Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

NEVER

good, job, though, and luck


hey, I take a shower one day, a bath the next, and stay on a pretty stable rotation...no clue why, though.

And Fox, you will never please everyone, that's why, in a Democracy, we can vote you out of office as soon as you piss us off :wink:

no reason for this post, I just saw I had 99, and had to make an even 100.

Proud of me, ya'll old farts?

uummmmm...did this post just die? I was gone for 4 days, and nobody posted...that is a first...darn

Hey, incase anyone ever comes back, I debated this topic for the one and only time at Tascosa, and got 3rd. This is the first time I have ever broke, and I even made it past quarters I am so happy! Manoj beat me (if you are in TFA, you are likely to know that name), but I was pretty close on speaks. It was alot of fun.

I lost the two times I debated aff, but won my 3 neg rounds...neg was fun. My first contention was that morality is inherent in religion, so it needs a place in the gov...and then on my second contention, I said that death and destruction often result from religion, so the church also needs to be regulated by the state. The funny thing was that the aff had just read my entire case, and I was then able to fire it all back in their face

I am so surprised I did that well. Noone from my school has gotten more than 1 point in LD throughout a TFA year. I got 3 in one tourn. Plus, I literally wrote my cases on the bus, because I had had a really bad night, and lots of homework.

Anyways, please post again!

hyper,

Congratulations on your debate success. That is quite an accomplishment. I only did occasional classroom debates. I was never on a debate team or in any debate tournament.

Do you have any more ideas for this topic? In the news they mentioned that the new government in Iraq intends to make the Koran part of their new constitution. (Iraq just had their first free elections in thirty years.)

Well, I guess I can see this in such a theocratic society, but I would only recomend in if there are checks and balances also in the constitution to protect Iraq from falling into a theocracy. A bill of rights would serve best, I believe, because that would protect basic human rights (which we are seeking to instil in the Iraqi people), even if they are not supported in the Koran (many of our current values are not supported in the Bible, even though the morality of the Bible is a very good influence on the gov., well, when it is allowed to be)

I cannot say that America is the best Democracy, but I believe any country can learn from our faults, and immitate our successes.

The Iraq constitutional situation is still a developing story. The election results are not yet final, but it appears that Islamic fundamentalists will have a majority in the 275 member national assembly.

The Kurds (who are mostly secular) and the Iraqi Christians are alarmed at the possibility of an Islamic theocracy. The new constitution is still to be written. The current interim constitution already has a provision that no law can be made that is contrary to Islam.

We were not around when the U.S. constitution was being written. We now have the opportunity to see the making of a new constitution in Iraq. It will be interesting.

It wil be *very* interesting I'm looking forward to seeing how this is done.

ADDENDUM

Approval of a new constitution in Iraq would require a two-thirds majority in their 275 member national assembly. Although the election results will not be final until later this week, the parties led by Islamic clerics may win as much as 70% of the seats.

Will there be separation of church and state in Iraq's democracy?

If there isn't, I don't believe the democracy will be "best served" or very successful

Probably not. Unfortunately.

hyper, rosborne,

rosborne is right to be pessimistic. the leaders of the islamic political parties have specifically stated that separation of church and state is not an option for Iraq.

Many fledling democracies around the world do not have strict separation of church and state and all are better off than they were under dictatorships or totalitarian regimes nevertheless. Do not despair if Iraq doesn't consume a whole loaf at one sitting. We certainly didn't in this country and we have evolved quite nicely in most ways.

Does anyone know a good philosophy I can use to negate this resolution?

Did you read the whole thread spiffy? There is a lot of material anyone could use in debate preparation, both pro and con.

And welcome to A2K by the way.

I've read up to page 42. My debates are already finished, I'm just looking for a decent philosophical basis at the moment.

Thanks for the welcome!

Well my philosophy on this issue is that there was never intended to be separation of church and state but only a deep conviction that the state should not be able to require any citizen to believe anything in matter of faith nor should the state be able to punish or reward any citizen for the faith he or she holds. Other than that, anything regarding religion is legal if it 1) does not violate any other person's inalienable rights and 2) does not violate the law of the land.

Of course I'm pretty much an island unto myself in this view, and others will no doubt hold different ones.

Actually i don't know any good philosiphy but i know a good theory market place of ideas The marketplace of ideas is also a theory that claims that we ought to be exposed to a wide array of ideas and thoughts in order to be able to pick the idea that best suits us. If the marketplace of ideas is limited, humans can not make well informed decisions and communities (state, national and/or global) are directly impacted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it should but, the state should be able to relay info about the religion to what ever body it is governing.

For example: In this area we have relgion classes every wenesday that we have to go to, however, when there is a snowstorm or something it would be nice to know if there cancelled or not, so our school relays that information to us, so we don't spend our time going up to religion just to find out it was cancelled.

But that is not relaying information about a religion. It is relaying information about a scheduled class. If you HAVE to attend religion classes however, you are no doubt in a religious-based school and not a state sponsored school. A state sponsored school would constitutionally not be able to require students to attend a religion class though I could see how a religious history class or comparative religions class could be an elective in certain fields of study.

GASP!!!! I agree with you! :wink:

Oh, and spiffy, good job on getting to page 42....That's impressive. They rambled about the pledge for a long time, huh?