faith. The federal government may not require or coerce any manner of religious belief or practice either by reward or effectiing consequences for what one might believe or practice so long as such belief and practice does not violate the rights of those who believe and practice differently.
Religious practice may not break the civil law. For instance, a church may not practice human sacrifice or use illegal drugs in its worship service as such is illegal for everybody.
The U.S. government has long granted certain benefits to the churches such as not requiring religious or not-for-profit charitable organizations to pay federal, state, or property taxes. Why is this a good policy? Because without exception, communities/neighborhoods where a good percentage of the population adheres to a religious faith, there is less crime, less truancy, less domestic violence, less child neglect, fewer divorces, and higher productivity. In other words, the moral/ethical values of the religious are likely to produce a safer, cleaner, more stable, more productive community than are likely to be found in areas where the religious are less present.
This does not in any way suggest that only the religious have strong moral and ethical values, nor does it suggest that the religious will not sometimes be lacking in such virtues. We are speaking in the most general terms here.
Also in this era where there is so much anti-religious, especially anti-Christian sentiment, you will find many who will argue that the Church can no longer claim to improve a community as it once did (if it ever did). The founders of the U.S. government and Constitution believed that society was better off religious, even better off Christian. Many in modern times believe this is still very much the case though there is somewhat more religious tolerance now than there was then.
The founders, however intolerant in matters of religion they were, however, were determined that the government would have absolutely no say in the religious beliefs any citizen did or did not hold and, within the larger confines of civil law, could not interfere in how s/he practiced it.
But I think orginally the lines separating church and state were very fuzzy and pourous and the more strict interpretation of separation of church and state is a modern invention and, in fact, may eventually be found to be unconstitutional.
for hours, likely. Do you realize that a ruling like that would change the "basic structure" of America? But then again, I think we need to be waken roughly, and soon, before we kill ourselves.
