CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
How far should there be separation of Church and State?
Since the creation of the United States, the people of our country have been arguing about how much separation should there be between the different levels of government and any religious affiliation. People on both sides have compelling arguments: examples are to remove the "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance or that our judicial system was based on the Ten Commandments. I want to know what you think on the issue. You will state your name and what you think about the issue.
2. The church should not be allowed to "collect" money from the people.
Churches are private charity, so they have every right to collect donations from theirs members of the church because, otherwise, if nobody donates, there is no church because churches can't force anyone to donate, this is strictly voluntary.
3. The church should not be allowed to marry people.
To the contrary, the church should be allowed to marry people because it was originally institutionalized by religion, the government hijacked it with the income tax law, which gives benefits to married couples, thus, when you control this, you can legally defined marriage. Government should get out of marriage.
The government cannot force people not to give money to churches, or do anything else that would cause such an effect because of the first amendment. And why is it bad if same-sex couples never get the privilege to "marry"?
To the contrary, the church should be allowed to marry people because it was originally institutionalized by religion,
So you want church-government entanglement?
If they marry people it shouldn't be recognised by the state. Much like the Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah.
Otherwise it's needless entanglement.
the government hijacked it with the income tax law, which gives benefits to married couples, thus, when you control this, you can legally defined marriage. Government should get out of marriage.
You have it the other way around. It isn't in the government's interests to meddle in religion. What happens is that religion meddles in government. They whole recognisation of marriage by government gives religious authorities control on a state level over this activity. If religion kept it private, there would be no gay marriage dispute now. There would be secular civil unions for everyone.
Too late, it is already entangled. I want the relationship extricated.
If they marry people it shouldn't be recognised by the state
In all states, couples need marriage licences, why do I or anyone need permission from government to get married? Private marriage would completely separate marriage from government, doing away with its benefits for married people, gay or straight. Marriage is entangled in the income tax code. This is how government gets the power to regulate who gets married. Marriage should be strictly a relgious ceremony.
It isn't in the government's interests to meddle in religion
Really, interesting? THEN, what does the state require permission for people to get married. ML
Too late, it is already entangled. I want the relationship extricated.
Then you want marriage dissolved as an institution and replaced with secular civil unions.
In all states, couples need marriage licences, why do I or anyone need permission from government to get married?
Because centuries ago it was tradition that the church perform marriages, and that the state legitimised them through legal enforcement. This passed from Europe to the United States. So now it is just accepted by tradition that the government enforces religious ceremony.
Private marriage would completely separate marriage from government, doing away with its benefits for married people, gay or straight.
Or you could completely secularise it, remove religious authorities from the equation, and give those benefits to any citizens who apply for them.
Marriage is entangled in the income tax code. This is how government gets the power to regulate who gets married. Marriage should be strictly a relgious ceremony.
So you would rather have no benefits and privileges than allow government control over the legitimacy of this institution.
Really, interesting? THEN, what does the state require permission for people to get married. ML
As stated before, religious institutions applied for this special treatment, so it is a matter of tradition.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
In other words, religion is a personal matter and ought to remain that way. State sponsorship of religion is the same as forcing beliefs upon others. It is a violation of our right to maintain autonomy of our most personal sentiments, feelings and beliefs and it is a means of legitimising said beliefs over others when there should be complete equality on this matter.
There is one notable exception I must explain: religious beliefs, like personal beliefs, must never be used as a free pass to legitimise the harm of others. For example, ritual animal sacrifice and human corporal punishment must never be exempt from law because of religious underpinnings. Beliefs should remain private and under no influence of law until they become illegal actions.
In England in the 1500's, there were horrible religious feuds that lasted for centuries. Thomas Jefferson was well acquainted with the kind of chaos and turmoil that arose when governments are controlled by religion, and that is why he said what he did. He did not advocate complete secularism however. References to God in our pledge of allegiance, our money, or even in our schools is no where near the kind of Church/Government union that England had, and Mr. Jefferson understood that.
In England in the 1500's, there were horrible religious feuds that lasted for centuries. Thomas Jefferson was well acquainted with the kind of chaos and turmoil that arose when governments are controlled by religion, and that is why he said what he did.
Correct.
He did not advocate complete secularism however.
Yes he did. That's what "a wall of separation" means. Further, if you read the first amendment, it says explicitly that government may not endorse any religion. That is complete secularism.
References to God in our pledge of allegiance, our money, or even in our schools is no where near the kind of Church/Government union that England had, and Mr. Jefferson understood that.
It does not matter if it is less severe. It is still illegal. Also, these are modern developments. In the 18th century the United States did not have god in our motto, on our currency, or in our pledge. It would be seen as a violation of secularism. This is also why there is a marriage equality dispute these days. The church imposed itself upon the state so that marriage would receive state benefits and legitimacy. Well the problem is that when you receive support from the state, you cease to have the power to discriminate. In doing this the church is required to marry homosexuals and any other minority which receives equal protection under the law.
Churches and government must be independent of each other. Government may not institute any laws that effect any religious belief, or regulate how churches practice said beliefs. Churches also may not influence government legislation. References to God, or religion by public officials, on our money or in our pledge of allegiance is acceptable. 10 commandments on courthouses, nativity scenes on government property etc... also acceptable. Any sort of law enforcing religious or non religious beliefs over people, not acceptable.
Churches and government must be independent of each other. Government may not institute any laws that effect any religious belief, or regulate how churches practice said beliefs.
I agree with you up until the last verb, practice. What if the practice of those beliefs violates law? Religion must not be a free pass for criminal behaviour.
References to God, or religion by public officials, on our money or in our pledge of allegiance is acceptable. 10 commandments on courthouses, nativity scenes on government property etc... also acceptable.
Public officials, our money, our pledge, our courthouses etc. are all government property which means that it is unconstitutional to endorse or mention religion here. You just contradicted your statements:
Churches also may not influence government legislation.
And
Any sort of law enforcing religious or non religious beliefs over people, not acceptable.
This is what is meant by the wall of separation between church and state. Government must never endorse religion because when it does so, it speaks for everyone in the state, and in doing so imposes those values upon everyone at the expense of different beliefs.
"I agree with you up until the last verb, practice. What if the practice of those beliefs violates law? Religion must not be a free pass for criminal behaviour."
I will rephrase: I believe religious communities should be allowed to practice their religion as they please as long as they remain within the bounds of the law.
"Public officials, our money, our pledge, our courthouses etc. are all government property which means that it is unconstitutional to endorse or mention religion here."
The majority of the signers of the constitution condoned references to God including the 10 commandments on courthouses, and nativity scenes on government property. Almost all of them talked about God, or made references to God in public speeches, and a few even organized prayer services in schools. Why would they intend the 1st amendment to mean absolute secularism if they themselves did not abide by it during their political career?
"You just contradicted your statements:
Churches also may not influence government legislation.
And
Any sort of law enforcing religious or non religious beliefs over people, not acceptable."
I will rephrase: I believe religious communities should be allowed to practice their religion as they please as long as they remain within the bounds of the law.
Alright, then we are in agreement.
The majority of the signers of the constitution condoned references to God including the 10 commandments on courthouses, and nativity scenes on government property.
It does not matter what they did two-and-a-half centuries ago. Some of them condoned slavery, and practiced bloodletting, for example. What matters is the law.
Almost all of them talked about God, or made references to God in public speeches, and a few even organized prayer services in schools.
This seems apocryphal. My understanding is that two centuries ago it was the common attitude that religion ought to be private. In fact religious leaders opposed placing tributes to god on money, for example, because it was seen as making trivial the name of the lord. It would be seen as insincere to brandish your belief in god in political office. Are you sure you are not confusing the context of public speeches? For example it was common practice to refer to the creator, not in overt theistic overtones necessarily but instead meaning something like "in nature" or "as given by nature."
Why would they intend the 1st amendment to mean absolute secularism if they themselves did not abide by it during their political career?
Because many of them, especially Jefferson, noted that without a barrier between the state and the church you wind up creating a state church, with all other beliefs and religions second to it. Back in those days the idea of a secular state was radical, completely new. In those days it was expected that a state would back a specific church and different sects would either be illegal or made inferiour to it. Europe in those days was torn in skirmishes between rival religious factions, such as the Protestants, Lutherans, and Catholics.
We were the first to try this great experiment, a state divorced from religion. It is because of this that liberalism, democracy, freethought were all able to grow from enlightenment values and change the world. The mistake you make is in confusing the practices of people with the actual law. It is often the case that people act at variance with the law, and it may even find brief periods of state support until higher law revises this problem. For example, it is strictly unconstitutional for "god" to appear in our national motto, in our pledge, and on our money but lawmakers decades ago ignored this law in order to promote a kind of religious nationalism.
If you don't believe me about our secularism and divorce from state religion, then I advise you look into the constitutions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These are true theocracies which means that Islam is a state religion as defined in their constitutions. It is unambiguous and distinct from our own constitution.
How are these contradictory?
Churches also may not influence government legislation.
And
Any sort of law enforcing religious or non religious beliefs over people, not acceptable.
Contradicts with:
References to God, or religion by public officials, on our money or in our pledge of allegiance is acceptable. 10 commandments on courthouses, nativity scenes on government property etc... also acceptable.
God is a religious belief. Endorsement of it by the state indicates church influence over government and a superiority of it over other religions and beliefs.
Put another way, would you agree that a stone copy of Islamic Hadith ought to be placed in front of our courtyards? Would you endorse "One nation, under Allah" in our pledge? If not, then why should a sizable portion of the population be forced to see your beliefs sponsored by the state?
"It does not matter what they did two-and-a-half centuries ago. Some of them condoned slavery, and practiced bloodletting, for example. What matters is the law."
The "law" was originally made by them, and therefore, it does indeed matter what they did because it was a reflection of who they were, why they put the law in place, and how they expected it to be followed.
My next point was incorrectly phrased. While almost all of them referenced God, it was seldom "preachy". But the fact that they endorsed God in their speech and condoned and even organized on a few occasions prayer in public schools does say a lot about what their views on the separation of church and state were.
"God is a religious belief. Endorsement of it by the state indicates church influence over government and a superiority of it over other religions and beliefs."
But that alone is not a direct infraction of the 1st amendment. The first amendment deals only with lawmaking power, or more correctly, the lack thereof. All it really says is that the government cannot make a law to establish a state church, or make laws regarding how someone believes or practices their belief. If someone at the capitol building decides to set up a nativity scene around Christmas time, or say a prayer in a public school, is he making a law?
Lastly, I don't believe you have denied that several of the founders condoned these state sponsored religious references in your argument. Would you say that they were wrong in doing so?
The "law" was originally made by them, and therefore, it does indeed matter what they did because it was a reflection of who they were, why they put the law in place, and how they expected it to be followed.
Incidentally when quoting you can enclose the paragraph in double asterisks.
There is a stark difference between manifesting your religious conviction in speeches, in private life, or in public displays, and attempted to endorse its presense in government. Modern Christians seem to forget this, they think that the only way to be a true Christian is to act politically. Times were very different then.
Of the founding fathers, these were distinctly secular in their involvement with government:
The point is, if your argument is that the founding fathers would approve of giving favouritism to the Christian Church in government, you are mistaken. A number of them were devoutly religious, others irreligious or just culturally observant, many were deistic. However the general trend was that they kept their religious matters out of government.
My next point was incorrectly phrased. While almost all of them referenced God, it was seldom "preachy". But the fact that they endorsed God in their speech and condoned and even organized on a few occasions prayer in public schools does say a lot about what their views on the separation of church and state were.
No, it doesn't. There is a critical difference between mentioning god in speeches and using your political influence to make god the state religion. Franklin for example seemed to believe in god as a basis for human morality, but never advocated for Christian favouritism in politics. It is similar with Jefferson.
But that alone is not a direct infraction of the 1st amendment. The first amendment deals only with lawmaking power, or more correctly, the lack thereof. All it really says is that the government cannot make a law to establish a state church, or make laws regarding how someone believes or practices their belief.
Well let's look at the amendment text itself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
At its face it would indicate that the state cannot endorse religions. Or prohibit them.
Now let's look at an example Supreme Court ruling opinion:
Everson v. Board of Education
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 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.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
If someone at the capitol building decides to set up a nativity scene around Christmas time, or say a prayer in a public school, is he making a law?
No. However if he is a state employee, and is operating during his work hours, it means that the state would be entangling itself with religion needlessly. It means effectively that our money would be paying to support someone's religion. This is why there is usually great outcry against such happenings.
It is especially a problem if public property is used by the state to support religion in any way through symbols or displays. In this case it is an example of government specifically endorsing a religion. This is why having a nativity scene at a government location is wrong. It is also why having the ten commandments at a courthouse is wrong.
Lastly, I don't believe you have denied that several of the founders condoned these state sponsored religious references in your argument. Would you say that they were wrong in doing so?
Yes, they would be. This is why I disagree with them, but their opinions lost out to secularism.
Franklin for example seemed to believe in god as a basis for human morality, but never advocated for Christian favoritism in politics. It is similar with Jefferson.
So what you are saying is that praying to Jesus in a public school by a public official is not religious favoritism? Because they did support that.
You also cited the case of Everson vs. the Board or Education in which the supreme court decided what the first amendment almost two centuries after it was written. The supreme court interprets based on their own mindsets, not the mindsets of the people who actually wrote the law. They could have decided to make the fist amendment mean you could slap the president if you wanted to, but that doesn't mean they have sound judgment.
No. However if he is a state employee, and is operating during his work hours, it means that the state would be entangling itself with religion needlessly. It means effectively that our money would be paying to support someone's religion. This is why there is usually great outcry against such happenings.
It is especially a problem if public property is used by the state to support religion in any way through symbols or displays. In this case it is an example of government specifically endorsing a religion. This is why having a nativity scene at a government location is wrong. It is also why having the ten commandments at a courthouse is wrong.
Wrong is a relative word. Technically doing so is not an infraction of the first amendment as the founding fathers would have understood it. So it's really only wrong from a modern, and perhaps oversensitive viewpoint.
Yes, they would be [wrong]. This is why I disagree with them, but their opinions lost out to secularism.
So then your argument is that you know better than the founders about the laws they made?
So what you are saying is that praying to Jesus in a public school by a public official is not religious favoritism? Because they did support that.
I believe I did call that needless entanglement of government with religion.
You also cited the case of Everson vs. the Board or Education in which the supreme court decided what the first amendment almost two centuries after it was written. The supreme court interprets based on their own mindsets, not the mindsets of the people who actually wrote the law. They could have decided to make the fist amendment mean you could slap the president if you wanted to, but that doesn't mean they have sound judgment.
Again, the founders merely give insight to the thought behind the law but their views are not legally binding. The Supreme Court on the other hand gives legal precedent. Why do you want religious favouritism in this country? It is not a nation founded upon any religion. Christians have made every effort over the last century to turn this country into a theocracy by inserting their deity upon our money, into our pledge, into our motto, forcing prayer and bible studies in school, placing religious symbols in our public institutions, and receiving tax-exempt status. What is your problem that you cannot respect the law of the land?
If you want to live in a nation with a state religion, try moving to Europe. Many of their states have selected religions which are funded by government through tax.
Wrong is a relative word. Technically doing so is not an infraction of the first amendment as the founding fathers would have understood it. So it's really only wrong from a modern, and perhaps oversensitive viewpoint.
What part of:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Is unclear to you? It is a clear violation of the law.
Placing religious symbols on or at public buildings is a case of government respecting a religious establishment. Most of the founders were clearly against this type of behaviour, as I pointed to in my earlier links. It is unambiguous.
The problem is that Christianity has received a natural favouritism in this country because people turn a blind eye to infractions upon the law associated with it. Christianity is the predominant religion here and people automatically trust it. Secularism does not permit this, and the modern resurgence of freethought and secular movements have made every effort to restore our secular politics. What you are seeing is not sensitivity, but a lack of respect for your perceived entitlement to break the law.
So then your argument is that you know better than the founders about the laws they made?
My argument is that it is unambiguous how many of them felt about organised religion and government, and that this sentiment has been downplayed by Christian apologetics in the last forty years. I would also argue that our modern experience with new governments has given us examples that the founders could never have envisioned, such as atheistic states, mega-churches and Islamic theocracies. These examples reinforce the need for secularism and help us better define its role.
