The Instigator
renreh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

What does God have to do with government?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,000 times Debate No: 9521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

renreh

Pro

God and government, whatever form, are in opposition of each other. You cannot be under both. You are ruled by either God or the Government.

In Josephus' Book 1 chapter 4, it states that Nimrod was the inventor of government, as we know it. I quote, "Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage, which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power." http://www.ccel.org....

If God which some believe is their "Creator" is your ruler you live under his rules and obey his laws. You depend on your Creator for support, to meet your needs of food, water, clothes and protection. God has nothing to do with the vainness of possessions, wealth or power. If you are "one nation under God" than you live under God's power and guidance. You must submit to his authority.

If the government is your ruler, whether it is democracy, fascism, communism, monarchy, or whatever, than that is your creator. You must depend on that form of government to provide for your needs and protection. Government is a human invention. Therefore, it cannot coincide with God.

The question here becomes, "Do you want to be under the constant dependence of the government, God or even yourself in complete self sufficiency?"

There are three choices here, "One nation under God, One nation under a certain form of government or in other words a flag, or a nation unto yourself."

The remaining decision, everyone should be able to choose the government that they want to follow and be left to follow it in peace.
Danielle

Con

To clarify, I'd like to point out that my opponent has provided no real resolution for the debate. Instead, the topic poses a question rather than an assertion: What does God have to do with government? Considering my opponent's points in R1, I think it's reasonable to assume that her intended position states: Everyone should be able to choose the government that they want to follow, and be left to follow it in peace. Indeed that is the conclusion that she had reached at the end of her R1 argument. Keeping that ideology in mind, I stand in firm negation that everyone should be able to choose the government that they would like to follow. I will now present my rebuttal and arguments.

[ Rebuttal ]

1A) Pro's first premise is that anyone who believes in a Creator (God) depends on said Creator for food, water, clothes and protection. Assuming that my opponent is indeed talking about the Abrahamic God, I must disagree with this assertion. The Bible proclaims: There is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot (Ecclesiastes 3:22) and Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need (Ephesians 4:28) just to name a few verses about work. In fact throughout the Good Book there are many indications that God does NOT want people to be lazy and just depend on Him for everything via prayer, but instead to make a living for himself.

1B) Presumably Pro's point here was to demonstrate that if we are "one nation under God" then we submit to being under God's ultimate rule and authority as opposed to the government's. However, the Bible clearly states that while God is LORD above all, that earthly government is not a bad thing so long as it upholds the values of God. For instance, the Bible states: Honor the King (Peter 2:17) and When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice (Proverbs 29:2). So, any person of faith will tell you that earthly government is fine (and necessary!) so long as it is righteous and God-friendly. However, according to the laws that make this country great, a mandatory separation between Church and State does not give these Christians what they want out of government.

2A) Next Pro claims that if government is your ruler, then that is your Creator. I could not disagree more. First of all, if you live in a democracy, then the government does not rule you. Instead, you rule the government. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that when the people fear the government, there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people, there is liberty. In other words, the government dictating your life is not true of all types of government (as my opponent has suggested) but only certain types of government, such as fascism or totalitarianism.

2B) Pro writes, "Government is a human invention. Therefore, it cannot coincide with God." Now I personally do not believe in God; however, theists will tell you that you can most definitely utilize the Bible to figure out what kind of laws to make. For instance, Bible passages can be sited to oppose things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. as well as support things like Creationism being taught in schools, being pro-labor, etc. So, just because government is a human invention does not mean that it cannot incorporate the teachings of God. Countries like Saudi Arabia and other nations in the Middle East have God as a focal point of their government indeed. Moreover, I'd argue that just as government is a man-made creation, so is religion!

3) This leads us to Pro's concluding question: Do you want to be under the dependence of government, God or yourself? She advocates for the latter, stating that everyone should be able to choose their own government and be left to follow it in peace. I find this argument to be both hypocritical (against her other premises), ineffective and unrealistic.

[ Arguments ]

1) First off, if everyone should be able to choose their own government, then what about those who choose a Socially Conservative government that follows the teachings of Christ explicitly? This seems to be contradictory with her assertion that you cannot follow both (which is disputed in the Bible itself). I affirm that it is possible to follow the teachings of the Bible AND man-made government laws as well. Additionally, like I said, there are plenty of nations with non-secular governments already in existence to prove this point. This is a hypocritical argument.

2) In terms of this being ineffective, consider what would happen if everyone were to follow their own beliefs of what government should be. Chaos would inevitably ensue! There would be no way to protect everybody's rights or enforce any type of law, since people would be under the jurisdiction of various and conflicting ideologies. Now if my opponent is advocating for a Libertarian type of government, that would be one thing; however, her statement that everyone should be left to choose their own government and live in peace doing so does not say such a thing. Moreover, I highly doubt that there would be any type of PEACE in this anarchist society. Implementing this would be ineffective as there would essentially be no universal laws for the people to abide by, no way to enforce good behavior, punish bad behavior, protect people's rights, etc.

3) Finally, a government like the one my opponent has described would be entirely unrealistic. Would everyone agree to live in anarchy? Clearly not; in fact, right now the United States government is implementing socialist policies (I'm not saying that we're becoming socialist - just implementing socialist policies, such as seeking universal health care) meaning often times people want MORE protection or help from the government - not less. Additionally, if everyone got to choose what laws (government) they wanted to follow, how would you get people to pay taxes or not infringe upon the rights of others? As naturally selfish beings, people would inevitably act immorally towards each other. No stable government means no law enforcement (especially without taxes to fund said enforcement) which would not be a pleasant world to live in. Anarchy may not mean violence, but it doesn't necessarily mean peace either.

[ Conclusion ]

To conclude R1, I'd like to offer my opinion of what I think the most fair option (and solution to my opponent's concerns) might be: I advocate for a more hands-off type of government that allows people to live socially as they please; for instance, to decide whether or not they incorporate God into their every day lives. As far as legislation goes, people can still live as their God wants while obeying man's law. For instance, if they are opposed to abortion, they simply will not have one. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to get one. Regarding preaching and spreading the Good Word, they can do so outside of the law. That way people can follow whatever God they wish and obey by His commands while not infringing upon the rights of others to follow whatever religion they wish.

You cannot have people subject to different laws; that is exactly the type of unfair government that various political movements (such as the French Revolution, respectively) tried to over-turn. We are all equal under the laws OR God's command, and as such, we should all be expected to abide by the same sets of rules and parameters that protect people's rights as well as ensure people's other rights. Again I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and I look forward to well thought out future rounds. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
renreh

Pro

You can depend on God or Mother Nature respectively for food, water, clothes and protection. Food, water, and clothes as fur and skins, wool and even cotton already exist in the world. Who made the plants of the ground and animals that roam the earth? They are already provided in abundance. The rain comes, waters the ground, plants sprout to life, they grow and products from them are available. It is true we all must work and not be lazy. The work of our hands is to plant, construct, and provide for our families.
When was the last time any person or the government made water, a grain of sand or created a seed in their hands? This is the type of dependence I am talking about. Providence.
Many times there were nations under the direct authority of God. About Adam and Eve Josephus writes "God said, "I had before determined about you both, how you might lead a happy life, without any affliction, and care, and vexation of soul; and that all things which might contribute to your enjoyment and pleasure should grow up by my providence, of their own accord, without your own labor and pains-taking; which state of labor and pains-taking would soon bring on old age, and death would not be at any remote distance: but now thou hast abused this my good-will, and hast disobeyed my commands."
The will of God was and is today to take care of his creation. In the desert the Israelites were provided for when God sent them manna and quail to eat. They still had to work for this by gathering and preparing it. God also protected the Israelites in their battles against other nations.
The Israelites in the time of the judges had no central authority but God. However, they rejected that and practically the whole bible talks about God's people wandering from his ways and the consequences they suffered because of it, because they wanted to be ruled by a human government. So God sold them into the slavery of these governments every time.
1 Samuel 8:5-22 They said to Samuel, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have." But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but THEY HAVE REJECTED ME AS THEIR KING. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, FORSAKING ME AND SERVING OTHER GODS, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then WE WILL BE LIKE ALL OTHER NATIONS, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
It only seems impossible today because it is not done. We have lost the knowledge of how to live under God's kingship. There is no faith in God's providence or the goodness of humanity. Yes people of faith believe that God exists, but very few in his providence. And it is to our shame that after all this time human beings can't be mature enough to live under there own belief systems and not able to leave others in peace.
1B) I agree with the separation of church and state. I feel that God is not involved in Government affairs. Those that rule over a government under the direct authority of God are indeed ruling a nation under God. But we don't have that. Many differing belief systems make up our ruling body. Not all government is democratic in America. There are many authoritarian style governments in America. Look at our public school system.
2A) The government of the United States of America is not in fear of its people. They do what they want when they want. They install laws by trickery. They take your house and land if you don't pay your taxes. Ever hear of eminent domain. America's government is run by big business and lobbyists. That is whom they fear. That is who pays our leaders the big bucks.
2B) I agree religion is a human invention. If people truly followed the Creator's way and laws there would be no denominations, sects, factions, or divisions. But everyone believes in something so everyone has a religious conviction, even atheists. The higher being that you believe in is government.
My argument is for people of faith to separate themselves from an anti-Godly government and live within their own belief system, which we can in America to a certain point. But my children can't have an open prayer meeting in school. However, it's all right to say the pledge. They are allowed to hold their hand over there heart and worship a flag and the government but not their God. Tell me how much harassment my children would endure if the held their hand over their heart and said a pledge to their God. American Government has swerved away from God. However, Christians should not complain about God being taken out of schools, courts and so on because this is the way of the world. Government changes with the will and trends of the people. And the school system is just an arm of that government. Your creator is democracy because you were brought up and taught to believe in its system. It created your character and how you think and act. Otherwise why would anyone pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric. They would think it ridiculous.
Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. In Jesus Kingdom all his commands are based on these. To some people their god is government or money, possessions, drugs or so on. If you follow after these things then you can't complain when you lose because of them. If the economy falls, or the utility bills raise because of all the taxes, or gas prices go sky high, or something like Hurricane Rita comes and destroys a city and the government fails to help those that were affected, those are the consequences you must endure.
I realize anarchy will never work. But it is an alternative regardless of how dangerous. People are generally sheep and they must follow something. Again I say that is to our shame and it is unfortunate that we must depend on any form of babysitter in order to get along.
I couldn't debate everything fully because they only give you so much space. I look forward to the next round so as to maybe add those things in as well.
Danielle

Con

Admittedly I am lost regarding Pro's arguments. She begins by talking about providence, and states that nature itself can provide food, clothing and shelter (necessary for survival) for humans. I suppose that fundamentally I agree with this obvious observation. She continues to talk about how there were supposedly several instances where nations were under the direct authority of God. This is where she loses me.

First of all, I wasn't aware that we were having a strictly theist discussion. I personally don't believe in the Abrahamic God and certainly not the Bible, so right off the bat I would have to disagree with this notion. She continues to quote the Bible, offering that it is God's will for us to take care of His creation (the earth). She also says that the Bible cites humans wanting to be ruled by man-made government, and as such, God punished them every time.

Again, I have inherent problems with this "argument." She is basically using ONLY the Bible and religious doctrine to support her claim, which is fallacious given the fact that the Bible is only regarded as truth by theists. I personally find it to be a bunch of fiction. Science, logic and history itself are all on my side. As such, I empathize with the humans who did not want to live in a theocracy; humanity is riddled with various spiritual and quite frankly mythical beliefs, and as such it would be unfair and impractical to have one "God" and His rule preside over everyone... especially non-believers.

By not having man-made government and no king (as described in her story), the people would essentially be committing suicide. For one, they would have no permanent rule to govern the land and protect people's rights. For another, they would make themselves prime targets for enemy invasion and attack. Moreover, the scenario my opponent describes in Samuel about the king utilizing his people sounds a lot of like capitalism in general. Is that indeed what my opponent is trying to debate? Forgetting the setting of Biblical times and thinking about government today, there is no ruling body that forces anybody to do anything; nobody has to plow the fields, become maids, etc. However, nobody will also give you anything for free. In today's American society, for instance, the trade off for labor are living wages. Pro does a good job of portraying a situation of slavery in her round; however, that again is fallacious as it only describes one type of rule - not all types of rule, such as many governments (including democracies) today. Thus I find this argument to be irrelevant.

Pro continues, "We have lost the knowledge of how to live under God's kingship." Well, not everybody believes in God, so let's keep this moving. "There is no faith in God's providence or the goodness of humanity." Again, not everybody believes in God. More importantly, people don't believe in each other, and rightfully so. We can believe in the goodness of humanity all we want, but at the end of the day, it is right and responsible to have laws that protect people's liberty. "Yes people of faith believe that God exists, but very few in his providence." Pro should prove this point. She finishes, "And it is to our shame that after all this time human beings can't be mature enough to live under there own belief systems and not able to leave others in peace." Again - I have no idea what she's talking about. If she really believed this, then she would believe in my right and others to not believe in God at ALL. She also hasn't taken any of points from the previous round into consideration, detailing why this is not a feasible ideal.

Structured Rebuttal:

1B) ... What happened to 1A? Oh well. Moving on. I still don't see a clear point made by the Pro here; she points out that the government is not ruled directly by God (and thank goodness for that) and that there are some type of authoritative policies, such as our public school system, for example. I would have to agree with her here and point out that she has not really made any argument in her favor - or at all.

2A) Pro says that our government doesn't fear it's people, and again only fears big business and lobbyists (those that pay the people in power). I agree with her entirely, and don't really see any point to this whatsoever. It hasn't backed up her argument one bit.

2B) Pro writes, "I agree religion is a human invention. If people truly followed the Creator's way and laws there would be no denominations, sects, factions, or divisions." This is a very ignorant statement. Pro is completely ignoring the fact that people believe in different Creators to begin with, therefore by making this assertion, she is favoring one over the others which is unfair and insignificant. She continues, "But everyone believes in something so everyone has a religious conviction, even atheists. The higher being that you believe in is government." This is a very hasty and irresponsible generalization. I'm an atheist and I don't consider myself to believe in government as a higher power at all whatsoever. I believe it is an establishment with WAY too much power (here in the U.S.), but it is a necessary entity which needs incredible reform and should primarily focus only on protecting the rights of the people. This is not a "religious conviction" as my opponent so ignorantly implies.

Conclusion...?

Pro states, "My argument is for people of faith to separate themselves from an anti-Godly government and live within their own belief system." That's all fine and dandy; however, she has seemingly ignored every one of my arguments demonstrating why this is a hypocritical, ineffective and unrealistic ideal. To clarify, she notes the hypocrisy in that her children can put their hand over their heart and say the pledge, but not say a prayer. There are several arguments against this example alone. First, if you want your child to be able to pray in their place of learning, either home school them or send them to parochial school. Period. How can you expect your child to go to a school that is publicly funded and deem it acceptable for them to pray (when not everyone who helps pay for that school shares those beliefs)? Second, your child can excuse themselves and go to the bathroom if they need to pray that desperately in the middle of the day. Patriotism is deemed acceptable in school because it is secular. And finally, kids don't even have to say the pledge of allegiance if they don't want to :)

Pro continues, noting that her children would be harassed if they wanted to pray in school, because American government has swerved away from God. To me, it hasn't swerved nearly enough! God and government are two separate things and rightfully so. I've already explained why it would be ridiculously unfair and unconstitutional to expect God to be incorporated into government; Pro herself claims to believe in a Separation of Church and State. So, the praying can be left to the home life, the Church, Church programs, etc. Or! You have the option of privately incorporating religion into your child's education. That is your right as an American and does nothing to further your point in this debate.

Pro writes, "Your creator is democracy because you were brought up and taught to believe in its system. It created your character and how you think and act. Otherwise why would anyone pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric. They would think it ridiculous." Again, you're assuming that everyone believes in democracy. Just look at fascist Germany (or Cody_Franklin!): clearly this is not the case. Also, pledging to a piece of fabric is ridiculous, but the fictional and invisible character of Jesus isn't? Hmm.

Like Pro, I have essentially run out of characters; however, I will say this: I do not believe in anarchy and I don't think it's a "shame" that we need the government to babysit us. I think (SECULAR) laws and government are a realistic and fair alternative to chaos.
Debate Round No. 2
renreh

Pro

1) My first statement was, God and government, whatever form, are in opposition of each other.
2) My second statement was, you cannot be under both. You are ruled by either God or the Government.

You did not provide a viable argument for this. You proved my point. They are in opposition of each other. Hence, separation of Church and State, or in other words man made government. Thereby, you cannot adhere to both. You would be in constant contradiction.
My opponent doesn't think the Hebrews accomplished living strictly under God. Whether you believe God exists or not, historically they lived under the Law of Moses, which was given to them by God according to their own testimony. If everyone followed these as general laws we wouldn't need another set of laws created by any form of government. Even if you don't believe in God, the Law of Moses still can be implemented.
Of course my arguments are lost on my opponent because she doesn't believe in God. How could she begin to understand God's providence if she doesn't believe in God. I distinctly referred to Mother Nature toward those that believe in evolutionary doctrine. I myself do not believe in Mother Nature or in random chance. However, for the sake of the argument I included it.
2B) Religious has many other meanings besides that of the belief in a higher spiritual being. It also is described as a set of strongly held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by. Now my opponent must have some belief that she thinks more highly of over others. Perhaps in the necessity of law enforcing governments. In God's Law, the Law of Moses, that exists as well.
In my opponents conclusion she talks about my children's right to say a prayer. Why should they be forced to go to the bathroom to do this? One of my children was actually forced to stand and say the pledge in school until I went in and had some stern words with them. The school where my children once attended puts on a pow-wow every year. A Native American religious ritual! I am not opposed to their performing this at a school but why that and not a prayer service. Consequently, I do home school my children. Yes, you proved my point once again, secular verses spiritual, they are in constant conflict.
If I would have had more room to write in the second round I would have said this. That no one can complain about the government not upholding their Godly beliefs because the government is not interested in those concerns to begin with. Many will argue that Godly men built this country on Godly principles. I disagree. Ben Franklin as well as many other founding fathers were adulterers.
This whole debate illustrates my argument. God and Government which is human in origin do not coincide or agree. One is always in battle with the other.
Jesus was historically a real person. Josephus who was a Jewish historian and not a Christian writes about Jesus' brother James being stoned to death. Jesus was just a real as Pontius Pilate himself. And Jesus told Pontius Pilate that "his Kingdom was not of this world." His kingdom does not adhere to the same ideology of an earthly kingdom.
As for this being a theological argument, it is. I am trying to prove that you can live under the providence of God without living under any form of human government. That these two do not agree with each other. If they did, they would be in complete harmony. Human tendencies change over time. Human government changes with these tendencies and the will of the people. They change with what is deemed acceptable at the time. So what does God have to do with the government?
Honoring the King is one thing but being constantly dependent on him is another. The scripture my opponent writes about also says to honor all men. There is no foundation in theology to disrespect anyone. Nimrod brought the people under his government into constant dependence on his power. Having faith in God's providence means that you constantly depend on him.
For the record I never said anything about an anarchy, my opponent did. People can choose to be self-sufficient but that does not mean the whole world will. Self-sufficiency does not mean all out violent anarchy. Most people who practice self-sufficiency desire to be left alone. Besides that, what do you think was happening during the American Revolution. Anarchy. Americans had no formal government at this time but they united together for a common cause.
I am not even advocating getting rid of man made government. Someone has to rule over the non-believing. I am simply saying, that if you want to live under God's authority than quit whining about the failings of government because they will not help you. Either be dependent on God or the government, if you don't like either, then go out and fend for yourself. I believe you can be dependent on one and not the other. So does my opponent.
Danielle

Con

Pro begins R3 by claiming that God and government are in opposition of each other. I have already refuted this in R1 when I provided Bible quotes suggesting the opposite, and listing examples of theocracies thus disproving Pro's very first rebuttal. Her second point was to say that you cannot be under both, which again is successfully combated by my listing of theocracies and noting that one can personally subject to the laws of the Lord while also being expected to obey the laws of man.

My opponent says that my acknowledging a separation of Church and State actually proves her point that a government cannot incorporate both God and man-made laws. However, this is a highly ignorant statement that dismisses the theocracies I have mentioned; just because the U.S. has instilled such a separation doesn't mean that our way is the only way or that it cannot be done. She concludes this argument saying that you simply cannot adhere to both, or you would be contradicting yourself. Again, I fail to see how this would be the case in a theocracy. Moreover, you can STILL follow your religious doctrine and the man-made laws here in the U.S. For instance, while abortion may be legal, I can simply not get an abortion thus obey God's law while still staying within the parameters of government law. Perhaps my opponent should give me an example in which it would be impossible to follow both God's law and government law, and I will argue her specific example - if she can provide one - effectively.

Next Pro brings up the issue of Moses, to which she says, "Whether you believe God exists or not, historically they lived under the Law of Moses, which was given to them by God according to their own testimony." Again, I don't believe in Jewish testimony either, so this point means absolutely nothing to me. I submit that we should have a FACTUAL discussion based on history here - not theology.

Pro continues, "If everyone followed these [Moses' laws] as general laws we wouldn't need another set of laws created by any form of government. Even if you don't believe in God, the Law of Moses still can be implemented." Right, but that's neglecting the reality that we need OTHER types of laws too. For instance, laws regulating the economy, protecting the rights of the worker, laws regarding war and the checks and balances of government, property laws, free speech laws, tax laws, etc. etc. etc. I disagree entirely that the laws Moses supposedly gave to the Isrealites would be sufficient at governing a country like the United States today.

Regarding beliefs in general, Pro asks, "How could [I] begin to understand God's providence if [I] doesn't believe in God?" Well, I believe in the concept of nature as a provider - or rather our ability to utilize nature to survive - not in the entity "Mother Nature" itself. Now, as it appears we are once again randomly jumping to point 2B (I'm not sure what happened to points 1A, 1B AND 2A), but Pro writes, "Religious has many other meanings besides that of the belief in a higher spiritual being. It also is described as a set of strongly held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by." Um, sure. We all know that religion has to do with a deity - not just a set of strict and strong beliefs.

However, moving on, Pro continues, "Now my opponent must have some belief that she thinks more highly of over others. Perhaps in the necessity of law enforcing governments." I'm not exactly sure what Pro is trying to imply here. To clarify, I believe in the self; I believe in freedom and equality above all others, I suppose. That includes concepts such as capitalism, secular government, equal rights, etc. I'm not really sure what Pro was getting at.

Anyway, Pro's next point is to question why her child should have to go to the bathroom to say a prayer if they want to. I thought I already explained this in the previous round, when I noted that the other students (whose parents pay taxes) should not have to be subjected to witness her child pray, or to have tax dollars and time be wasted by letting her child pray. If her child wants to pray in their place of learning, like I said, they can always attend a parochial school, home school, or pray on their own time such as recess, at lunch, etc.

Pro continues to use this as an example of secular verses spiritual conflict; however, I see no such thing. For instance, when I was a devout Catholic and attended public school, I was still VERY much a Christian and yet I had no problem adhering to school or government laws. I continued to pray on my own free time and didn't expect others to have to bend to my religious needs; similarly, I attended schools with Muslims and I was not expected to bend to their religious needs either. Pro has failed to explain how or why kids should be subjected to exposure of the religious practices of other individuals. I've already described why it would be unfair in a PUBLIC school. I would also submit that a Native American pow-wow would probably be deemed appropriate as it was to teach a cultural and historical lesson - not impose religion.

Pro continues to challenge the spirituality of our Founding Fathers. I would have to agree with her that this country was not built on Christian principles, and thank goodness for that! The very concepts of equality and freedom that this country was founded on was intended to allow people to practice their religion however they wished so long as it did not impose on others' right to practice theirs. Considering that a public school has not only Christians in attendance but various other religions and beliefs (including Atheism) held by both students, teachers and faculty alike proves why blatant Christianity should not be tolerated on a basis that is more than personal.

Like I said, a Christian can pray any time, any place, anywhere. Why do the other students have to be involved? That is unconstitutional as it expects the government to fund something that has to do with religion in a public setting, which is unfair. I agree with Pro here to the extent that religion and the government do not go hand in hand; however, I disagree that they cannot peacefully coexist or coincide with each other. I also don't understand her point. Who CARES if the government does not incorporate religion or not? Remember she's provided no real resolution topic.

Moving on, Pro notes that Jesus was historically a real person. This too is something that is challenged and not proven or agreed upon by all historians, but I digress. Pro insists that her point is to prove that you can live under God's laws sufficiently and thus secular government is unnecessary. I have already proven the many problems with this (i.e. people who don't believe in God, economic regulation, etc.).

Here's a blatant example of how her ideology is flawed: Take a concept such as drug legalization. Pro would argue that under God's law it'd be immoral and should therefore be illegal; however, what about those who disagree with God's supposed law? For instance, I would argue that banning marijuana is a blatant infringement upon personal liberty. How would this be settled in a theocracy? Pro is basically suggesting that we ALL conform to Christian beliefs, which is absurd. How about if we take her idea of replacing government with God's laws, except for instead of using Judeo-Christian laws, we use Islam?! :D

Pro writes, "Human tendencies change over time. Human government changes with these tendencies and the will of the people. So what does God have to do with the government?" I agree...God should have nothing to do with government! The laws should be amended over time to reflect what is necessary in society at any given point to protect the rights of the people. Pro says, "Honoring the King is one thing but being constantly dependent on him is another." I wouldn't advocate dependency on the government at ALL. Again, I have no idea what Pro's point is.
Debate Round No. 3
renreh

Pro

Let me state what this debate was not intended to be about in the beginning.

It is not about whether or not God exists.
-- Or whether everyone in the world should all be Christians, I believe people should choose to be Christians, Jews or Muslim and religion should never be forced on anyone, including children.
-- Or about doing away with all forms of human government. Who would rule over the non-believers.
-- Or whether we should live in anarchy. God's law does not permit anarchy.
-- Or if children should be subject to religion in school. Obviously if there was a community living under God as their absolute ruler this wouldn't be an issue.
-- Or whether children should be forced to be patriotic and face ridicule.
-- Or whether the whole world should be under one government, I disagree with this entirely.
--Whether Christians are they only ones that can live under God's rule. That Jews and Muslims are included. They believe in God, don't they.

The debaters should come to a resolution of whether people that believe in God and adhere to the principles of his kingdom should be under his sole leadership or not. Whether it is necessary for them to separate themselves from man-made government and depend on God or not. And whether God and government as designed by humans are in opposition to each other or are in agreement.

Obviously you have to be a believer in God in order to debate the question at all. Yes, you can debate questions as in politics they do it all the time. This must be a theological discussion because we are talking about the teaching and principles of God. And God being the sole ruler over his people. If you don't believe in God than most certainly you will not have the necessary appreciation for the topic.

If the government in a certain nation is swerving away from the principles that God fearing people believe in that they should decide to not get into the affairs of the government or politics. If this happens there is no coinciding with God. The Government becomes against God.

I believe you can be ruled directly by God and his Law, and be dependent on him alone. I think the problem I see here is that Americans don't believe they are dependent on the government but the government is dependent on them. I know this may become a sticky point, but I'm going to say it anyway. I don't want the government dependent on me. I also don't want to depend on it. I feel that by certain choices I make I can avoid being dependent on it. Perhaps welfare, health care, banking systems, school systems, police, military and the like.

Those that are under God, Christians, Muslim, Jews and others must realize that they don't have to rely on these programs or the agenda‘s behind them. The agenda behind them is that they will persuade them into becoming dependent on them, outsiders for assistance. They must rely on God and the communities that are under him to assist in their needs.

To offer a resolution to this debate I will offer a historically accepted example of a people living under their religious beliefs as brought about by God. The Bedouins. In the book, The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State By Halim Barakat writes "As both a structure and a system of values and roles, tribalism is inseparable from religion."

Of course the Hebrews lived by a tribal system as well. Historically they lived under God and no central authority for a while. When they did look toward man made government they lost their country. These people lived directly under the laws and customs of their religion. Perhaps if they returned to God they would be better off and gain back what they lost.

God and the Government cannot coincide. To resolve this argument I will state again that the tendencies of a human government change with the will of the people. God does not change and his will remains the same. The one will contradict the other many times. If one contradicts the other than the two cannot be in agreement. The will of people are different than the will of God. People are concerned about carnal things, what one has and what one does. God is concerned about spiritual things and the care of his creation. What is in the best interest of his people.

The government does not care about the best interest of anything but itself. It is selfish and it takes care of it's self. The government is not a living being, God is. Of course you must believe in God to recognize that. Government is a system that was developed by humans and the flaws of humanity are incorporated within it.

Jesus said, "Serve God alone." This means only serve him and this excludes everyone and everything else. As with money you can't serve two masters, you will hate one and love the other. You will naturally side with one more than the other. If you side with one that means you are in opposition to the other. Conflict. This is why people that fear God have such problems with human formed governments. What they have to understand is that God and the government cannot agree with each other. If you want to serve God alone than starve the government.

As an example, you can do this by not spending your money on the passions of the world. Almost everything you buy requires you to pay sales tax. You can starve the government if you buy less. The same with income taxes. If you buy less than you have less bills to pay and thereby you can work less at an outside job and spend time with what you feel is more important. The less money you make the less income tax you pay. Starve the government. I realize this is an idealization and may not be possible for everyone. I don't feel it would be a terrible thing to give the government less money to waste. This is another thing that is irrelevant to the debate. But I feel I must add.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

I will pose an appropriate question. What do God and the government have in common? Nothing. Having nothing in common cannot bring about agreement on matters concerning the respective parties. One will always be against another. If one is against the other how can they co-exist peacefully.

My opponent has not provided any rebuttal or examples as to how in fact these two sides do coincide. Only that she is glad that the government is swerving away from God. I present the fact that my opponent admits that they are not harmoniously interlinked and should not be associated with each other. So if even my opponent's side admits human government is swerving away from God. How can people worship and be dependent on God at the same time. You cannot be fully integrated into both systems.

My opponent states, "God and government are two separate things and rightfully so. I've already explained why it would be ridiculously unfair and unconstitutional to expect God to be incorporated into government"

This statement makes my point. God cannot be incorporated into government and government cannot be incorporated into God. Human government battles against God.
From my knowledge you cannot be under two separate things. Somewhere in the middle you will be divided. Division does not create a peacefully coexistence. So God and the government cannot coincide.

At last, you are dependent on government if you don't think you can survive without it. If you think it will protect you. The government or it's laws do not to protect people. It's not going to stop a burglar from entering my house. It is not going to stop someone from driving drunk on the road. But morality will if everyone abides by it. But we don't live in that kind of world. And finally, My opponents government hasn't legalized drugs either. What about all them that don't agree on that decision?
Danielle

Con

Pro submits that the main purpose of this debate is to discuss whether or not government (man-made law) would be necessary if Christians chose to follow God's law instead. I personally don't understand the relevance of this argument at all; why does this even matter? Pro herself acknowledges that people all believe in different things, and thus one UNIVERSAL law (i.e. man-made government) is necessary to rule over everyone. Even if you agree with Pro that Christians should be left to follow their own law, this would be impractical and ineffective considering that at some point God's law would conflict with man-made law, meaning there are no universal principles or standards that people are to abide by. If these don't exist, then no consistent punishment could exist, and thus the entire political system would fall apart. Hence, I have argued that her point - that Christians and others who believe in God - should NOT just be "left alone" to follow their religion. That would disrupt our entire system as there would be no consistent statutes.

As you can see, I stand in firm negation of Pro's argument. She has said that this debate is not to argue the existence of God, and as such, I'll leave that part out of it. She also clarifies that she is not advocating anarchy, so again, I'm not discussing that either. In fact what I am doing is simply pointing out that Pro's point is absolutely non-sensical. She is arguing that Christians, for example, should be left alone and allowed to adhere to GOD'S LAW - not man-made government. She also says that government is designed specifically to reject God. Again, this is entirely wrong and I'll explain why in the following points.

1) Pro says that the government is against God because the laws (a) swerve away from God-like principles in general, and (b) people want secular government, i.e. to leave prayer out of public places. However, this is a gross generalization of ALL types of government, and where Pro commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. She is quick to assume that this is true of all types of government; however, she is limiting these arguments to constitute the United States in general. As I have pointed out REPEATEDLY throughout this debate, there are many theocracies in the world which (a) do not serve away from the principles of God and in fact have their laws revolve around God, and (b) theocracies are specifically designed to keep God and religion a PART of government ideals.

Pro makes the mistake of only considering the U.S. secular and democratic ideology when making her point, which is fallacious. "What do God and the government have in common? Nothing. One will always be against each other." Her argument that God and government are designed to be in opposition is FALSE. In fact, the term theocracy is defined as: A form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided [1].

All I have to do to win this point is provide a list of governments that are ruled under a theocracy, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vatican City. Even Norway and the U.K. have theocratic aspects to their government. So, as you can see, Pro ignorantly argues that government and religion are specifically designed to be separate from each other, when in reality, there is a type of government whose purpose is to incorporate religious doctrine explicitly into the LAW.

2) Pro's next argument is that she believes Christians can be directly ruled by God and His law, and be dependent on Him alone. Again, I negate. In the last round, I have provided numerous examples of instances in which this type of God government would be unsatisfactory to settle all legal means. Note that Pro has not responded to any of those examples, including (but not limited to) economic regulation; war; welfare; etc.

For instance, Catholics believe in what is called a Just War Theory which posits that certain conditions need to be met in order for going to war to be considered just. As such, the Pope declared that going to war was not just, but George W. Bush proceeded anyway. Additionally, most people who agree with the war in the Middle East in this country are Christians. Here we can see a direct violation of Christian ideals. Moreover, where does God stand in terms of welfare? Again, most Republicans who don't believe in welfare are Christian; however, in countless verses throughout the Bible does God say that it is right to help the poor, and to live only on what you need - not what you want - and to help those who suffer for any reason economically. This is just another example of conflicting Christian values.

Other examples of statutes which Christianity itself cannot illustrate include laws regarding taxes (flat or progressive and sales), military conscription, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, gun rights, national health care, tobacco and drug legislation, enemy torture, contracts, tenant/landlord disputes, the U.N., etc. So, since Christians today need MORE than scripture to govern their lies, again my opponent's argument has been successfully negated. I affirm that man-made government laws are necessary to function in today's society.

3) I'd like to ask Pro directly how she thinks everyone will get along (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Satanists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans, etc.) and WHICH LAWS THEY WOULD USE to settle a dispute if everyone were left alone to follow whatever laws their God wanted them to follow. What happens when these laws conflict or leave questions unanswered? Whose doctrine would prevail?

4) Since Pro feels that a theocracy is the best form of government, I'd like her to choose which theocracy out of the ones I've mentioned and tell me whose government and economy she would most like ours to resemble. As a reminder, the list includes: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vatican City.

5) The Jews didn't lose their land because they stopped living under God. If it is Israel you're referring to, I'm sorry, but your facts are mistaken. In the late 1800s, a bunch of Jewish extremists (Zionists) decided that the Jews needed a homeland, and after much consideration decided to settle down in what was once Palestine. They didn't choose this place because Palestine was a "holy land," as parts of both Africa and the Americas were originally taken into consideration as a location for their homeland destination. Anyway, if it is not Israel you're referring to, then please clarify for me which example you are citing and I'll provide a sufficient rebuttal.

Moving along, I think it's rather silly that you think the Jews (or anyone) lost their land because they stopped living under God. If you take an example like the Crusades, both sides lived under God and yet they were not safe. Additionally, you suppose that living simply under God is the most prosperous. It would seem as if you're advocating an Amish-like lifestyle. That is your opinion; however, then it is your burden to prove that this life would be the best life. Indeed I have already proven that your assessment that government and religion cannot coincide (the original topic of debate) is false via theocracies.

6) You suggest starving the government by punishing ourselves: not making a lot of money and not buying a lot of things. However, did you ever consider that the government can be REFORMED through other means? You cannot stifle capitalism (which is what you're advocating throughout this debate) to punish our flawed government. You can simply educate the people on more productive ways to reform a bad system.

I'm out of characters, but that's okay :)

Sources:
[1] http://www.statemaster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
renreh

Pro

First of all the countries my opponent listed in round four all have human leaders. People that have been set up above all to rule over the people at large. These countries all have laws and rules contrary to God. That is why there are extremists and political parties in not only these countries but also everywhere. Yes, I am an extremist. I admit it.

I am going to lay out the historical evidence as understood by me a believer in God as to why I believe it is possible to live under the idea that God can rule over his people as the sole and single ruler of those that believe in him and his providence.

From Josephus a Jewish historian that wrote the Antiquities of the Jews, so that the Romans had a record in their own Greek language of the Jewish history. He wrote from the ancient texts of his people. There is more historical data in this book than the bible and that data corresponds to other historic records of other nations that existed around them known also to the Romans.

Below I will show the differences between the upright and evil and also how the upright lived in cooperation and simplicity.

Now this Seth, Adam's son, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a righteous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them, till they died.

However, Cain increased his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness. He first of all set boundaries about lands: he built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it.

You can see above how Cain invented the first form of money and began to draw imaginary lines around what he considered his.

The next is partially the same as I wrote in the first round.
God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.
2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.

Now about Daniel Josephus writes.
And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to naught. So that, by the forementioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy.

Now a note about the existence of God. How could Daniel know some 260 years before that Greece would conquer a huge part of the east including Persia and the Romans after them if not by some supernatural means he was alerted. If you believe these events were written after the invasion there is proof that Alexander read this prophecy before this region was conquered by him. I used to be an Atheist too.

Now these statement along with many others that I don't have room for, perhaps out of curiosity you will read Josephus, convince me that it is possible to be ruled under God, he is the ruler of the universe, and he has the power to protect and supply his people with their needs. Jesus states this in the New Testament.

I do see that this page has been viewed over 145 times. Maybe someone will agree with what I've written and choose the same. This debate has allowed me to get my message out and those that believe in God can reevaluate their lifestyles and decide to become more dependent on God or not.

Revolutions begin when a certain group of people decide they don't like the current leadership. I am not advocating war or any sort of violence as my opponent says their are many ways to deal with a flawed government. In my paragraph six it states how capitalism started as well. Through the same means as government. I would suggest becoming more self sufficient and God sufficient, this is just one peaceful way. Perhaps the Capitalist's will push the governments to lower taxes, reduce government dependency and quit with the wasteful spending if they lose profits. They are all interested in forcing people into dependence on them and providing for all peoples lusts and pride.

No matter the outcome of this debate I still believe depending on God soley is possible. That human government was invented by egotistical people only interested in satisfying their lusts and pride. I still am resolved as an individual to live under Gods rule and resist my own dependence on human government and their dependence on me. Moreover, my opponent will say, "good thing you live in America." But you know it doesn't matter where I go or where I end up. I still am resolved to live the simplistic life God allows me. Thank you to my opponent and the judges. I have appreciated this exchange and have learned many things. And one thing I think is certain my opponent and I agree on, we both wish happiness and peace throughout the world.
Danielle

Con

My opponent begins by offering "historical evidence" as understood by her, a believer. The problem is that claiming something to be historical evidence actually requires just that: evidence. Using the Bible as a source merely gives us theological evidence, which needs to be specified when having this type of political discussion. And with that, we can move on to refuting her first point.

1A) Pro notes that all of the countries I have submitted as being theocracies actually all have human leaders. I agree. However, note that Pro completely fails to argue against the very CONCEPT of a theocracy - a type of government that is based on religion - which was actually the point I used to combat her flawed ideology that the two could never be combined. Nonetheless, she points out a time in "history" during which people supposedly lived strictly under God. I can easily refute this as being inadmissible evidence for her case, considering that it would be easy for me to contend that her story is rooted in fiction (the Bible) and as such is not actual proof that such a society could exist and sustain itself. For instance, if I'm trying to prove that reindeer can fly, I can't use a fictional story such as the traditional Santa Clause to make my case. I would have to actually provide real-life evidence that such a thing can exist. Pro fails to do that with any of her Bible stories, and as such, her point here is irrelevant.

1B) To continue as to why we cannot accept the Bible as evidence, here's a question that I submit to the Pro (hopefully she can at least answer in the comment section) -- If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, their two sons, then how did Cain and Abel reproduce? In other words, what women had their children? If you can't answer that question, then surely you admit that the Bible is a flawed Book that leaves a lot of questions unanswered (to say the least...) which brings me to my next point.

2) Pro has actually not succeeded in proving her point: that a government, even one that's focused around God's laws, can exist in a society WITHOUT a human leader. I submit that even in a theocracy, a figurehead must be appointed to oversee the government and make sure that things are running smoothly, etc. Indeed even the Catholic Church has a Pope; likewise, the Buddhists have a Dalai Lama, etc. My argument here is that the Bible does not actually describe a period in time during which Cain and Abel actually lived (as in a year), meaning it would be impossible for me to present who was actually probably responsible for being a human leader at that time. At the very least, people were living in small tribes and each community had its own person in charge.

Additionally, I don't think that Pro would argue that even in Biblical times, there was a figurehead who was in charge of at least a small group of people, such as a family. This person was usually the patriarch of the clan. Now according to Pro, one cannot rely or be ruled over by anyone other than God (despite the fact that the Bible encourages following good and decent earthly leaders... another point which Pro conveniently left out of her rebuttal). This would mean that people shouldn't adhere to the rule of the family patriarch as well. If she disagrees and feels that it IS possible for someone to be in charge of even a group as small as a family, then she acknowledges that it is also possible for one to follow an earthly leader and still adhere to the Christian teachings in the Bible.

3) Next Pro brings up the idea that people failed God in his instruction for them to inhabit various parts of the earth and enjoy the fruits of his creation. She blames this on the fact that they were "ill instructed" by Nimrod, who persuaded them to believe in their own character rather than God's will. She mentions that he turned this type of leadership into a tyranny as a way to turn people against God and make them dependent on his power. Now personally, I fail to see how this has any relevance to the point at hand. Even if we were to accept this story as truth, it's merely an example of one person taking control by turning people away from God. On the other hand, there are countless examples of which people took tyrannical control of others IN THE NAME of God. This argument is fallacious in the sense that it's just one instance of bad government, which has nothing to do with Pr's argument that you cannot combine God and religion. In fact, she's using Nimrod as an example who turned someone AWAY from God on purpose to fulfill his own agenda; what she hasn't proven is that every leader would do such a thing.

4) In an attempt to prove the validity of the Bible (or perhaps her own beliefs), Pro asks, "How could Daniel know that Greece would conquer Persia 260 years before it happened if not by supernatural means?" First of all, it could be just a coincidence. Second of all, the Bible is very erratic and inconsistent in terms of the dates and years that things happen, so this point is moot. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Bible has been written, edited, revisited and misinterpreted (lost in translation) countless times throughout the ages. Nowhere has anyone proven that Daniel actually predicted that this would be the case. Note that my opponent says there is "evidence" in her favor, however, has not provided any. Accepting this would be as irrational as believing in the psychic powers of Nostradamus. Furthermore, declaring the legitimacy of the Bible has nothing to do with this political debate.

5) Pro posits that everyone being allowed to be free in and follow their own type of government is one "peaceful" way of achieving change in the current government. However, note that consistently throughout this debate, Pro has failed to answer my repeated questions (which I have asked over and over again in a FIVE round debate) such as: Taxes (flat or progressive and sales), military conscription, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, gun rights, national health care, tobacco and drug legislation, enemy torture, contracts, tenant/landlord disputes, the U.N., etc. I have also asked one extremely important and fundamental question to this debate: If everyone were to follow their own religious beliefs, how would you settle interfaith disputes? Whose doctrine would prevail? Pro's complete failure to respond to these important questions proves that she has absolutely no basis for her claims. I have proven repeatedly that her proposal is hypocritical, inconsistent and unfeasible.

CONCLUSION: It would seem as if Pro is unhappy with the current U.S. legislation and I am not in disagreement with her on all of these issues. However, she seems to be pigeonholing politics in an unfair way. For instance, she ignorantly states that perhaps the capitalists will reform and start reducing government spending. Anyone with a HS education can tell you that it is precisely the capitalists who want that too! On the contrary, Progressives, Socialists and other advocates of big-government are the ones who wish to expand the large and mismanaged bureaucracy that runs our country. It is wrong for Pro to assume that all proponents of government wish to force dependency on the people. In fact, that is precisely what the Libertarian party wishes to abdicate.

Moreover, Libertarians believe that government should be kept to a minimal and that people should be able to live and practice their beliefs however they want, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If Pro agrees with this ideology, that's fine, but that goes against what she has been arguing for specifically in this debate: That God and government cannot coexist. Additionally, Pro has said that regardless of the outcome of this debate, she will still believe that depending solely on God is possible. However, note that she chose to IGNORE MY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR NOTICEABLE PROBLEMS, so that may be why :)
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
You can try to argue for artificial rights and the proper role of government, but the Bible and God always take priority. Allowing sins (ie. abortion) to occur in the world is morally unjust for Christians and they fancy it their right to stop said evil. Period. hehe

Meh. ^^^I hate that logic.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
True. But, still, again Christians should be concerned with their OWN salvation. They still don't have a right to forcefully try and save others. Like I always say, if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. Etc. Let the people be responsible for their own morality. The government there is to protect people's (not potential people's... just to clerify - hehe) rights. Period.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I'm just playing devil's, ahem, god's advocate...

Of course I would not like to be coerced into abiding by religous laws of other religions. However, if my religion was the dominant religion in my country (Christianity - USA) then I would find it optimal to enforce Christian law. Afterlife and eternal salvation are the most important parts of life - and God would not look kindly upon a Christian if that Christian voted for abortion, gay marriage, etc. Seperation of church and state are vital to maintaining a civilized society, however this life is not as important as an afterlife. Instituting your beliefs on others, whether Christian, Muslim, majority, or minority should take top priority over government. Christians aren't very Christian-like nowadays anyway.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Nags - Your argument fails because not EVERYONE believes in God. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean that the government everyone is subject to should also be subject to YOUR religious beliefs. Suppose that you believed in Christian values but Islam prevailed in the U.S. Would you like being forced to adhere to Islamic laws? The same applies even if you were an atheist. The point here is that Pro loses this debate for several reasons. (1) God or religious doctrine... or morality rooted in religion... should not be incorporated into government because not everyone adheres to the same beliefs. (2) The Bible does not provide sufficient guidelines for every legal endeavor. Roy's speed limit example was good, and some I pointed out in the debate had to do with taxes, employment law, etc.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I disagree on the belief that religious views should not be coerced onto society.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
If I was a Christian, I would believe that God should be involved in government. After all, God is greater than government. God is greater than life. The Bible does not permit homosexuals, so why should the government? The Bible is more important than the Constitution if you're Christian. It would only make sense to instill as much Christian principles as possible on the people while you are still leaving? God will be happy and God is the final judge. Just my .02.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Until, of course, the Apocalypse. Then God is government.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
God should have nothing to do with government.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did not give a clear resolution, and never clarified it. That leaves it to Con to assert the resolution. I would have guessed that the resolution was "People must ether be ruled by God or by government, and not both." The lack of a clear resolution clouded the debate, and gave an advantage to Con. Pro has the burden of proof, but if we are left wondering what was to be proved, it is difficult to suppose that Pro met the burden of proof.

If there is law that the speed limit on highways is 55 unless otherwise posted, is it necessary to (a) find that in the Bible or (b) renounce religion to assert it through government? It seems to me that while there is overlap between the domains of religion government, there are many government concerns that are not a subject of many religions, particularly Christianity as Pro seems to assume.

Con argued that religion may be reflected in government, and that government must necesarily deal with non-believers, while religion need not. Good points.

Pro might try an alternate resolution phrasing, along the the lines of "A person's ultimate allegiance must be to either religion or to government." The idea is to get the debate into non-trivial issues in which religion and government are found to be in conflict. Just a thought.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
renrehDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07