Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state

Him and his turrets lol. Anyways, I will in this round attack my opponents case then rebuild my own, however I'll start with the fallacies in my opponents case. He assumes that we are all Christian. He has stated Bible passages and uses the Christian Bible for nearly his entire case. Need I remind you THIS is why we must have strict speration of church and state, so laws can not be based off of ones beliefs, but what benefits the greater good through FACTS, thus best serving Deomcracy. As an Atheist, I in no way benefit from laws being passed that are only passed because of his/her Christian or whatever faith. It infringes on my 1st Amendment rights. I'd like to state the second fallacy in his case. My opponent misinterprets the resolution. He states. .. "I am not implying that the government declare a national religion or that they pass laws favoring Christians, but simply that prayer in schools is allowed if a teacher or student so chooses to participate, or a prayer to open a town hall meeting, or the freedom to hand some one a piece of religious literature in the airport with out getting sued. " Seperating church and state means seperating religion from influencing the governmental decisions in making laws. All those things are irrelivant because we are debating whether our Democracy is better held in making decisions in its laws reguarding religious beliefs. Now onto the actual part of my opponents case. . My opponent values Natural Rights, now while I agree those are important, however my value of Democracy is superior being is what we are trying to prove how combining church and state is best serving it. Thus, if I value Democracy, I am valueing what the reolution is wanting best served. His value still though contradicts his case. This leads to how bringing the church into government does NOT infringe on my Natural Rights, the thing my opponent clearly values over Democracy; what the reolution asks for serving. .. ? It attacks those rights by the government forcing me to abide by it's laws (which are church orriented) and thus forcing me to believe in it's religious beliefs, violating my Natural Rights. His criterion is the Social Contract. More specifically, Hobbe's Social Contract. For all that don't know, Hobbe was born during a time of war and wanted to do anything to prevent it. He is Brittish and therefore his Social Contract takes on the form of Monarchy, and his original intent in his Social Contract was that of Monarchy. Since the resolution is asking for what best serves Democracy, and since Hobbe's contract is talking about Monarchy, it is irrelivant to debate. My opponent contention is therefore dropped, and thus my opponent has NO criteria. His first contention that the Bible clearly supports religion intertwining. This is indeed a fallacy as there were no Democracies at the time of the Bible. Also, why would you not write that you want your religion in government? It's only logical. Man has a craving for power, thus you would want your religion the most powerful, and thus needing a seat in government. This should not be allowed but any means however my opponents is obviously ok with that by negating the resolution. His second contention is saying that the Constitution actually supports his side. This is due from what evidence? Oh, the interpretation he's providing from HIS opinion. With all due respect, that has no credibility to it. I could say the Constitution means that I'm justified to rape babies. That's how I may interpret it, however that doesn't make it true. My defination of it is a RULING by the Supreme Court, which I willl restate. "To cut off forever every pretense of alliance between church and state in the National Government" So how does the Constitution favor the Negative? Is does not. The Constitution was RULED by the SUPREME COURT JUSTICE as this meaning, thus my interpretation is superior. It's his own interpretation against a Supreme Court Justice, who wins? I believe the Supreme Court has more credibility. His third contention I honestly do not understand. I don't understand how none strict seperation of church and state does infringe on Natural Rights. Last I checked, having the church inolved in government infringes in fact on the Natural Rights of the minority religion. Thus, this contention supports the Aff. I will further this in my defense arguement, mainly my 3rd contention. Now unto my case. . My opponents main attack on my case is the arguement on the word 'strict'. This is obsolete simple because the church is too powerful of an organization. As history has shown, if only a partial allowance on church and state is prepetuated then it ends up turning into a dominated church-run-government, thus creating wars and tyranny. MY first contention of history is a stong one as that's how we have come so far is what we learn fro mour past. One big one, is the lesson in inolving church and state. My opponents attack is small considering the strength of this contention. There are more than just "Holly Wars" to back in history. Former President James Madison once said, "The purpose of sepreation and stateis to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries" History shows that the combination of church and state creates needless deaths and ends up destroying the very government, thus creating a less-served Democracy, and therefore voting negative crushes the resolution through history. We must learn our lessons in history, and only then can we better serve our Democracy. My second contention of the Constitution stands on my side, as I have earlier proven. Supreme Court is more creditable than his own opinion, thus this still stands on my side. His arguement against my third contention I explained in his fallacies. Even so, I'd like to understand how prayer in school would not infringe on the rights of those Jewish, Atheist, etc etc. It attacks them and thus is ignored. I don't require all to stand and resite "Abortion is wrong" everyday, it affects those that believe the opposite. To force someone to follow as you do is immoral and infringes on the rights of the minority and individual rights, which is the basis of which a Democracy is found on. In conclusion I have shown my opponents fallacies and his flawed arguements. My case stands strong by protecting Religious AND Individual Rights AND uphold a Democracy. Through history, through the Constitution, and through the Individual Rights of the minority, the Aff best uphold a Democracy. Vote Aff. Thankyou :)