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

Please excuse my random outburst earlier. I have turrets. Just kidding. But, no, seriously on to the debate. I now will start by offering my case and then addressing my opponent's. 1 Peter 2:16-17 (Old King James Version) As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. This verse shows how we should not misuse our faith but in fact to use it to honor the king, meaning the government. The words of Peter here show how we shouldn't abandon our faith in our relations with the government, but in fact use it to uplift our government. In this debate I will value Natural Rights, specifically the rights to the pursuit of happiness and liberty. These rights are inalienable and cannot be rightfully taken from anyone by anyone save their creator (God, nature, chance). Thus my criterion in today's debate will be social contract. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Hobbsian Social Contract Theory. So if you need further explanation about it I insist that you inquire of wikipedia. Otherwise I will move on. I have three contentions to offer in today's debate. CONTENTION 1: The Bible clearly supports a Church fully engrafted into the State. CONTENTION 2: The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that. CONTENTION 3: Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights. Now back to my first contention. The Bible clearly supports a Church fully engrafted into the State. If you look at the old testament you see a nation (Israel) created by God for the purpose of glorifying God. At first and in its purest state it was a total and pure theocracy, where the government was God and that was that. This shows that God wholly supported the idea of a nation where church and state were not separated. This level of connection may be impractical and unattainable in today's world but its basics can still be reasonably practised in our modern Government. A colonial period philosopher, Roger Williams (the man who first conceived separation of church and state), said, "Separation is not a principle that keeps the church from participating in government, but is in fact an idea that keeps the state out of the church and only that," Williams furthers, "The church is an institution of God and is therefore inherently good, the state is an institution of man is therefore inherently evil. If we allow the state to interfere with the church then its evil will corrupt the church. If the church is allowed to have a say in the government then its good will help to purify the state. " I am not suggesting that the US government is evil but am instead saying that it has been purified of that evil by only partial separation of church and state. This brings me to my second contention. The Constitution does not imply strict separation but instead exactly half of that. The first amendment reads," Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. .. .. " As we can clearly see the founding fathers took to Mr. Williams idea of separation. Note that they specifically stated that the state stay out of the affairs of the church but never that the church stay out of the state. This is because it is impossible to uphold natural rights through strict and total separation of church and state. Thus I arrive at my final contention. Strict separation of Church and State detracts from natural rights. To arrive at this conclusion I must quote the Encyclopedia of Psychology: "Every belief is a religion of sorts, even atheism, which requires its own amount of faith, is a religion in and of itself. .. . Every belief that one holds, experience that one has, event that one goes through effects our decision making thereafter, consciously or unconsciously, without exception. .. .Therefore to perfectly separate church and state would mean to completely remove any notion of God from the thought process of every citizen of said country. " Such a control on thought would violate every citizen's natural right to liberty thus strictly separating church and state would tear down natural rights, which is an unjust act and therefore cannot be allowed. Now on to my opponent's case. He began his case with a quote from Mathew 22:21 which I perfectly agree with. But I must point out that my opponent failed to correctly interpret this passage of scripture. Rather than requiring the strict separation of church and state he was tackling the problem of governmental obedience. If you look at history you see that Rome was in control of Israel at the time and the Jews were constantly questioning Rome's authority. The given statement from Jesus is his response on whether or not one should pay his taxes to an oppressive government. He said that while Caesar demands his tax, God demands his own and that we should obey both and pay both their due. I have clearly shown in my own case how his value of Democracy is better upheld by negating the resolution. And thus it still stands, but as a point for my case, and not his. Again my case upholds his criterion of Religious Freedom better than his. He makes the statement that the US non-involvement in 'Holy Wars' is due to the strict separation of church and state. This is false. Yes, the US has evaded such wars, but it has done so through partial separation and not strict separation. My opponent brings up the 'Holy War' argument again as his first contention and I again negate this by saying that such success is not attributed to strict separation but to partial separation. His second contention was that of the Constitution. I have explained in my second contention how this is completely incorrect and how the exact opposite is true instead. My opponent brings into light the idea that if no strict separation is enforced then religious freedom for minority religious groups is lost. This is again false. 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. That is all I want protection from, these and other such restrictions given in the name of strict separation of church and state. To conclude, through the words of the most the most popular religion (the Bible) and through the foundation of our government (the constitution and colonists) I must negate the resolution. It is through the preservation of the all important natural right to liberty that I must negate the resolution. It is for the better of our sovereign nation of the United States of America that I must negate the resolution. It is for all these reasons and many more that I must negate the resolution. Thank You All.