Should the Church and State remain separate or be interconnected? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should the Church and State remain separate or be interconnected?
in Religion

Do you believe that our government will function best if we base our country's judgements on religion or remain secular to preserve the identity of our citizens? 
  1. Should the Church and the State remain seperate or be interconnected?

    14 votes
    1. Yes
      42.86%
    2. No
      50.00%
    3. Yes, but the country must have some sort of religious background
        7.14%
A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I think church and state should be separate. That is the kinda thing that makes the US such a great place. It offers many freedoms and I think this freedoms will be better protected if church and state remain separate.
    DrCerealSkepticalOneanonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
  • The church and state should be separate, but there are some cultural things which should be implemented into the legal system. One example would be polygamy being illegal in the US. 
    anonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
  • NopeNope 322 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Why is polygamy illegal. Why can'y you marry who ever you wan't as long as they wan't to.
    anonymousdebater
  • @Nope It's a cultural thing. Another example would be the requirement of the English language as a core subject. Assimilation is an important part of a nation, or the nation's identity becomes blurred. 
    NopeEmeryPearson
  • Church and state ought to be separated for many reasons, however I find the most compelling reason to be the fact the founding fourfathers made it clear that church and state should be separate, even though many of them were religious themselves.

    The declaration of Independence and constitution both make no mention of God, especially an abrahamic god. 

    anonymousdebater
  • Public Service Announcement:

    The Constitution of the United States makes no mentioning of the "Separation of Church and State".  What it actually says is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    So what does this mean?  Well I can tell you specifically what it does NOT mean.  It does NOT mean that the Church and the State must remain separate or that the individual states cannot establish a State Church.  In FACT most Americans are totally oblivious that on Independence Day 1776, nine of the original 13 colonies had established State Churches.  In 1791 when the 1st amendment was adopted, four of the fourteen States recognized an official State Church.

    In 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, there was a fear that the new National Government would interfere with the already established State Churches or might establish a National Church.  Congressman James Madison responded to the wishes of his State Convention by speaking to his Congressional colleagues about the dangers of establishing a National Church where one religious sect might obtain a pre-eminence over others.  Looking at the 1st Amendment, we can see that he accomplished his objective.

    Now here's the kicker, the 1st Amendment DOES NOT prevent the establishment of Religion in general, but an establishment of Religion by Congress.  What's more is that there is absolutely no preventative measure within the Constitution that would prevent the States from establishing their own State Religion...nor will there likely ever be.  

    So in the case of things like Public Schools allowing prayer, reciting "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and allowing the practice of Religion within Schools...Public Schools are regulated by the state.  This is why when you need to find out what's allowed and not allowed in your School...you have to consult your State's Education Code.  States are perfectly able to establish Religion within the State and what's even bigger is that Congress can do NOTHING to stop, regulate or control it as per the 1st Amendment.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
    https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
    WilliamSchulzDrCerealEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Church and state ought to be separated for many reasons, however I find the most compelling reason to be the fact the founding fourfathers made it clear that church and state should be separate, even though many of them were religious themselves.

    The declaration of Independence and constitution both make no mention of God, especially an abrahamic god. 

    However, there are lines that states God's presence: 

    1."and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them," (Beginning of the Declaration, lines 3-5)

    2."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," (Lines 8-10)

    3."And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." (3 lines from the end)

    God is present in the Declaration of Independence, according to these 3 direct quotations, making your last argument invalid. As for your first points, Vaulk did a GREAT job breaking down the church-state argument!

    Source: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/the-final-text-of-the-declaration-of-independence-july-4-1776.php ;
    DrCerealSkepticalOneEmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @WilliamSchulz

    Nicely put, and let's not forget the first three lines of the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which identify a singular Supreme Authority:

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions", 

    I'd also point out that there is a supreme court judgement (Everson V Board of Education) that upholds the case of Separation of Church and State by making specific reference to Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he referenced a metaphorical "Wall".  This however, is as solid an argument for the separation of Church and State as “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”  ~ George Washington is an argument against it.

    Essentially, if anyone (Including the supreme court) is going to use the argument that Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. President) once mentioned a metaphor in a letter to a group of Baptists that somehow serves as a supreme authority on the separation of Church and State...then by the exact same logic I can use a quote from the FIRST President of the United States that specifically contradicts Jefferson's metaphor to show that it's more of an authority.

    https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/christian-presidential-quotes-22-awesome-sayings/#ixzz4zquaR4oY

    Lastly, a little something to chew on:

    “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.”  ~ James Madison


    DrCerealSkepticalOneEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    Public Service Announcement:

    The Constitution of the United States makes no mentioning of the "Separation of Church and State".  What it actually says is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    So what does this mean?  Well I can tell you specifically what it does NOT mean.  It does NOT mean that the Church and the State must remain separate or that the individual states cannot establish a State Church.  In FACT most Americans are totally oblivious that on Independence Day 1776, nine of the original 13 colonies had established State Churches.  In 1791 when the 1st amendment was adopted, four of the fourteen States recognized an official State Church.

    In 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, there was a fear that the new National Government would interfere with the already established State Churches or might establish a National Church.  Congressman James Madison responded to the wishes of his State Convention by speaking to his Congressional colleagues about the dangers of establishing a National Church where one religious sect might obtain a pre-eminence over others.  Looking at the 1st Amendment, we can see that he accomplished his objective.

    Now here's the kicker, the 1st Amendment DOES NOT prevent the establishment of Religion in general, but an establishment of Religion by Congress.  What's more is that there is absolutely no preventative measure within the Constitution that would prevent the States from establishing their own State Religion...nor will there likely ever be.  

    So in the case of things like Public Schools allowing prayer, reciting "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and allowing the practice of Religion within Schools...Public Schools are regulated by the state.  This is why when you need to find out what's allowed and not allowed in your School...you have to consult your State's Education Code.  States are perfectly able to establish Religion within the State and what's even bigger is that Congress can do NOTHING to stop, regulate or control it as per the 1st Amendment.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
    https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
    Public Service Announcement:
    I believe that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
    EmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    DrCerealEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 124 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    EmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    That would also be saying that the Supreme Court is infallable, which it is not. Just because the Supreme Court said that slavery was okay after Dred Scott did not make it so 10 years into the future.
    VaulkDrCerealEmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @DrCereal

    Sincerest apologies but I was unable to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the responsibility, liability, accountability, jurisdiction, authority or power to "Determine what the Constitution says".

    My referencing skills are probably really off and I just missed it, could you please provide a reference of the Constitutional Law that establishes the Supreme Court as being able to say that something is Constitutional and it subsequently becomes so.  I just know it's there somewhere but I didn't find it.
    DrCerealEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    That would also be saying that the Supreme Court is infallable, which it is not. Just because the Supreme Court said that slavery was okay after Dred Scott did not make it so 10 years into the future.
    Arguably a strawman. I'm not at all saying the court is infallible, which no one is. I was simply saying they have the power of judicial review so denying the seperation of church and state is a denial of the government.
    EmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    Sincerest apologies but I was unable to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the responsibility, liability, accountability, jurisdiction, authority or power to "Determine what the Constitution says".

    My referencing skills are probably really off and I just missed it, could you please provide a reference of the Constitutional Law that establishes the Supreme Court as being able to say that something is Constitutional and it subsequently becomes so.  I just know it's there somewhere but I didn't find it.
    Marbury v. Madison.
    EmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    That would also be saying that the Supreme Court is infallable, which it is not. Just because the Supreme Court said that slavery was okay after Dred Scott did not make it so 10 years into the future.
    Arguably a strawman. I'm not at all saying the court is infallible, which no one is. I was simply saying they have the power of judicial review so denying the seperation of church and state is a denial of the government.

    I see you disliked my post, so let's review your arguments that points to why I'm not straw manning you. You said that the Supreme court determines what the Constitution says and whatever goes is law. Sure, but then you indirectly stated, denying this is denying the Supreme Court has authority, and therefore you reject the infallability of the government. It seems like just because the Supreme Court made a desicion, that automatically makes it correct. That is why I called you out for infallability claims, so I have not straw manned you in any way, I just debunked your claims.
    DrCerealEmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • DrCereal said:
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    That would also be saying that the Supreme Court is infallable, which it is not. Just because the Supreme Court said that slavery was okay after Dred Scott did not make it so 10 years into the future.
    Arguably a strawman. I'm not at all saying the court is infallible, which no one is. I was simply saying they have the power of judicial review so denying the seperation of church and state is a denial of the government.

    I see you disliked my post, so let's review your arguments that points to why I'm not straw manning you. You said that the Supreme court determines what the Constitution says and whatever goes is law. Sure, but then you indirectly stated, denying this is denying the Supreme Court has authority, and therefore you reject the infallability of the government. It seems like just because the Supreme Court made a desicion, that automatically makes it correct. That is why I called you out for infallability claims, so I have not straw manned you in any way, I just debunked your claims.
    You both seem to be ignoring me, and I know the reason for this is that I have been arguing the wrong thing (which is all that I'm guilty of).
    I'm not at all arguing that there should be a seperation between church and state. I was stating that there is because the Supreme Court, using their powers, determined that there is.

    Should and is are not one and the same.

    "Sure, but then you indirectly stated, denying this is denying the Supreme Court has authority, and therefore you reject the infallability of the government."
    I have not implied once that the government is infallible. Your post was technically a strawman because it assumes that I'm saying their decision was correct. I'm only stating that their decision is what is because that is the way the government works; I'm not currently arguing that it was correct. Thus, your interpretation of my argument is incorrect which renders it a strawman. You haven't debunked anything.
    EmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • DrCereal said:
    DrCereal said:
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    PSA: The "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the way in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Additionally, see above where I already addressed the Supreme Court's decision in Everson V Board of Education.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/supreme-courts-decisions-separation-church-and-state-are-flawed
    My argument wasn't that the Supreme Court somehow invoked Jefferson. (My argument actually has nothing to do with any of the founding fathers.) My argument is that the Supreme Court determines what the constitution says so law is what they say. They say there's a wall between church and state so there is. Denying this simple fact is rejecting the way our government is set up.
    That would also be saying that the Supreme Court is infallable, which it is not. Just because the Supreme Court said that slavery was okay after Dred Scott did not make it so 10 years into the future.
    Arguably a strawman. I'm not at all saying the court is infallible, which no one is. I was simply saying they have the power of judicial review so denying the seperation of church and state is a denial of the government.

    I see you disliked my post, so let's review your arguments that points to why I'm not straw manning you. You said that the Supreme court determines what the Constitution says and whatever goes is law. Sure, but then you indirectly stated, denying this is denying the Supreme Court has authority, and therefore you reject the infallability of the government. It seems like just because the Supreme Court made a desicion, that automatically makes it correct. That is why I called you out for infallability claims, so I have not straw manned you in any way, I just debunked your claims.
    You both seem to be ignoring me, and I know the reason for this is that I have been arguing the wrong thing (which is all that I'm guilty of).
    I'm not at all arguing that there should be a seperation between church and state. I was stating that there is because the Supreme Court, using their powers, determined that there is.

    Should and is are not one and the same.

    "Sure, but then you indirectly stated, denying this is denying the Supreme Court has authority, and therefore you reject the infallability of the government."
    I have not implied once that the government is infallible. Your post was technically a strawman because it assumes that I'm saying their decision was correct. I'm only stating that their decision is what is because that is the way the government works; I'm not currently arguing that it was correct. Thus, your interpretation of my argument is incorrect which renders it a strawman. You haven't debunked anything.
    You were making a pro seperate church and state argument in your first post, by saying that the SC disagrees with Vaulk! In addition, you say, "There is a wall between church and state, so there is." You assume the court is correct by not disagreeing with the ruling. Your argument is, "If the Supreme Court made a judgement on an issue, then we'll accept their decision and move on." Which is entirely not true for every scenario! Even though you don't directly claim to call the decision correct, the nature of your posts have pointed to such. Therefore, my infallability argument still works. 

    I understand that you perhaps just wanted to share a case where the SC disagreed with the interconnection of church and state, but if you make such comments like "Public Service Announcement, the Supreme Court disagrees with you." you should have a stance on the issue, and by not making a standpoint, it is assumed that you do not oppose the decision, so either it doesn't matter to you or you want a seperate church / state. That's fine, but just say it then!
    DrCerealEmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited December 2017
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    Sincerest apologies but I was unable to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the responsibility, liability, accountability, jurisdiction, authority or power to "Determine what the Constitution says".

    My referencing skills are probably really off and I just missed it, could you please provide a reference of the Constitutional Law that establishes the Supreme Court as being able to say that something is Constitutional and it subsequently becomes so.  I just know it's there somewhere but I didn't find it.
    Marbury v. Madison.
    So if I understand you correctly, you weren't able to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives them that power and instead referenced the Supreme Court stating that the Supreme Court has the power?

    So then...by your logic, if the Supreme Court determines that the Supreme Court has the power to do something....that means it's automatically constitutional?
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    DrCereal said:
    Vaulk said:
    @DrCereal

    Sincerest apologies but I was unable to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the responsibility, liability, accountability, jurisdiction, authority or power to "Determine what the Constitution says".

    My referencing skills are probably really off and I just missed it, could you please provide a reference of the Constitutional Law that establishes the Supreme Court as being able to say that something is Constitutional and it subsequently becomes so.  I just know it's there somewhere but I didn't find it.
    Marbury v. Madison.
    So if I understand you correctly, you weren't able to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives them that power and instead referenced the Supreme Court stating that the Supreme Court has the power?

    So then...by your logic, if the Supreme Court determines that the Supreme Court has the power to do something....that means it's automatically constitutional?
    In this case, yes. They gave themselves (sounds sleazy, I know) the power of judicial review so they have it. The only reason I would say this is because the power could have been taken away from them with a constitutional amendment, but it never was; was it? I'm assuming that it was meant to be apart of the government; otherwise, it probably should have been removed at this point.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Well, I think the church and the state should have a very small connection. However, the church is based on religion, so the state has no right to force it to something against "the will of God." But I still think that all churches should pay some (very little) tax. This is because Jesus Christ liked to help the poor, and I think churches can achieve that by paying a bit of tax. The tax money could eventually go to poor families who need help. 
    anonymousdebater
  • Ghosty Why not just have them donate a charity. That way sense taxes are used for government things they can be sure to not have their money spent on not poor people sense not all government things are poor people. Would that not be easier?
    WilliamSchulzanonymousdebater
  • Nope said:
    Ghosty Why not just have them donate a charity. That way sense taxes are used for government things they can be sure to not have their money spent on not poor people sense not all government things are poor people. Would that not be easier?
    It is an interesting point, but if the government forced religious institutions to pay taxes, would it be possible for churches to become bent on income and not the spread of God's word?
    anonymousdebater
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Ghosty said:
    Well, I think the church and the state should have a very small connection. However, the church is based on religion, so the state has no right to force it to something against "the will of God." But I still think that all churches should pay some (very little) tax. This is because Jesus Christ liked to help the poor, and I think churches can achieve that by paying a bit of tax. The tax money could eventually go to poor families who need help. 
    Paying money to the richest government on the planet seems to me to be the opposite of helping the poor.
    anonymousdebater
  • @CYDdharta @Nope @ WilliamSchulz
    True, but a lot of churches are extremely wealthy. As God said, everyone is equal, so why shouldn't they pay (at least a little) tax? I have to admit, making them have a charity seems a better idea. However, as America moves closer to science and further from religion, many atheists believe that it's only fair that churches should pay tax as well. Churches are for religious people to come and practice their religion to feel closer to God and to cleanse oneself of one's sins. Missionaries are the one who try to spread God's word. But yes, churches do play some part in doing this. I don't think there really is a true solution for this.
    BaconToes
  • Ghosty said:
    @CYDdharta @Nope @ WilliamSchulz
    True, but a lot of churches are extremely wealthy. As God said, everyone is equal, so why shouldn't they pay (at least a little) tax? I have to admit, making them have a charity seems a better idea. However, as America moves closer to science and further from religion, many atheists believe that it's only fair that churches should pay tax as well. Churches are for religious people to come and practice their religion to feel closer to God and to cleanse oneself of one's sins. Missionaries are the one who try to spread God's word. But yes, churches do play some part in doing this. I don't think there really is a true solution for this.
    Okay, so you are correct that some churches can be wealthy and have a lot of money to throw around. However, not everyone has a Joel Osteen sized church to evangilize with. Most churches are by community, ie. 6 Catholic churches in Allentown, PA, 18 Evangelical churches in Philadelphia, etc. Most churches are limited by their own budget and take most of their support in from the Archdiocese or other center group of income. While it may seem fair for churches to pay taxes, I think it would only cause more problems than it would solve.

    Despite that, I'll feign taxes and move on to your other point, where if taxes didn't work, a charity would be listed. This is a noble intention, but most parishes and churches do this anyway as a way of helping out the community or people in need. If you consider all the parishes / people that donated money to help people after Hurricane Harvey, would that be considered a "charity"? Second, would the churches be helping a collective charity, or support charities individually? If the latter, I would be fine, but if it was collective, I would have problems that some churches might disagree about the principles of the charity and not want to donate, but be forced to instead.

    Nevertheless, I understand where you are coming from with charity, but taxes to me would only worsen relations between religion and government. 

    However, the churches could collectively pay taxes if religion and government were INTERCONNECTED! However, in America, we have our church and state separate, so perhaps that is why there are no taxes, but I might be fine with a tax / charity if church / state were together, because at least the federal government would also be funding the religious institutions as a center of income for all parishes that pay taxes.
    EmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz
    I agree that taxes could worsen the relationship between the church and the United States.
    However, fairness and equality have to be considered.
    The Bible actually says that tax is important. It says that you must submit to the government unless it tries to force you to do things that go against the Bible.

    And in the Bible, it never says that churches should not pay tax! If churches try to argue that they are completely separate from the government, that is not true, because EVERYONE is affected by the government in a country. Buy food, clothing, or a home? You are now (partly) connected to the government. 

     Your point on this one is correct as well. There are churches that are very wealthy, and churches that are limited by their own budget. But the American tax system suits that kind of situation just fine! The wealthy has to pay more money, and the poor pay much less tax. Regardless how powerful or terrible a government is, churches should pay at least some tax, because even as a religion, it is the country that accepts that religion. 

    But yes, if churches and the government were directly connected, that could cause a lot of problems. I actually don't think that would be a good idea at all. However, if the church is partly connected to the government, it is a win-win. Like you said, the government could fund some churches. The churches could pay tax so that the government can provide more services to the country. And besides, when you are swearing in a president, there is a bible involved!

    I know the church and America are not really connected. But this is a debate. We are discussing issues that happen, might happen, or might not happen at all. So my opinion (can change according to your arguments) is that the church should be slightly connected to the government. I know there will be a lot of opposition to my belief, and I will listen to them all.
    WilliamSchulzPogueSkepticalOne
  • Church and State should be separate.

    The Church has standards and rules that center around a relationship with a divine being.  To be honest, some of these regulations and rules are so vague and not very specific.   Also, imagine if the amendments were written in bible verses.  As you know, it would be difficult to understand these rules and more philosophical rules rather than having more solid and descriptive laws on State. 
  • Ghosty said:
    @WilliamSchulz
    I agree that taxes could worsen the relationship between the church and the United States.
    However, fairness and equality have to be considered.
    The Bible actually says that tax is important. It says that you must submit to the government unless it tries to force you to do things that go against the Bible.

    And in the Bible, it never says that churches should not pay tax! If churches try to argue that they are completely separate from the government, that is not true, because EVERYONE is affected by the government in a country. Buy food, clothing, or a home? You are now (partly) connected to the government. 

     Your point on this one is correct as well. There are churches that are very wealthy, and churches that are limited by their own budget. But the American tax system suits that kind of situation just fine! The wealthy has to pay more money, and the poor pay much less tax. Regardless how powerful or terrible a government is, churches should pay at least some tax, because even as a religion, it is the country that accepts that religion. 

    But yes, if churches and the government were directly connected, that could cause a lot of problems. I actually don't think that would be a good idea at all. However, if the church is partly connected to the government, it is a win-win. Like you said, the government could fund some churches. The churches could pay tax so that the government can provide more services to the country. And besides, when you are swearing in a president, there is a bible involved!

    I know the church and America are not really connected. But this is a debate. We are discussing issues that happen, might happen, or might not happen at all. So my opinion (can change according to your arguments) is that the church should be slightly connected to the government. I know there will be a lot of opposition to my belief, and I will listen to them all.
    Thanks for the argument! I will start by making a couple distinctions, but then riding off of your points about some connection to the government. 

    You are right that the government says that tax is important, but Jesus uses this as a way of describing earthly value vs. heavenly value, as "Give to Ceasar what is fitting to Caesar and give to God what is pleasing to God." However, you are not submitted by the government to pay taxes (although you would never be able to use a credit card or make money) because Jesus pulls money out of a fish to pay the tax collecter and to make a point about the tax. 

    I agree with your second paragraph 100%. Nice distinction!

    Can you name for me some of the problems? While there may be religious objections, I think that the government could find a way around the situation.

    One solution that I would like to bring up in connection is to perhaps have a 3rd branch of Congress to be devoted to the religious sector, as a way of evening out church and state. For each religion, say, over 500,000 followers would have a spot in the government as a way of representing their religious faction. As head, they would be elected by people of the faith, and when the person is voted out, dies, or resigns, another person takes the place of the head via the same voting proceedures. The religions themselves can not try to overpower each other as they have to respect the government, as in the Bill of rights, freedom of religion. The religious sector would serve to be a third branch in laws that deal with religious freedom or religion in general, and would also serve as a mediator between the sectors and the government, by making sure that the government is fair to all religions and programs that the religions can reach a majority agreement on. There may be some problems, but leave it to a court to decide this, as they have to be legal experts in the 1st amendment. If people were worried about people being taught 1 religion in school, I might suggest a course based on religious history and the beliefs of each one, so that young people have an idea of the standpoints, and be able to make their own views.

    Feel free to debate the nature of this argument, I look forward to the comments!
    EmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • It is also worth mentioning that agnostic and athists may have a head as well.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • I agree with your solution! 
    Well, one problem that could happen is that religious people could argue that they are connected to God alone, not to the government. They would refer to the same Bible text (the one about Caesar) and there might be a lot of protestors. However, yes, in the end, the government would probably find a way around it. More people are starting to accept them as the central leadership of a country. 
    But yes, except for religious objections, I don't think there would be many other problems. The real problem is that we don't know how strong or how large the religious objections are going to be.
    WilliamSchulzEmeryPearson
  • Ghosty said:
    I agree with your solution! 
    Well, one problem that could happen is that religious people could argue that they are connected to God alone, not to the government. They would refer to the same Bible text (the one about Caesar) and there might be a lot of protestors. However, yes, in the end, the government would probably find a way around it. More people are starting to accept them as the central leadership of a country. 
    But yes, except for religious objections, I don't think there would be many other problems. The real problem is that we don't know how strong or how large the religious objections are going to be.
    Great points, I'll adress the two that you brought up about the government and religious objections. 

    1. Just because the religions say that they are connected to God alone in my eyes should not be above the government. While God has authority supreme, the religions are working as a whole in the government and are therefore subjected to rights like the Bill of Rights or the 14th amendment, that way God and State work hand in hand, and are not against each other.

    2. There may be quite a few religious objections, but as long as laws geared toward religion are brought in, I could see room for compromising or persuasion which could have a major impact on small and large religions alike!
    EmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Do you believe that our government will function best if we base our country's judgements on religion or remain secular to preserve the identity of our citizens? 

    First, I would like to clarify what exactly it is that you are asking?
    The question you ask is that; if we should base our judgement on Religion - or remain secular, but the Heading is "Should the Church and State remain separate or be interconnected?"

    Church -
    1. a building used for public Christian worship.
    * a particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines.

    Religion -
    1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
     - a particular system of faith and worship.

    - a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. (this should NOT  be under Religion, but religious)

    secular -
    1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
    synonyms:nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane

    Since you are talking about the Country we reside in, .. this here USA aka North America we can throw "secular" right out of the window, because starting from the first arrivals whether we pick the Norse Viking Leif Eriksson, or the Catholic Christopher Columbus, or look at the already existing Native American Indians that lived and still live here were all "very religious".

    Religion or religious?
    And as far as Religion goes, we would have to establish which version of religion that we are talking about? Is it "Organized Religion", or religious behavior? I believe you are talking about Organized Religion, not "religious behavior" which is pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance to, like jogging every morning for an hour.

    So from what we know of our History, the USA has always been, and continues to be ruled by all kinds of Organized Religions, from the ancient Native Indians, to the present day government/controlling powers that be.



    And since we know that NO Organized Religion worships our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", or His son "Word", aka Jesus Christ, but worship Deities who reside in the supernatural realm, .. we Bible Believers, or Disciples of the real Jesus Christ (not the deified sun-god, and his Deity father and mother Mary aka Trinity-gods) can not accept or be politically involved in this pagan Religion governing body, even if they do use the Bible.

    Why?

    Because as we can see that all Organized Religions point to the worship of one god, and one god only, which is Lucifer, or Satan the god of this world, while us Believers, are Disciples of none other than the King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus Christ.

    Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

    Which can mean only one thing, and it is that:


    John 18:36 (NKJV) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

    So we, while in this world in the body, are to come out of this world in spirit/mind and walk in the Light of Jesus Christ. We are to keep ONLY those laws of the land that coincides with Christ teaching as described in the Bible:

    Mathew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

    The identity of any citizen of any Country is what he or she believes in and serves, and it's either the Devil Lucifer, or the son of our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", "Jesus Christ".


    Joshua 24: (NKJV)
    15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

    May God bless us all with spiritual eyes to see/understand!
    EmeryPearson
  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited December 2017
    DrCereal said:
    In this case, yes. They gave themselves (sounds sleazy, I know) the power of judicial review so they have it. The only reason I would say this is because the power could have been taken away from them with a constitutional amendment, but it never was; was it? I'm assuming that it was meant to be apart of the government; otherwise, it probably should have been removed at this point.
    U.S. Supreme Court Case: Cotting V. Godard 1901

    Summary: The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
    http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

    From this U.S. Supreme Court Case and the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court finding stated above we can easily and safely deduce the following:

    1. The Constitution is merely the body and letter while the Declaration of Independence is the Thought and Spirit.
    2. The Constitution is required to be read and interpreted with regard to the Declaration of Independence.
    3. The U.S. Supreme Court maintains that the absolute highest duty of the court is to enforce constitutional provisions that secure equality of rights.
    4. The U.S. Supreme Court formally acknowledges that Free Government is founded upon equality of rights.
    5. The U.S. Supreme Court formally acknowledges that Equality of Rights is God given.

    So then the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that Free Government is founded upon a religious principle and securing that religious principle is the absolute highest duty of the court. 

    The U.S. Government is Secular.  We don't have a Secular Government.  The U.S. Supreme Court makes an outstanding case for the underlying religious principles that our entire Constitution is built upon.  Additionally, the 13 colonies at the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendment almost all had some form of State Religion, supported by tax dollars with special powers and privileges granted by the state that weren't removed until decades later.  This is because the U.S. Government had no power to remove them and even when these laws were changed, it wasn't due to the 1st Amendment.
    SkepticalOneWilliamSchulzEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • If you want to stone women to death for getting raped because they involuntarily cheated on their husband then GO DO THAT!

    Saudis in Audis bong bong 


    Vaulk
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 523 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @someone234 It is not irrelevant to bring up Sharia Law. :) Idiotic nations will run by the religion, smart nations will use reasoning.
    WilliamSchulz
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Vaulk said:



    The argument above relies heavily on the cherry picking fallacy in that only select (complementary) parts of the evidence are submitted for review. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

    The Supreme Court has used far more than the Declaration of Independence to determine intent including the writings of the Founders' and the Preamble to the Constitution.  What's more, the conclusion "the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that Free Government is founded upon a religious principle and securing that religious principle is the absolute highest duty of the court" is in direct opposition to Supreme Court rulings such as Everson v. Board of Education:

    Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

    EmeryPearson
  • @SkepticalOne ; "Secretly" I always laugh when a law outlaws the government to do something secretly... Who is going to expose them? Exactly, no one.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Evidence said:
    Do you believe that our government will function best if we base our country's judgements on religion or remain secular to preserve the identity of our citizens? 

    First, I would like to clarify what exactly it is that you are asking?
    The question you ask is that; if we should base our judgement on Religion - or remain secular, but the Heading is "Should the Church and State remain separate or be interconnected?"

    Church -
    1. a building used for public Christian worship.
    * a particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines.

    Religion -
    1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
     - a particular system of faith and worship.

    - a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. (this should NOT  be under Religion, but religious)

    secular -
    1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
    synonyms:nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane

    Since you are talking about the Country we reside in, .. this here USA aka North America we can throw "secular" right out of the window, because starting from the first arrivals whether we pick the Norse Viking Leif Eriksson, or the Catholic Christopher Columbus, or look at the already existing Native American Indians that lived and still live here were all "very religious".

    Religion or religious?
    And as far as Religion goes, we would have to establish which version of religion that we are talking about? Is it "Organized Religion", or religious behavior? I believe you are talking about Organized Religion, not "religious behavior" which is pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance to, like jogging every morning for an hour.

    So from what we know of our History, the USA has always been, and continues to be ruled by all kinds of Organized Religions, from the ancient Native Indians, to the present day government/controlling powers that be.



    And since we know that NO Organized Religion worships our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", or His son "Word", aka Jesus Christ, but worship Deities who reside in the supernatural realm, .. we Bible Believers, or Disciples of the real Jesus Christ (not the deified sun-god, and his Deity father and mother Mary aka Trinity-gods) can not accept or be politically involved in this pagan Religion governing body, even if they do use the Bible.

    Why?

    Because as we can see that all Organized Religions point to the worship of one god, and one god only, which is Lucifer, or Satan the god of this world, while us Believers, are Disciples of none other than the King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus Christ.

    Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

    Which can mean only one thing, and it is that:


    John 18:36 (NKJV) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

    So we, while in this world in the body, are to come out of this world in spirit/mind and walk in the Light of Jesus Christ. We are to keep ONLY those laws of the land that coincides with Christ teaching as described in the Bible:

    Mathew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

    The identity of any citizen of any Country is what he or she believes in and serves, and it's either the Devil Lucifer, or the son of our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", "Jesus Christ".


    Joshua 24: (NKJV)
    15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

    May God bless us all with spiritual eyes to see/understand!
    Hey, thanks for the the questions. To clarify what I am asking, I am asking whether the government would function better if the church helped the government in some decisions in law, or if the church should stay out. For instance, the church would come into play for welfare programs or religious liberty cases, but not for something like tax cuts. My full argument is listed above stating a solution. 

    I now want to debunk your video, which I found to be irrelevant. Sure, the guy might have a claim that there were many organized religions, but I doubt it. Nowhere does he mention that the original 13 colonies were British, which means that most of the founders were Protestant / Anglican!!! The fact that there is anything Egyptian is coincidental. One could even argue that the back of the dollar bill is the Trinitarian God in three persons at the top of Dante's triangle which he uses to depict heaven. Finally, no duh that 13 was used a lot when the colonies were founded, but claims such as 13 letters in E Pluribus Unum are completely unrelated to his point. If anything, who cares if we were founded on multiple religions, they are all supported by the government via first amendment! I'm sorry for typing this, but the video pointed out more coincidentals then true facts.

    Finally, I would like to show you why Satan does not control Earth. You bring up Bible passages to support your claim, so I will mention each one in turn to show you why Satan does not control Earth. First off, From John 18-36, there are multiple ways to interpret this, but God is stating here that he is not supposed to be an Earthly king, he is a divine being, however, he administers to the people on Earth like a teacher and a guider, so that the people on Earth can be redeemed of sin and death. Second, your second quote is interpreted by that we either serve Satan or God, this I agree with, but in a more figurative way. Satan is a divine being, but he is a fallen being, so his rule is not of Earth, but of Hell. In a Bible passage, it is noted that Earth is like a battleground, and consider that neither God nor Satan have the power to force us to do whatever they please, but it is by our own free will that this occurs. However, only God can truly control the Earth, as Satan is a fallen being, but God gives us the choice between him or Satan, which is why you may incorrectly infer that Satan controls the Earth. Finally, you mention Jesus's temptation with Satan, where Satan offers him the world. Think about it, Satan was offering a bunch of people for Jesus to evangelize to and save from sin and death, but Satan was offering him worldly power in order to bow down to his (Satan's) divine power, which God denied, and eventually overcame Satan, which means that God is more powerful than Satan, and controls the world.

    Just remember that it is our own free will to choose God or Hell, and Earth is the battleground in which we fight our lives.

    Thank you for your time.
    EmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @someone234 It is not irrelevant to bring up Sharia Law. :) Idiotic nations will run by the religion, smart nations will use reasoning.
    You're right, Sharia Law is not irrelevant, and has caused problems for a lot of people living there, but this is also America, and our major religion is Christianity, and such a crime as shown in Sharia Law would merit jail time here. You are correct that religious beliefs would need to be monitored carefully, but if they are used appropriately, they will yield an overall net benefit.
    someone234EmeryPearson
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch