View Topic

Alright, I'm doing a general debate. Here anyone can debate and post. Please provide evidence if you make a claim. Here are some general rules for this debate:

• No Name Calling
• Be respectful for your fellow debaters
• No Flamming
• No Trolling

NOW LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!

I am in favor of the separation of church and state. I understand that obviously many people hold religious beliefs and that their religious beliefs inform their moral beliefs and political standings so a connection of religion and politics is to an extent inevitable. However, I do not believe that the role of government is to enforce religious beliefs and just because something is in the teachings of a particular religion does not mean it should necessarily be in the law. (Think Montesquieu.)

I am also in favor of it, however to the people who live in the US(like me), I want to ask, is separation of church and state in the constitution? Also does it apply to public schools.

I am also in favor of it, however to the people who live in the US(like me), I want to ask, is separation of church and state in the constitution? Also does it apply to public schools.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It's a very sensible precaution to take, in my opinion.

I am in favor of the separation of church and state. I understand that obviously many people hold religious beliefs and that their religious beliefs inform their moral beliefs and political standings so a connection of religion and politics is to an extent inevitable. However, I do not believe that the role of government is to enforce religious beliefs and just because something is in the teachings of a particular religion does not mean it should necessarily be in the law. (Think Montesquieu.)

I think for the most part, a lot of people take issue with state and local governments (in the United States of course) who have a tacit acceptance that Christianity is the basis of modern legal or societal norms. For instance, there are a dozen examples of statues of the Ten Commandments in tablet form placed outside courthouses, on local or state land. While the proponents of these statues claim that it's not the government who endorses Christianity as the sole basis for justice, or morality since private citizens fund the memorial, it's still on public land. I'd rather not get into whether or not the ten commandments are original, or even an exclusively christian concept, but instead I'd like to rephrase the debate:

Do you think governments at any level, should allow for concessions in society (statues, laws, behavior and speech) that inherently favors one religion over another?

 I believe in the separation of Church and State, in the context that religion should have no basis in our government, which I believe should remain secular. I say this because, if they were to mix, then there would be a greater chance of discrimination and bias against those that are not followers of said majority religion (whether by following another, or none at all).

  I also do not think that there should be concessions in society that inherently favors one religion over another, as this would lead to a greater chance of social strife.

I believe in the separation of Church and State, in the context that religion should have no basis in our government, which I believe should remain secular. I say this because, if they were to mix, then there would be a greater chance of discrimination and bias against those that are not followers of said majority religion (whether by following another, or none at all).

  I also do not think that there should be concessions in society that inherently favors one religion over another, as this would lead to a greater chance of social strife.

I think the chances of laws being passed recognizing one faith over another are slim. Much of the discrimination is done through popular culture, mainstream politics (like the fact someone "possibly" being Muslim in the 2008 election was suddenly anathema to all things American) and by lobby and special interest groups. By forcing a majority religion into the culture of a society and having your politicians beholden to that religion in the political landscape, aren't you in essence creating a state sponsored faith?

Hrm, Yuri that is an interesting question you pose. I think it can be, but I think a question which could be asked is how widespread would it be, if it's contained to a small town or a state then it wouldn't be that much of an issue as that means that someone could avoid it(not counting Minors who in most places around the world have no rights(or very little), and can't just avoid it, but this is for a different debate). However I still think that it would be against the constitution. However again that would be in a more perfect society. However, many people think that the US has an official religion, and that religion was Christianity(which does make up a good chunk of the populace), due to politics, which mix Church and state, such as the problems over Gay Marriage in which most of the people against it are against it for religious reasons(and probably don't realize that it won't really affect them). Also I feel like it would be interesting to bring up that most Atheists are trusted about the same, if not less, than Rapists, while Atheists seem to be the minority in prisons and have longer lasting marriages than some Christians. Therefor the answer to your question is, Yes. Due to the fact that the treatment of Muslims and Atheists due to events that people don't realize were caused by extremists, or is a general misconception due to the fact that they aren't with the general populace and the flawed thinking that if you aren't of a certain religion then you have no morals, which has been pushed by mainstream society.

Also sorry if this makes no sense, I have a habit of not doing so,while still making a good point.