What do you think could be some consequences, good and bad, of separation of church and state being more solidified and having a more secular government in every way?

38 comments

1. Pros: all of them

   Cons: none come to mind

2. If you have a secular government, you have less problems. It doesn’t mean they are non existent.

3. I don’t see any cons.

4. You need specific proposals for what that means, because a lot of the time this is just a dogwhistle for “if you have religious beliefs you aren’t allowed to have political beliefs”

5. Good: We’d probably be chillin in a Martian lagoon by now

   Bad: RuPaul gets the keys to the city in Nashville presented by Mayor elect Taylor Swift or something

6. There’d be a lot of social chaos since a lot of US Citizens believe that all morality comes from (their specific theist) religion.

   As much as I despise religion, I doubt there’s any way to *safely* remove it from governance.

7. Religious people would have all the same rights and freedoms as they do now, but wouldn’t get to legislate that onto the rest of the country. If I were in their shoes, I would consider this a fair shake.

8. Does this mean we end up more like France? Because it kinda sounds like you want to be more like France

9. Just look up all the “problems” France has with trying to enforce their secularity in “State/Government” matters.

10. You need to provide proposals of what you are talking about and define what you mean by a “more secular government”.

    You’re statement as it is is incredibly vague.

11. “Being more solidified”? What do you mean?

12. We have a separation of church and state, the separation of church and politics is the real issue

13. Separation of church and state is codified into our constitution. In what way do you think our government is insufficiently secular?

    Unless you’re saying that voters and elected officials shouldn’t be allowed to hold or profess sincerely-held religious beliefs at all, which is different.

14. Just to define terms: “More solidified” in what sense (“in every way” defines nothing)? “More secular” in what way? Are we talking a return-to-normal for the US, or adopting more of a French *laicite* dealie, or what?

    Edit: This may seem like not answering the question. And it is, because t*he question isn’t finished yet.*

15. Instead of dealing in high level vagaries that we can argue forever, explain what this looks like to you in terms of concrete policy and then give us the chance to provide feedback.

    You going to require all politicians be dedicated atheists? Prohibit Bibles within 1000 ft of the Capitol Building?

    Quantify the problem, then provide a solution.

16. We have the separation so I kinda ask what you mean by more, like people who are high ranking members (clergy, rabbis, imams) can’t hold office? Do you mean no one whose religious can hold office? I’d kinda ask what you mean

17. The amendment in question was protecting religious freedom, not separating church and state. To some degree, though, they are opposite sides of the same coin.

    The impetus was the fact that back in the old country you could be legally or de facto discriminated against because of your religion. There was a state religion and if that wasn’t your religion you were a second class citizen denied certain opportunities.

    So when the Constitution was written, the motivation was to not let that happen here. There would be no officially favored religion and you could pick your own and legally be treated the same way as a person with any other religion. It was about inclusion, and avoiding exclusion. You couldn’t be denied government services because of your religion, you couldn’t be denied government jobs because of your religion, etc. John Kennedy, as a Catholic, would never have held a high government position in the England that the Founding Fathers came from. That’s what they outlawed.

    A consequence of that, of course, is that government can’t pick or favor or promote one religion over another. That’s where the perceived “separation” comes from. But nothing excludes religious people from government. The gist is the opposite, that no one is excluded because of their religious beliefs. Religion can’t be used as a “test” of suitability in any government activity.

    You can’t solidify something that doesn’t exist.

18. a con is that if you don’t follow exactly what one group of religious people want, they get mad and say you’re oppressing them.

19. The only con I can think of having a complete separation of church and state is what goes on in France where muslim women are forced to take off burkhas in public. Granted I’m not as well read up on this because I don’t really care for France but I think removing religion from government and law is very important and I’m a deeply religious person but once we start cracking down on basic aspects of others religions is where we’d go wrong.

20. If you’re talking about French secularism, then no, because the French use their legally enforced secularism as a round about way to justify persecuting religious minorities.

21. It all depends on what you actually mean by “the separation of church and state being more solidified” and what you consider a “secular government”. All those descriptions are incredibly vague and open to a huge variety of interpretations. If you mean change US secularism to be more like France or even a state atheist policy then I would be against it. People having religious beliefs which naturally influence their worldview is perfectly in line with the separation of church and state.

22. We have separation of church and state already. Any steps to make it more “separate” would violate people’s first amendment rights. People, including voters, politicians, and elected officials, have a right to speak freely about their beliefs.

23. We need a lot more secularism, but specifically we need American-style secularism (as opposed to the French no-hijabs-allowed kind).

24. **Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.** What can you say if you don’t have freedom to think and believe? And how is being free to think and believe meaningful without the freedom to express those thoughts and beliefs?

    The state is ever increasing. A “separation of church and state” would force religious (and speech) to retreat as the government advances.

    **Freedom of religion and the anti-establishment clause as America has it in the Constitution is the better approach. “Separation of church and state” undermines that freedom.**

25. I think the (probably minority) of people who want to mix it all up are forgetting that if the Bible & Christianity are intertwined with governing, schools, politics, etc, then we can also have every other religion added in

26. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

    I would be wholly against French style forced “hide your religion” policies.

27. op as others have said you’re going to need to detail exactly what you mean. I’d love for people to stop trying to legislate me based on their personal religious beliefs but I need to know what you’re proposing because putting that into practice sounds very difficult

28. People often misidentify what separation of church and state is. This simply means the organization of government must be different and disassociated with the organization of church. You may remember that in historical times many European Monarchies gave the Pope as much power (if not more) than many Kings. Here in America, our leaders are elected by the population and therefore our leaders can be considered secular. At the same time, that does not disassociate elected leaders with their views and faith. So, I see no need for a more secular government because the current system is already as secular as it needs to be and any further movement may violate the First Amendment.

29. I’d say you can pretty much just look at France and get this answer. The US version focuses more on the individual having the right to choose what religion, if any, they want to be a part of. France is much more focused on having a strictly secular government in all respects. There are costs and benefits to both arrangements, but having two existing governments with the same goal and different methods to achieve them are a good way to cross-reference their techniques.

30. It is not possible to have a more secular government than we currently have and still have religious freedoms. The only way to achieve it would be to ban people who are religious from holding governmental office. That is totalitarian and anti-religious not secular.

    What the French do is not acceptable to me.

31. We’re already a completely secular government. How much more secular can we get?

    People really seem to misunderstand what a theocracy is. It’s not a government where people can vote and base those views on their own personal beliefs – some of which might influenced by religion. It’s a government run by a religious figure in the name of a god. We don’t have that.

32. A lot of the positives are rather obvious so I’ll give a negative.

    Because in the west almost every institution, from the governmental to the social, have their foundations in Christian religion and/or Christian thought, the secularization of these institutions and the resulting decline in religion across society means these institutions basically have their raison d’etre removed. I believe this is the root underlying cause for the broader unraveling of long standing institutions across the west

33. Honestly we have separation of church and state right now. Any further and we lean towards France. Any less and we lean towards Israel(or other countless countries from throughout history)

34. Like they do in France?

    People in Red States would be fighting mad their constitutional protections were being taken away in a way that would make the abortion debate look like buddies trying to decide pizza toppings. In day to day life probably very little, after the mass resignation of a large percentage of Gov’t employees, except your supervisor constantly getting on your church lady co-worker about her office decor.

    It feels like a solution in search of a problem to me.

35. [removed]

36. While I do like to rag on Christian normativity and unacknowledged religiosity (JewWhoHasItAll is hilarious, just finished Yom haFrancis diversity wellwishes, as that’s Christianity’s most important holiday due to it falling around the Holiday Season), I can’t think of what this could possibly entail other than reducing Christmas and Easter to the same status as Diwali and Shmini Atzeres and banning blue laws.

37. Good

38. There can only be good things by separating church and state even further.

    Less religion, especially evangelicalism, in government, the better.