Democracy: government by the people and for the people. The will of the majority is executed and the rights of the minority is respected. It is generally recognized as a just system, but a frail one. It offers the intuitive and just opinion that every man's opinion enjoys equality to that of every other, and that the only reasonable way to determine the best course of government is to obey the will of the people. Working almost directly counter to that are the organized churches, which not only support but rely upon the idea that one man and God make a majority, and that dissent is not healthy but dangerous. While the will of a church's parishioners will prevent it from going too far afield -- if they do, they will lose their supplicants -- the lack of a line between church and state corrupts both.

Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state. As a value, I offer democracy; as a criterion, I offer the preservation of democratic values.

Religion has its place, and that place is not in meddling with the affairs of government. Historical cases teach us as much: Plymouth Colony, although almost entirely populated by Puritans, would set up a system which separated church and state, fearing the corruption of the church which had stricken England. Thomas Jefferson, father of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, would argue for a 'strong wall of separation between church and state' as vital to the defeat of tyranny, and the American government, often treated as a model for democracy the world over, is strictly forbidden to establish any state religion or make any laws concerning religion. And this democracy has been preserved for two centuries under the most vigorous strains imaginable without any interruption whatsoever. Its people find strength in their God, but its state does not need to.

Here it must be said that the separation of church and state stresses state agnosticism: the state does not believe in any religion or lack thereof. The state should not and cannot suppress religion; this is often seen in European democracies which, never having had a tradition of secularism, actively persecute minority religions. The democratic spirit is best served by a lack of any control mechanisms upon the state save the direct and unadulterated will of the people it is to serve; it does not need to invest time in suppressing or building up religious causes that do not concern the state itself.

A democratic state must be very wary of involving itself heavily with any group which does not prize democratic values, and established religions which would conflict with separation of church and state are to a man non-democratic. In a church, one man and God make a majority, there exists a rigid hierarchy of leadership, and authority figures are not to be questioned. Allowing such a group to exercise its considerable influence -- for, after all, research has shown that churches are some of the most effective areas for propagation of ideology that exist -- would be directly deleterious on our fragile system which depends on equality of opinion and resistance to undue authority. Many churches recognize this threat; in Latin America, for instance, the local clergy have often worked directly against democracy in favor of a less secular state.

Most frightening is the idea of tyranny by the majority: the greatest plague of democracy, and often encouraged by large churches. It is often true that, if an organized religion can achieve a sole majority of the population of a nation -- or even a powerful plurality -- that it will try to foist the doctrines of their faith on the entire nation.

In the 1940s, we fought against a different kind of fanaticism than the wave of religious fundamentalism which has been on the rise in this century. We buried our dead, as we are wont to do, in Arlington -- under round, white headstones. I am sure that those who died in the great battles of the second World War -- Christian, Muslim, atheist, Jew, and all others -- would prefer being remembered as crusaders for freedom -- not for someone else's God.

It is for this reason that I affirm the resolution.