Separation of Church and State

[MonkeyFoo]

Do you think that a democracy benefits more from a strict separation of church and state than it does from no separation? It would be nice to see some people debate both sides. (don't just post a yes or a no, this is critical thinking so support your answer somehow.)

[DracIV]

Time and time again it has been proved that theocracies suck. If you want a modern example, just look at Iran. Theocracies are always run by the fanatics, the extremists, the ones who want to kill everyone and trash things.

[Laharl]

The founding fathers didn't mean for seperation of church and state to mean things such as it's against the law to mention religions in schools and the courthouse. It simply meant no theocracy, as in a country controlled and run by a religion versus a government.

[The_Q]

Time and time again it has been proved that theocracies suck. If you want a modern example, just look at Iran. Theocracies are always run by the fanatics, the extremists, the ones who want to kill everyone and trash things.

A common misconception. Islam as a theocracy has worked very well over the years. It's made many a man rich, too. Extremists don't run theocracies for the very reason that if they were running everything, why would they need to be extreme?

Oh, and I agree with Laharl. There whould be separation, but not restriction. Restriction is bad. In almost everycase you can think of, it's bad.

Q

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Laharl

The founding fathers didn't mean for seperation of church and state to mean things such as it's against the law to mention religions in schools and the courthouse.

It isnt against the law to mention religion in public schools and courthouses, however it is against the law to for public schools to have prayer sessions or preach a certain religion, and it is against courthouses to be in favor of one religion.

It isnt restriction as much as it is trying to create level grounds.

Personally, I am one who believes God should be taken out of the pledge of allegence...but only for the fact that it was added in the 50's to counter the Godless Soviet Union.

[Enigma-7]

I think this situation's fine jsut the way it is. I don't have a problem with anything like this.

[LokiSuku]

I don't know why people are so pissed about it.

So, can anyone call me the true reason why these two should be seperate?
I'm sorry if the concept of God offends you, but we can't please everyone.

[alainbryden]

No, no one can call you the reason that they should be seperate.

but I can tell you why they should be seperate. Religion is about controlling people, Democrasy is about freedom. They do not belong together.

Now stop repeating other people's questions and saying nothing relevant. Stick to garbage bin until you learn how to post.

[trillobyite]

If you take religion to the extreme you will get a theocracy, which is a pathetic excuse for most countries and it really only leads to years of violence and bloodshed. If you destroy religion, you get communism, which is horrific and writing the word God anywhere will get you executed.

[alainbryden]

no you just showed the two extremes. No religion does not mean communism. Don't be dumb. Everyone needs to take notes from the number one song ever. "Imagine - John Lennon"

[torres1287]

I believe that taking God out of our schools has just ruined a lot of people. They take God out of schools and many other places...and then they wonder why the world is going to Hell. I believe as a student in high school that if you don't believe in God, that's your opinion...not everyone else's...and don't try to cut my rights as a Christian just because you don't believe the same as I do. I don't go out and try to take away other's rights; so why should they be able to take away mine?! Those last ones was in thoughts of people wanting to take "In God We Trust" off US currency, taking the Ten Commandments away from places, wanting to take "One Nation UNDER GOD" out of the Pledge of Alliegance(sp?...it's almost 1am as I'm posting this), and so on and so forth. I believe you get the picture of my opinion here.

[alainbryden]

You don't have the right as a christian to force other people to learn about your stories in school, so your whole point is invalidated.

[torres1287]

Originally Posted by alainbryden

You don't have the right as a christian to force other people to learn about your stories in school, so your whole point is invalidated.

Okay, maybe I was wrong about you getting the picture of what I was saying. I don't want to force people to believe in God. That's not my reason for being. They're supposed to want to do it within themselves if it's actually real. Not someone scaring them into believing they need to be saved.

I'm just saying, don't take God away from my environment. If they don't want to see it or say anything with "God" in it (as the Pledge of Alliegance and so forth), just let them stay silent as others do say it. I'm just saying that they should leave things be and let those who want to utilize their rights do so. Those who don't care about that right, let them be. Just don't take away my rights because I don't believe as you.

[alainbryden]

Fair enough. What I was saying was about the education thing. They didn't make learning in a christian school illegal, they just made it no longer mandatory. I think that's fair.

[torres1287]

Yes, I understand that and the statement is fair. I wish that we had a Christian school here for high school grades. In a way, I'm glad that I am where I am though. I would've never met my boyfriend if it wasn't for us going to school together and having chorus together. I do utilize my rights at my school. I am president of the Cougars for Christ group. In that I still believe that, "Our doors are always open for those who want to listen...if you don't, there's the door." I do feel sorry for those who don't belive though and choose to walk out the door, but I don't force anything upon them.

[Charlotte21]

Yes, there should be a seperation of church and state. For if there was not a seperation between the two, laws would become too personal (as they are).

Prime example: It is illegal for gays to marry in 11 states. That is when a law has become too personal. We are ruling it illegal for a subculture to follow their way of life. IT'S RIDICULOUS! Are they going to stop being gay? NO! So what is expected of gays in those 11 states? Are they supposed to go straight? Doubtful that will happen. All it does is restrict the amount of priveleges they have: they can't be considered family @ hospitals, they can't write off each other on taxes, etc.

And why? Because of religion in state. That's what you get with church and state not being seperated: ridiculously overpersonalized laws.

[torres1287]

I personally am glad that I don't see homosexual people get married and so forth. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman. Homosexual people can't have children. You need the other sex to survive. If this world was all one gender...the world would end as soon as everyone got too old and died. That should tell you that something is wrong...

[MonkeyFoo]

Keep in mind that marriage is a religious thing. If we have laws on marriage, they oughtta be about what the religion says they should. But, it makes more sense to take the word "marriage" out of all our documents, and just put a blanket term that lets anybody get married.

While I do support gay (take this word out of the god damn filter; we're mature enough to smack anybody who uses it derogatorily, and filtering it portrays it as a bad thing that we should avoid talking about.) rights, and I'm not homphobic, I do believe that homosexuals are not good for the survival of the human race, just Darwinian-wise. If you don't seek the opposite sex, you simply aren't going to spread your genes. It makes them seem somehow unnatural. Of course, we humans will survive anyway, so it's not anything major. Meanwhile, my views on gay rights aren't related to religion, especially not to church, and not in the slightest way to state. So back to the topic at hand:

I need to point out that I wrote cases for both sides of this question, for my high school debate team. In my affirmative case, which says that democracy is indeed best served by a strict separation of church and state, I basically say that the church can corrupt the process of deliberation. It can do this because a church, as a large institution, can tell many people the same thing, and they will believe it because they've been raised believing in the church. So basically, religion inhibits discussion over moral values and eventually leads to illogical or immoral decisions in voting. This obviously leads to an illegitimate government, because immorality in voting is reflected in the immorality of laws and elected officials.

My other argument is that if the church wants to, and there is not a strict separation of church and state, then it can have pawns running for various offices. A church can preach to all of its followers that voting for anyone who is against slavery, for example, will lead to eternal damnation. All of the religion's followers will go on to vote for the church's pawn candidates, and then the church can control the decisions of the elected leaders as well as most of the people in the country. This effectively defeats a democracy, and creates a theocracy. This obviously does not best serve a democracy.

As a subpoint, I note that theocracies tend to be more belligerent, especially toward democracies. Example: All those middle-eastern countries which are dominated by islam. If the grand ayatollah comes out and says, "kill americans! Why? Allah says! Bomb the americans and get a free trip straight to heaven, where you can cavort with dozens of lovely maidens!" then muslims are going to go and bomb Americans. Note: 9/11, and ensuing deaths from war in Iraq. It's all bad for democracy, and it all stems from too loose a separation (or no separation) of church and state.

Finally, as an end to my ranting, it was either LD or Jewpin who said that we should have separation, but no restriction. While I admit that this would be great, it would never happen. We must restrict the church from having political involvement, (though not religion, mind you. Religion and church are different things.) or else it can just take over if it wants to. Separation without restriction requires that the church simply doesn't try to become involved in politics, which is simply not the case. People are drawn to power, and government offers lots of it. Remember the power that popes had back in the middle ages? They could send the holy roman empire to war, and start crusades. That's too much of an opportunity to pass up, for any church.

[alainbryden]

I agree with Charlotte one hundred percent on this one.

[torres1287]

I am happy where I stand, but for others...sometimes it just kind of makes you wish you were born before when you were so you wouldn't be conflicted with these issues...