The Offical January LD Debate Topic

[TheDunkelExperience]

Post your cases, comments, questions...anything you want about this months Lincoln-Douglas debate topic....

Resolved: Democracy is best served by a strict seperation of Church and State

[TheDunkelExperience]

[TheDunkelExperience]

[Darth_Nader]

badboy_2005

Here is my neg...I know it is absolutly awful but I would like some kind of output on possible contentions

Negative

?Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted."

This quote was said by Thomas Jefferson in 1815, gives my reason why I strongly negate today's resolution that states...

Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state.

I provide the following definitions provided by Webster?s Dictionary

Strict - Conforming completely to established rule, principle, or condition
Best - Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent
Separation - The condition of being separated
State - One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government
Church - Public divine worship in a church; a religious service

In today?s resolution it states that democracy is best run by a strict separation of church and state. But where do our morals run without religion or some of our laws. Also, there are other ways to run a democracy that are better then a Strict separation of church and state. By being the best you need to be necessary and the separation of church and state is not as necessary as the right to vote. So, I will support a value premise of Correct Governing with a value criterion of Voice of the people.

Contention 1: Democracy is best served by giving its citizens the right to vote. If you place another value higher then the right to vote, that democracy will not hold. Giving the citizens of a democracy freedom to vote will be more beneficial then keeping government out of religion. Even if he government is run by an extreme Buddhist the country can still be run by any religion because they all can vote and have a voice.
Sub Point A: The Government could be beneficial to a certain religion. Government funding could help churches that are lacking in funds. Which ultimately gives the citizens in that church be more trusting in their governments decisions.













Contention 2: By allowing leniency in the government and allowing people to base some government decisions based on religion, then it allows officials to set a precedence for more moral laws. Senators can talk about religion if certain laws are morally wrong or religiously wrong. Say the government wanted to set a law that ham would be eaten every tuesday. Under a strict separation of church and state the jewish senators could not give a voice on their religion and it would be against their own religion to eat that ham.

So if a strict separation of church and state is set intact then the government could become corrupt or the government could not work for certain religions which is not what democracy is set to do.

wrong, because a separation between church and state only implies the lack of an oficial religion of the government, or, for that matter no recognition of any religion.

and yet, a case could be made on a hypothetical "perfect" religion, which does not exist. If a government was run on said hypothetical perfect religion, then a theocracy would be the best option.

[Darth_Nader]

Also, a separation of chucrch and state does not mean an enforcement of atheism, except in what would mean a total separation, and then, it would imply only atheism in government figures.
State is not defined as the people, only as the government, therefore, a separation of church and state, no matter how extreme, does not imply and enforced lack of religion on the people

[TheDunkelExperience]

[mitoguard]

[TheDunkelExperience]

Your first Contention could easily fall through because England has a national religion with bishops in their house of lords and they are not subject to prejudice in respect for minorities...

[Puerilass The Perverted]

While Sure, Democracy is nice when the church doesn't influence it.

The United States isn't a Democracy. Its a Republic.

In a Democracy, People vote for their leaders, The leaders then come up with idea's on how to better the country. Then the People vote on those Idea's.


In a Republic, People vote for their leaders, And then their leaders come up with idea's and vote for them, by themselves.


And, BTW.

That line In the constitution that says The government must strive for a seperation of church and state.

All it means is that the Government can not Establish a Federal Church, and then force people to attend it. It Also means that The government can not accept Ambassidors from any individual church. No church can have a say in the runnings of the country.


It doesn't mean we can't put Religious references on our buildings. Or that we can't display a belief in a "Greater Deity" just that we Can't have the churches under those deities controlling the government.

[mitoguard]

Puerilis

While Sure, Democracy is nice when the church doesn't influence it.

The United States isn't a Democracy. Its a Republic.

In a Democracy, People vote for their leaders, The leaders then come up with idea's on how to better the country. Then the People vote on those Idea's.


In a Republic, People vote for their leaders, And then their leaders come up with idea's and vote for them, by themselves.


And, BTW.

That line In the constitution that says The government must strive for a seperation of church and state.

All it means is that the Government can not Establish a Federal Church, and then force people to attend it. It Also means that The government can not accept Ambassidors from any individual church. No church can have a say in the runnings of the country.


It doesn't mean we can't put Religious references on our buildings. Or that we can't display a belief in a "Greater Deity" just that we Can't have the churches under those deities controlling the government.

Ever heard of Engel v. Vitale? The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. Secondly we are a democratic republic, representative democracy with a bicameral legislature. No?