Buffman

Zadok001

What arguments are usually used by Fundies to show that a theistic government is actually superior to a secular one?

I think this is a dandy project. It provides you and your class an excellent opportunity to delve behind the emotional rhetoric and come to grips with the more philosophical, historical and tangible underpinnings/basis of C-SS. (However, I think you might have misstated the fundamentalist position. Only a very few of the extremists seek a theistic government.) There have been several excellent recommendations made already and I doubt that I can add much to them. However, attempting to play my own Devil's Advocate as I read through each of them, you might wish to consider the following thoughts:

1. The DoI was crafted much along the lines of an Enlightenment era document that acknowledged a Supreme Architect of the Universe though not one of specific sect or denominational origins. Of the 56 men signing it, one could successfully argue that at least 52 were Christians and that the other four were devout in their belief in a Nature's God/Creator/ divine Providence/Supreme Judge.

2. Since it was the DoI that established the foundation that "all men are created equal," and that all these men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," (the Theory of Evolution was many decades in the future) it can be concluded that there are more rights than just those three that are enumerated. The DoI goes on to state, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--." It can be contended that the U.S. Constitution was drafted in order to institute a Government of, for and by the people. However, that Constitution would very likely not have been ratified by the States (the people) if a Bill of Rights (The first ten Amendments) had not been promised. So one could further contend that those amendments were designed to further amplify the "unalienable rights" established by the DoI...and the "Creator God."

3. Alonzo Fyfe and dangin each expose a more salient issue...morality. How are the people to be protected from an "immoral" government vested with centralized powers? History has clearly demonstrated that great power in the hands of one immoral man, or a small group of men, can have a devastating and everlasting impact on those who fall under their purview. If this individual or group have no fear of a final judgment and retribution for their acts of "evil," what then is to prevent them from committing these immoral acts? There must be a power greater than that of man in order for man to harness his own predatory and selfish "nature." He must fear a greater power's retribution should he commit an immoral act....and what greater power could there be than the final authority to award/deny an eternal life in Heaven or Hell? There can be little argument that the majority of Americans believe in the possibility of an afterlife...an afterlife under total control of a Supreme Supernatural Entity....regardless of the name given to that Entity. Thus is the yardstick of an individual's morality measured by their belief in the ultimate power and supremacy of the Supreme Architect of the Universe....the "Creator" God. Therefore, only those that sincerely believe in this "Creator" God can be trusted to justly (morally) rule over other men. C-SS has been incorrectly interpreted to the point that it makes it possible for secular non-believers to attain positions of power and rule with no fear for the commission of any immoral acts.--- I find dangin's point to be the strongest one... "the founders wanted the wall to keep government out of churches, not to keep churches out of the government."...with only a change of the word "churches" to "morality."

(Now, off with this Devil's Advocate hat before I barf.)

Jayjay

Off the top of my head...

Separation of church and state undermines democracy. Christian politicians should not be stopped from enacting Christian laws any more than secular politicians can be prevented from supporting secular legislation. After all, they are responsible for their choices to their voters and if people don't like laws that support a particular religion, they can always vote for other candidates.

Shadowy Man

You could try going down the "majority rules" argument.

I.e. this is a representative democracy, so if most people want religion in their government, that is what they should have.

I don't buy it, personally, but...

Zadok001

Thanks for the help, folks. I have enough to at least get started, and begin presenting a selection of arguments for the rest of my group to look over and critique. If anyone has more ideas, please, present - These are actually very intriguing. I'm looking forward to this debate a bit more, now.