Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

For sure they do Wandel. It's just that any judge must especially agonize over setting aside a Constitutional principle against a state law or whatever.

OMG, I still can't believe that we have 55 pages!!!!!

Sorry...tangent...does any one have some specific instances where the government intruded into religion to save lives? I am not just asking for American instances, either. Or, can you give me some instances where the government (democracy) became ruled by religion, and life and/or religious freedom was sacrificed? I know they are out there, but I don't know specifics

thanks

ps if I change my signiture, will it change on every post?

Read the Federalist papers Hyper. Probably as close to that as you'll find was in the faith and practice of the American founding fathers. As I said, this concern with strict separation of Church and State is a realtively new phenomenon occuring late in the last half of the 20th Century. However, religion didn't RULE except in some of the settlements and colonies and in those, the religious were very intolerant of competing religions. In the Federal government, the Constitution won out and the Federal government not been intolerant of any religion so far as I can recall.

In all cases where religion gained the upper hand in governance in Europe and elsewhere, however, religious freedoms were pretty much squelched. I don't know of anyone other than radical fundamentalist Islam who advocates that being allowed to happen again.

In Turkey, for instance, Islam is the state religion but is tolerant of other religions so long as the other religions do not proselytize or advertise.and are not particularly obvious. That doesn't sound very tolerant, but for an Islamic nation it's better than most.

And yes, if you change your signature it will change on every post you have made on A2K.

How about the Christian Reconstructionists?

The Reconstructionists are obscure, of few numbers, and, so far as I know, think government should be dominated by Christian values, but I'm not aware of their intent to eliminate other religions. At any rate it is a different thing that what I indicated in my post.

Ok, i will run this by ya'll, 'cause I don't believe there is really anyone on this post that is debating this besides me(if so, tell me )

Aff.
value: Atonomy
criterion: 1st amendment
contention1:
contention2:
contention3:

they need to be something to the extent of...
America was founded on freedom, and that freedom is best served and preserved through the free exercise of religion, without interference from the government. Of course, some things(harm to others due to religious preference, etc.) are illegal to everyone, still keeping church and state separate. This is just showing that the law is above all.

Neg.
value: Quality of Life
criterion: (anyone know a term for protecting minors[children]?)
contention1:
contention2:

something to the extent of...
Jahovah's Witness' denial of blood transfusions, resulting in the death's of many babies and children, who suffer and die for the religious freedom of their parents and guardians. Also, moral values, when spread, lead to a better morality in individuals(I need some facts and/or statistics to back this one up well).

What do ya'll think? Any ideas for my blanks? Like my changes(location, signature)?

or....should I use Pluralism for my aff. value, and autonomy for my criterion? Would this work better, because "Pluralism in a sense can be regarded as the very essence of
democracy."

http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/fascism/challenges_of_prolerism.htm

Yea, I'm a freshman in HS. And I am also debating this case in a tournament this weekend.

I can see how Pluralism would work for this, But I'd have to advise against it, Just because it can be very weak if attacked just right, like, say, You were to use that, and I responded, how do we know that is indeed the essence of democracy? For all we know, it could be our own minds, or actually religion.

There is also the problem of being able to prove the statement; i.e. while it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Jehovah Witness children die because of the religious beliefs and practices of their parents, this you cannot prove as we cannot know whether the child would have lived or died had he had the transfusion the doctor said he needed.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

But here is more information on the Twitchell's case anyway.

http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_6.html

That's an interesting article Ros. I would like to find one written by somebody other than somebody who believes the Christian Scientists are murdering their children,

Personally I have problems with the Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses, et al, being exempted from laws that apply to the rest of people of faith. To me that actually does favor one religion over another and is against the intent, if not the letter, of the First Amendment and I think I could write a pretty good argument to support my opinion there.

But do I believe those parents were guilty of murder or manslaughter? I don't think so. I think they were concerned, loving parents who in no way intentionally or neglectfully harmed their child. Do I think they are in error in not believing God can work miracles through medical science too? Absolutely.

I only posted that to provide detail on the facts of the case(s). People are free to draw their own conclusions from the facts.

On a personal note, I remember the Twitchell case, and the frustration at seeing such religious insanity take the life of an innocent two year old child. I was frustrated for the parents, who were obviously lost in their delusion, and I was frustrated for our society as it struggled to respect religious freedom while watching slow motion manslaughter take place.

Yes. If I had been in a position of authority, I would most likely have used every possible means, fair or unfair, to get that child to the hospital. But my belief allows for both God's healing by virtue of prayer and for God given skills of healing given to doctors, nurses et al. But the Christian Science faith views it differently.

So when a religious faith is in conflict with state law, how do we balance the need of separation of church and state with religious tolerance?

according to foxfyre, we let the majority decide, right Fyre?

hey, just look at it as...life is the most important human value, because nothing else can happen if you are dead, so life must come first...and a minor, technically not an adult, needs to have their life protected.

I don't disagree Hyper. But the issue here is that tension between inalienable rights, one of which is the guaranteed First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, balanced against the life of that child; and here those two principles are in conflict. In your debate preparation, that is one issue you may want to be prepared to argue or defend.

The only defense overriding a guaranteed right could be the child's inability to assert his/her rights and therefore the state could rule on the matter. Of course that starts us down the slippery slope of setting a precedent whereby the state, not the parent, is the final authority for the welfare of any minor person. For most freedom loving people, that would be entirely unacceptable.

The best solution of course is for the state not to provide special exemptions for particular religious groups and require all to be subject to the law of the land. That I think would be in keeping with the letter and intent of the First Amendment guarantees.

(And this would be in response to Ros's question up there too.)

exactly my sentiment. I am going to use the peyote example and the polygamy example, too, I like those

sorry, double post

groovy, I really hope this works out for you hyper, we on this forum tend to perverse ideologies at times but a good idea sifter is handy.