The Instigator
Idealopposition
Pro (for)
The Contender
billsands
Con (against)

Seperation of church and state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Idealopposition has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2020 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 249 times Debate No: 123817
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Idealopposition

Pro

In history we have read about religions that have created empires in name of there God. Religion is made because people wrote from stories what tribes have agreed to be the right way. Religion is known to be peaceful where neighbors cohabitate because God is the reason we function together. There are more religions than Christian Muslim Pagan Jewish, There are violent religions where human sacrifices are demanded from God. There are religions that prosper only because Rape and Humiliation satisfy God. There are Religions that don't agree with Equality because there God says so. There are religions with confused leaders. Cults are religious, Barbaric tribes are religious, Drug addicts are religious. Anyone can form a religion, And people can take part in any religion they want. 2 people together can enter another's belief and start a war because there God said so. In matters of religion some things are better off not said because you don't want to make God angry with you. There have been times when a woman embarrassed a man publicly and the wrath of God came to that man the next night against that women. There are secrets in churches that nobody can tell because once you give your life to God you leave regular people behind in whatever misery these godly people no longer care about. When God says something you must do it. If you and a family member are visited by God, You must give up on your family to follow God. God is not human but appears in many forms and God knows all because God is everywhere. Without God you are lost, Without God you are afraid, Only God can say what you are and what you can't be. God is the reason and god will give you the answer. Only through God will you be able to breathe.
*I believe in God because I know there is a force that influences people.
This debate is of seperation of church and state. So I gave some Godeology so you understand the atmosphere of God. Nonbelievers and believers have been arguing about God since someone said the name. Truth be said, Because God is a 3letter word, God exists. We all give meaning to every word and this is why we have language. In my preparation for writing this I have attended churches read religious and anti religious material, Talked to people about many ideologies of religion and came to an understanding that church and state are 2 separate forms and should be separated. Church is a place of worship for God but can also be used as a place to hang out with friends or watch TV. Church even has wifi. So let me point out the similarities of organization. Organization is the amount of people that gather and when a separate non affiliate asks for identification they claim to be a group. A group can be a party. A group can be a gang. A group is an organization with a name. So how did this organization get a name? The group got together at school and became a debate team. So in fact saying the 5 kids that go to school together got into a debate, Now they are all members of the debate team. Are there other kids at that place school, That is undecided. And because these are children are there any parents at that school, That as well is undecided. So do all 5 kids have individual parents, Or are they all related? That is undecided as well. So the kids were on a debate team really debating then a situation arose and now there is a conflict with the debate team. Is the debate team going to address the situation? Yes the debate team will address the situation but who is the antagonist in this situation, I don't know narrator. Well this is not good for the reader.
*In my study of religious people I thought to myself do these people understand literature? And so as I read religious books and talked to church members I found the people in church to enjoy religious stories. I did ask a religious person what they thought of the snow, The person gave me a religious answer and followed it up with quote and a prayer from God. I asked another person if athletes should get paid more than teachers, The individual told me that everyone has a place in life and thinking of others only takes me away from God. I asked a religious person what would happen if someone started a fight in church. A week later I was invited to go to church and on the way to service the driver started speaking if history, I listened and understood he was threatening me and so when we arrived at the church people were waiting for me. They said a prayer for me and I left the church. In my pro seperation of church and state I emphasize that people of the church may not have the understanding of government. I will compare this to a cook doesnt know how to give instructions on how to make spaghetti, But the cook will give you the ingredients because the cook is skilled at what he does. The cook will invite you to his restaurant prepare the meal and talk to you while you eat the meal. For debate purposes what makes a person qualified to be the leader of a debate team? And so in separating 2 powers either it be us and them a party understands which point of view it favors and so there becomes a seperation of 2 organizations. For visual reference I choose blue for church and red for state to speed up this analogy. If blue does blue things blue does not understand anything of red unless red tells blue what is going on the red side. Red has seen many blue discussions and heard many blue understandings, But because red has never gone to blue, Blue will not cooperate with red on a debate. In a political debate oppositions gather so both organizations can prosper after the debate. The problem with church and state is we consciously understand that church and state are different, But legally and executivelly, It had not been written and explained. My debate is to prove that issues occur in our communities in our colleges in our workplaces and on our media between those that are for the government and those that are for the church. I say that there are church organizations that do not follow government regulations that commit crimes against government officials and use this seperation of church and state as a pardon from legal conviction. I ask whoever is aware of this debate to look for any documentation that defends church against any legal action whatsoever. This can be in any form of government not just the u. S. Government and if you do find the sources please translate in English. As I looked into how government came into existence I found tribes got large and cities formed and so leaders were needed because through time people weren't as strong and smart as the people who kept the tribes happy and healthy. So as religions grew and changed so has governments grown and changed. I understand I used alot of depiction and no facts, But in the debate for morality it is difficult to create documentation against God(church) and history says alot of lesser religious writings have been burned because there ideas were senseless and against the true purpose of religion. In my arguments against the church most of my debate is not sourced or based upon other findings and my arguments sound personal and not professional, I ask my debater to take these facts into consideration. , If you believe that the works of man are not right, How do you agree with the state laws and regulations that interfere with people that go to church and do not understand the constitution? How can the church defend itself in a legal manner in the court system if you do not have rights for church being a protective sanctuary separate from state and federal government? Where are the constitutional rights for members of church when they claim seperation of state? When there is a division checks and balances do reserve the right for an appeal, But if the church doesnt represent itself doesnt that count as a vagrancy to a court summoming? If a convict has a warrant for his arrest and participates in piracy, Shouldn't these missed observations be written and revised to be placed in the constitution? If a party of people own a liquor store in New York and they are foreign and a citizen that also wear religious clothing, Shouldn't these religious rights be written for clarification in times of tyranny? If there are sacrificial religions that want to participate in religion legally we should write the safeties and protections for the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The fact is there are different religions and they have differences, If these religions could use government to solve there problems more communities would get along and we would have more documentation on how to deal with primitive disagreements. In closing if this opening if church and state could communicate we wouldn't need seperation, But we need to separate church from government so members of every church can speak with the government. History and language barriers all gets put into a mess so if there was an agreement within the church in the USA and every country on earth, We could unify as believers and nonbelievers for the goal of world peace.
billsands

Con

A state religion is not always a bad thing Lutheranism for example forged Nordic Social democracy IN ITS VALUES AND UNIFIED THE PEOPLE TOGETHER AS ONE, In most thing homogeniuty in reality is a plus not a minus
Debate Round No. 1
Idealopposition

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge and I am greatful that I was blessed to have a Lutheran to carry forth this argument. As the idea of state and religion are 2 different ways that say the same thing but from a manner that has a different point of view. I have never heard of the Nordic Swedish Democracy I would enjoy hearing about the reformation of European countries. The nordics were a paganism belief so history teaches that religion of Odin and his 9 realms yes I am very aware of the mythology but the reality really gets away from. As time passed the Vikings became a fierce force on the seas very barbaric but somewhere around the 11 century they just seem to vanish. I still cast spells hoping to find some type of proof that they left Europe knowing England will become what it is and sailed through the Americas before Spain. Anyhow I enjoy the creation of the Lutheran Church. Martin Luther that wrote the catechism of the catholic church understood his more modern take of traditional religion really made sense because as we humans become more intelligent we need to update and revise what is outdated. The church take this for example knows the original bible was written so when publishing happened the printers did there very best to make sure the original text was written exactly the way it was. What I also appreciate about the book the catechism was how the legal contexts of the commandments and how to repent from sin was written in such a way it was like reading an encyclopedia. Your bringing this debate the Lutheran religion helps me to write what I'm saying why church and state need to be separated so both sides can agree on the same story. I'm not going to ask you any personal questions like do you think politicians are overpaid or do you think lawyers are stupid, But for arguments sake knowing you are Lutheran, Do non church affiliates seem evil to you? As this debate gets warm the catholic bible was changed numerous times, There is the standard bible the red letter bible, The saint Joseph bible, The catholic bible, The new catholic bible, The American bible. . . The list goes on. If we understood what was written the first time why would we have to revise the same story over repeatedly? For verification. In the religious context the reason why people rewrote the bible is because the word of God makes better meaning written this way. So as the bible was translated alot people feared that scriptures were lost misplaced ignored forgotten, All the fears the state has when documenting a conversation with a priest or a witch. The spirit of God speaks to people without words and so the holy man is conversating with God, The other person in the room like a stenographer might miss what is going on in the conversation. In the margin of error idea that if there people are in a conversation a few points are missed, This would explain why the religious person does not understand what the state is listening too. In defense of the holy man the person is in prayer and is not fully present in the current conversation. Its difficult listening to headphones while having a debate. What is homogeniuty as my debater brought up. My translation is the state of being the same. And so in this debate of seperation of church and state we both are coherent to the fact the religion and politics are 2 separate worlds. The point again is for a common utilitarian concept so religious people can understand political people. Political people are social. They are always in crowds noise doesnt bother them there not listening to Angel's while talking to people, There politicians and people mature with age. Why I thought of this debate was to prove to religious people that because there book or spells say something, It doesnt meet legal notary. So in saying thou shalt not kill is different than murder will get you 10 to life. When someone says sin is punishable to death, The state gets worried and calls a detective to look for a murderer. So the politician is searching for a way to make sin become good, He also called a lawyer to investigate sin. As the lawyer investigates sin he realizes a simple case turned into 15 years of hard research. When the politician realizes he started a war because he was looking for sin we have a dead politician because he didnt know what he was saying. After the politician died the detective heard about it and was asking what was going on and the crime scene said he was killed over a religious person, The detective became in a list world that many Americans suffer in because they didnt know they got involved in a holy matter without knowing. To clarify to the state what I just explained is the unnatural phenomenon that happens when a religious disagreement occurs. I thank my debater for allowing me to bring this ideology to debate. Org because documentation brings understanding. And so how can the church communicate to the state to maintain a conversation through the differences? So the church wants to ask the state how do I become a professional lawyer so I can bring my points of views to a judge and a jury? So the state completely understands, This person wants a job give him the reference for education and referrals for placement and set an appointment periodically throughout his term to accommodate through his graduation. Maybe the church guy asks you to repeat yourself, Maybe the church guy says ok but I need your help, Or maybe he has that moment where he knows wow. So translating the state notary to religious language, We understand that 2 people can have the same conversation and not know what is being said. This would be seperation of church and state, But in the next debate where do we start because both parties know I don't get it. But just to prove I can translate state to religion again what I said was if you church man want to be a lawyer I'm going to give you a list of colleges and a list of people. The people will help you enroll into college the college of your choice. They will also help you with tuition and everything the college asks from you. And so you don't feel alone during school I'm going to call you every few weeks to see if everything is going good until you graduate. So terminology is very important when 2 parties get together. And so debator the main course. When Luther left the Roman catholic church he set up a whole new empire, The church of England. Protestant religion was the holy star of christianity. We have left the teachings of jesus for the teachings of jesus because church can change just like the bible. It's not supposed to make sense, The fact that religion teaches man how to better himself infers nothing that a person needs to go to church. The word of God can be used anytime anywhere, But when people start using the word of God against there boss saying today is Sunday I need the day off. Or a church person tells a policeman to not judge me because I'm jaywalking. This is why clarification of church and state need to get together and work this out. As I pointed out with sin what could happen, Now imagine the catholic church has a code of discipline for sinners. So church and state. In state that code for sinners is called the penal code. I'll raise the bar, If Lutheran started the monarchy, Why ever did the catholic church and church of England ever compare each other like a republic Democrat debate party? Was that church still supreme because it was built first? If so this proves that religious people are blind to what government workers are doing. The United nation is globalizing the world so poverty is no more and everyone can have a wealthy country to support itself. While the Pope is praying for homeless people riding in his golf cart in Rio de Janeiro, The monarchy has political power over Islamic states that have been at war for 20 years now, Not to mention that Africa is still poor and broke and at war. The monarch controls Canada, Australia, Parts of Europe, Piece of the middle east, And parts of Africa, As well as Scotland and a bunch of islands. How can we not say the constitution was not made to take the power from the monarch and to teach people to get along. If religion was the answer the Pope would have seen and fixed the problems a long time ago. And so I say, The church is blind and people need to believe the government can help if you work with it. This debate goes beyond christianity. This argument proves if a politician took time to study buddhism he could teach the Buddhist why he was labeled antisocial. If the politician learned Judaism, He could prove that constitutional laws make more results that canon laws. If he learned Islam, He could teach them how to communicate without being offended to the point of aggressive retaliation. In closing this debate was to prove that constitutional government is a necessary understanding for all people regardless of sex creed heritage to learn how to communicate as a group of people so all individuals can be heard and understood. With this proposal to mankind hopefully we can see each other as family instead of strangers
billsands

Con

google the nordic model, Many experts state that marx had much less to do with scandanvian social democracy than martin luther did, Lutheran societies were homogenious and communitarina when one fails in our society we blame the individual in lutheran societies the failure is shared by everyone "what could we have done to help them? " i like that
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Natural life church, Is a phrase unfamiliar to me.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
Martin Luther"s theological thinking, As it worked to shape the Lutheran world in the centuries following the Reformation, Has had a decisive impact on the creation of the Nordic social-democratic system in the twentieth century, Argues Professor Robert H. Nelson in his new book.
Religious and cultural Lutheran values have shaped Nordic societies for centuries. But instead of encouraging capitalism as in Calvinist Europe, Lutheranism promoted a social-democratic welfare state in the Nordic world.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
https://www. Helsinki. Fi/en/news/nordic-welfare/lutheranism-has-provided-the-foundations-of-the-nordic-welfare-state
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.