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.
The US is based in the Constitution, which said that the government should not be based in a sole religion. However, when the US is gone in about 40 years or so, then a theocracy should rise in the name of Christ.
The USA prides itself on being a free country, with free people. Free people have freedom of religion and don't want a bias towards one religion. People who want a religious bias are authoritarian and closed minded. Let spirituality be a private/spiritual community thing, not a law.
If people are not well educated, they can't get jobs, conduct business... in other words your country will be unable to compete with others and you won't be able to tax very much, so you won't be able to invest very much.
I don't care about competing with other countries. I don't care about taxing very much. All each person needs to know is how to do the job that they are going to conduct. If there is no formal education, then it can be passed down through apprenticeship.
You are saying There will be plenty as if you have limitations on genuine liberty. You can't just have limitations on genuine liberty and expect your society to be good?
I have my own definition for genuine liberty, freedom without harming the rights of other citizens. Morally I don't have any faith in a society that does not follow by that code.
No that just means rights are not inalienable (the correct term for unalienable) so rights are still real. In the dictionary it says the definition of rights are entitlements to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way, so rights are really just privileges inalienable right are just fantasy.
The economy is more recoverable than something like the environment, but with a bad economy the country sucks. Unless you go completely subsistence, which puts you at risk from environmental changes and bordering countries.
The economy is not what matters; education will be implemented as apprenticeships, which will keep up the people's jobs and their economy booming. When I say that the economy doesn't matter I'm saying that it is one of the least of worries, if any the last.
Morality is subjective and the condition of peace comes from diplomacy, compassion and wisdom. Welfare of the citizens: their quality of living, ability to reach their full potential, freedom... is more important.
In your fantasy land that doesn't follow, I knew that it was practically imposable for you to even make it into that position but now I proved the outcome as being negative, you lose!
This debate didnt ask if religion should run the government. It just said should religion influence US Law. Influence doesnt imply control. It just means that it can bring about a new law or something. Like when the bible says thou shall not murder. I think everyone can agree that is wrong. These types of things are acceptable. It doesnt imply that we will have a theocracy.
Dictatorships are allays brutal with no exception. It's a rule of very few people who can keep them self in power by keeping everybody else in constant fear. Theocracies are even worst, they shift knowledge and ban science or anything that would ago against their teaching.
If they become "mild" people will upraise... that killed USSR..
It's a rule of very few people who can keep them self in power by keeping everybody else in constant fear. That is accurate rulling minority with General, King, Supreme Leader in front who rules by power.
Theocracies are even worst, they shift knowledge and ban science or anything that would ago against their teaching.
Show me theocracy that has no problem with people speaking against the regime's religion.
The quality of a monarchy or dictatorship relies on the quality of a single or small set of individuals. Even if the quality is very high, it cannot be assured into the next generation.
Of course it can't be assured. No government can be assured because within every nation there is always someone who doesn't like the rule. The point is that a monarchy will allow for things to get done and will allow for good to happen as long as the monarch is not evil.
And what happens when you successor become power hungry? As a wise man once said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Plato said that an aristocracy is, in theory, the best form of government. Now, just to clarify, an aristocracy is not rule by the wealthy. That is a plutocracy. An aristocracy is a government that is ruled by the most intelligent, most qualified citizens. The intellectual elite would run the country. If you are intelligent, you will be able to see problems that others cannot, predict future problems, and deal with them accordingly. Unfortunately, only a few percent of the population can be considered highly intelligent, and the more power held by less people, the more dangerous corruption becomes. It is more difficult to corrupt 100 politicians than 10 aristocrats, or 1 monarch.
Absolute power doesn't corrupt. It simply brings out the true nature of the man.
Plato said that the best form of government would be the philosopher-kings. Aristotle, then, said that the best form of government is the monarch. Combine those together and you get a monarch who is philosopher king.
Which the true nature of man is usually dominance. We are primates, after all. It is written in our genetic code. Power has the capacity to corrupt everyone. Absolute power has the power to corrupt absolutely. It isn't 100%, there are those who would not abuse such power. But what is there to stop an absolute dictator from becoming a tyrant? Nothing, not without a separation of powers.
And philosopher-kings are not a form of government, but a specific set of rulers. Both Plato and Aristotle were advocates for an Aristocracy, the rule by the best. Aristotle even said that tyrannies were unstable. (rule by one person with absolute power, as per the classical definition)
Besides, what does this have to do with religion influencing US law anyways? If you want to continue this debate, shall we make a new one somewhere else? It shall be fun, me thinks.
Power doesn't corrupt; it simply brings out the true nature of the man. The only thing to stop someone from being a tyrant is for their nature to not be evil. The only way for that to be is for someone to be Christian.
Plato was an advocate for a group of philosopher-kings to rule; Aristotle was an advocate for a monarch, if it were to be uncorrupted, and a democracy, if corrupted. Aristotle differentiated between a monarch and a tyranny.
A theocracy will be instituted under the name of Christ.
First of all dumbass nobody is going to vote for you, Conservative dumbasses won't vote for you because you literally plan to rip up the constitution and destroy America! Second of all if you lie to the American people about all of this shit I will tell them the truth and if they don't agree with me Congress will get you impeached when president so you have no chance motherfucker!
This is all bullshit anyway, first of all before presidency will you be a senator or congressman? Will you be a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian? How will you get your campaigns started? How will you win voters over in your party's primary? And then how will you win voters over in the general election? I have no doubt in my mind that even if you somehow attempt to run for president (which we both know you won't) you have no chance in hell of even being able to get elected into any political office never mind the presidency!
I'm a quasi-Communist-Fascist, which is what the Bible teaches in Acts, in a sense. Everything else I don't know. I'll just trust in God and mighty things will happen!
Okay Okay (Bullshit.) How about this, while you have faith God will pull your theocratic world crushing success out of his ass, I will have faith that you will not get that bullshit success (and I will still continue to be an Atheist.)
God can do many great things! my ass! God can't do shit! There is barely any evidence for God's existence there are people that do not even believe Jesus Christ was a person! He barely answers anybody's prayers and does not pull any "Jesus karma" out of his ass when people "sin", break his commandments or believe in something else! The fact that we still have religious diversity alive in this country and God has not "smited" anybody is big evidence that there is no God or anything else!
What the hell does that mean? He rose valid points that you ignored. Also, he is one of many "new atheists" because guess what? Atheism is on the rise faster than ever before. So much so that in 40 years when the US will apparently collapse atheism will be a majority and christianity will be a joke. Well, it already is a joke but right not not that many people get it. But they will. more and more do every day
Except that he didn't raise good points. Most historians believe Jesus to have been real. And the US will collapse because if atheism... That was a point
He never asserted that all or even most people believe Jesus wasnt real. He only said that there are people that dont think he was real which is true. How will a disbelief in God cause the collapse of the US and nothing else: ruling out the economy, wars, resource conflicts, overpopulation, and anything else natural. please id like to know. Id also like to know how you account for Norway, Sweden, Finland and England (among others) for being quite successful as of late while having significantly higher atheist populations than the US and who have removed religion from much of their societies including their governments.
Actually it does. Ethnic uniformity brings unity. When there isn't, then there is chaos. When people become tired of the chaos, then they will turn to unity, which will be under a monarch.
yeah, ethnic uniformity brings ethnic unity, not religious unity. Theres no statistics or evidence to suggest that any given race is more apt to choosing a certain religion provided there are reasonable circumstances. What i mean is of course 99% of all middle eastern peoples are Muslim. But that isnt because they are middle eastern ethnicity. its because if they arent muslim they get killed and theyre brainwashed into it. With civilized, religiously free places like the US and Sweden theres absolutely no links between race and religion.
So fucking what, if you get your theocratic wish I will probably move to England where they will have more freedom! Honestly I'd recommend you'd fuck up Canada, nobody want's America to turn out the way you want it.
No No No No No No nobody want's you to have any effect on society, and if you get your wish I will move to England but you probably won't so I'm not gonna worry besides Can't you somehow spare this country for another country anyway?
Why are you stating It is going to happen as if it is a fact? There are plenty of things that will stand in your way of the plan, mainly the things I already explained and more!
Oh no, I am dead serious. Plato believed that a philosopher-king would be the greatest form of government. And that combined with Christianity would be wonderful.
Oh yeah of course you will, and while your at it you will be a genocidal dictator and people will still love your god damn country instead of wanting to change it back! LOL very funny!
Yes. According to the first amendment, we are supposed to be free to practice any religion we want to, to peacefully assemble, to speak and to petition the government for a redress of our grievances. We can vote on the basis of any belief we have and we can even run for offices to represent those beliefs.
What we can't do is use government to Establish our religious beliefs as laws and that is a very different thing from simply having an influence.
If religion is the reason someone's gut tells them that something is wrong and that there should be a law against it... they are supposedly free to push that agenda. I'm in the camp with those that say a secular case is much easier made and has a better chance for success -- but the Constitution does not require that. According to the 1st. Amendment, a hardened zealous bible thumping religious crusader has the same right to speak, vote, assemble and petition the government that an out right atheist has.
I dont think the government has to reform into a theocracy. It says "influence". Meaning it could just give way to law. For example a religion may say "dont steal for it is morally wrong". I think we can agree that is can be applied to law. Or something like "thou shall not murder" can just be applied in US Law making murder illegal. Which is pretty acceptable. The debate question didnt say "Should religion influence the US Government". It just asks if religion can influence US law. Meaning they can just take normal things from any religion and just get ideas for new laws. The entire US Government doesnt have to reform.
Influence: to have an effect on the condition or development of
All one can do is just read the bible and say I agree murder is wrong. They dont even have use anything else. They can just give a normal reason why its wrong. It doesnt have to have its religious backing. It can just help inspire new ideas for laws or, as the debate says, influence. It doesnt start a theocracy. Ideas for laws come from almost anywhere. I never said it had to follow its religion but in fact it can just inspire new ideas for laws. That is what the debate asks for. Everybody esle is applying religion to the government itself. This just says "law" meaning can a religion give new ideas for laws? Sure. A car crash can give new ideas for laws. Its just an idea. It doesnt have to have religious reasons.
No! Us law is built (or supposed to be) on equality, and their are things in religion that are not that equal, not to mention claiming one religion means claiming that one religion's rules, which is not equal.
While I do not believe in a theocracy, the "no state religion" was to prevent one branch of Christianity from ruling over others, not alienate it from the government. The US was built on equality, but this was based on the belief that God has created all men equal (the writers of the constitution thought slavery would die out quickly ). This is also shown with the part of unaliable rights, where else would they come from? As I said, a theocracy is a bad idea, alienating religion, specifically Christianity was never its intent.
The U.S. was built by deists, all of whom were not Christian. Some maybe, but not all. As division, and equality fell one religion (the one of the man in charge) took over, and that's why we have the theocracy we have today, the ineffective system that pledges hypocrisy.
What's that proving? That they were not all Christians as I said? Anyway, you can't deny that America was built out of the idea of freedom, religious or otherwise. That being the case making a government based off of anyone religion, when the pledge of the nation was that of freedom(including religion) would be as hypocritical as it gets.
You said most were simply deists. They wanted freedom of religion, not drop at the door freedom of religion. That includes having it in your law deciding for the practicing believer. Let's look at the evidence to show they didnt want religion out of the state completely:
1. They had a paid chaplain in congress before the revolutionary war ended.
2. They called the first that thanksgiving after the war to thank God.
3. The quote by william Penn, "if we are not ruled by God [in principle], then we will be ruled by tyrants".
4. The first amendment was to allow free practice of religion not to shut the crazy Christians because 90%+ were Christian.
5. Here's what chief justice Kent said for new.York, "We are Christian people, and the morality of the country us deeply grafted upon Christianity".
6. Pennsylvania court said "Christianity, general Christianity is, and always has been, a part of law of Pennsylvania..."
In thanking God they were simply representing their personal beliefs, that wasn't a decision they were making for the nation.
William Penn, wasn't the first president.
The 1st amendment is actually what supports the idea that they were not governed by one religion. That fact that any religion can be used shows that one religion's principals aren't in control. If it was their would be a rule against other gods, as there is in Christianity.
Kent of the Chief Justice is not the president, he's a person with beliefs.
I AM NOT SAYING THEY WERE MAKING RELIGIOUS CHOICES FOR PEOPLE. I am simply pointing out that the idea that the fathers wanted Christianity completely separate from government is preposterous. Christianity doesn't have to rule with an iron first as supreme in government, in fact probably shouldn't as shown by several nations showed (England, Spain, etc.) because man is ruling and is fallible and is not God their-selves. However complete separation is stupid because religion has influenced the law from the begining. Our law system is based on the assumption that man is fallible (bibilical principle.)
Lol yeah I feel ya, I was drunk when I posted this shit, but yeah, no theocracy, anyways I'm going to leave my crazy comment un-edited just for shits & giggles : )
But yeah word to the wise Alcohol and Createdebate don't mix, it's like "Srom in a Freedom from Religion Rally" lol.
Religion? No. Basic morality? That's a whole new minefield. However in keeping with the title, no. I don't believe it should, but there should definitely be a revision of what exactly constitutes a human being.
As a religious person (Christianity), I would yes, however the USA is a democracy, so it must represent all its people. No doubt has religion received it's positive long term and short term effects(U.S civil war united the country). However, religion can lead to aggression(U.S civil war caused many deaths).