We have all heard it time and time again, there should be a separation of church and state.

Yes, there is a wall right here.

This idea is becoming a thing of the past with the recent resurgence of divine right monarchy, but now more than ever secularism is an important concept!

Maybe i'm being a bit old fashioned.. but this is why I believe here should be a separation of powers in church and state.

We also have all heard many definitions of what this means- should religious people serve in politics? is it alright for a public official to show a sign of their faith in official government buildings? should students be excused for prayer time if their religion demands it? What does separation of church and state mean to us today- and is it important??
You may even be saying "All religion does is teach people to be good people, so why is it a bad thing to connect church and state?"

Alright Citizen, come on. Let me talk to you about laïcité, secularism, opinions and cultures.

First let me start off by saying there are two main schools of thought in favor of separation when it comes to separation of church and state.

American Viewpoint: Government should not have any official state religion, but people are free to pray in governmental spaces and be as expressive as they want.

Keep in mind that the United States were founded as a sanctuary for religious freedom, thought and expression. Most people who came to the US were seeking to protect their religious views *from* the state. Not the state *from* religion.

French Viewpoint: laïcité (layyy-cee-tEE) Basically people aren't allowed to express any religion in the public square. For example, a public official can't wear a hijab because that's a violation of church and state!
In French history the church was very power hungry and greedy, and controlled the government. Therefore the government needed to be protected *from* the church.
The church had so much political power they persecuted those who weren't Catholics, or perhaps Catholics who were dissidents.

Now in favor of the connection of church and state. Some people believe that their religion should be the dominant one in the country and influence policy. Some people want an official state church and state religion.

For simplicity the first part of this article will address the separation of church and state, and hang on for a bit and i'll discuss those in favor of church and state.

Lets look together at this wall of separation as we talk...

Now for the first statement I commonly hear on the topic,

Christians Should Not Be Involved in Politics, We Have a Spiritual Kingdom, Lets Stay on this side of the Wall

No no no!! Citizen, this isn't what i'm saying at all! If anything, Christians as duel-citizens of the earthly and heavenly republics, have a duty to get involved in politics and vote for good, moral candidates for office who will allow people to worship freely. This is different from church and state involvement, this is talking about the individual's right to be active in politics. If you personally want to opt out of politics, that is your choice. But please keep in mind if you chose not the parttake in politics you can't complain about how bad things are, and complaining about politics is an American (and actually.. most of the world's) pasttime. So I hope you'll reconsider your decision, and get involved in the political process.

I'm aware that there are some religions like the Amish who do not believe in political involvement, and as a free country we shouldn't force them to be involved.

No Religious symbols should be Shown in Public Schoolhouses or Anywhere

Ohhh now we are opening up a messy issue. In some cases where it comes to tombstones on government property I think its alright for a tombstone to display a religious text. But in other cases where somebody is wearing outright religious symbols on their clothes it gets complicated.

All religions should be treated equally. America may be a strongly Protestant dominated culture but our minority religions must be treated the same way we treat fellow members of our own religion! A Protestant wearing a cross, a Catholic wearing a crucifex and a Muslim wearing a hijab should all be treated equally under the law.

If we are talking about students in a government run school, i'd say let them wear their religious symbols! They are not government officials, they are kids.
But schools should not make special excuses for prayers and other religious activities.

In the Laicite view, all of these symbols should be banned. Personally I think they are allowed as long as the person is not preaching "this is why you should follow my religion!" wearing a cross or a hijab is a personal choice, and I respect that as long as you aren't trying to convert me or use the government to favor your religion. If you are in Congress, and you are a Catholic who just happens to be wearing your crucifex necklace, that is cool with me as long as you aren't saying the Catholic church should control policy, then we have problems.

Religion Should Directly Influence Government

In the context of worldview- everybody's religion will influence their choices. This is something that can't be avoided, and in most cases is subconscious. Whether you are Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Baptist or Hindu- your upbringing and morals help make who you are as an individual. Every religion preaches to be good and do kind to others, this should be something that influences the government. To have justice and equal treatment under the law, this is a religious principle but can also be a secular principle so we are alright.
But saying "my religion prevents eating meat" or "my religion demands we have special pray times" no, this should not be a national policy. This can be your personal policy as an individual to abstain from certain foods or to be excused so you can pray but as a nation this can't be. It should be entirely up to the individual and the state should not make any religion specify policy the state policy.

The President/Leader is Divinely Ordained by the Grace of God and Power Bestowed On Him

Kids these days... all experimenting with the divine right of kings theory. This theory is dangerous and a pathway to totalitarianism. "Divine right of kings" excuses leaders from all the corruption they have, because if God placed him there why question him? it leads to the people submitting to man and not God. Divine right also is a pathway to religious freedom being taken away. If the king feels that reading the Bible will cause the people to realize that he is sinning, what is to stop him from snatching that Bible from your hands?

the Church as well becomes corrupted when part of the government. Like the church of the Middle Ages, church officials become more and more concerned with seeking favor with the king. If the king is sinning, they don't want to call him out because he is the king.

for more on republicanism, check my other articles.

A Pastor Could Give Money to Candidates and Endorse Them!

Oh no... I'm afraid this won't end well

The purpose of the church is to spread the gospel, and show love to all regardless of politics. A pastor should treat socialists, libertarians, liberals and conservatives all the same- and all in need of repentance of sins, and forgiveness which is found through the blood of Christ.
That is the point of the church, and also to help the community and show the love of Christ. Same with other religious bodies- their point is supposed to be to help humanity.

Through endorsing and giving money to politicial candidates a pastor steps outside of his role as a religious leader, and becomes a political activist. Nothing wrong with a pastor privately giving money to a cause or candidate he likes as a private citizen. But as for church money it should go to things like helping the poor, or missions. Church money should not be used for political gain!

Both the church and the state have unique roles in our society, and both are left to their own realms. When they are mixed, corruption starts to brew in both as they forget their original purpose.

But freedom of religion!!??

Is still allowed under both secularism and laicite!

Also I would like to interject about the GIF I used for this section. The second GIF in this article is from the French musical Les Amants de la Bastille. It is of the male lead singing to a wall, on the stage at the same time the female lead is also singing from the other side of the wall. Thought using these gifs as bookends in this article was cool symbolism.

Governments openly supporting a religion do more harm to religion than good. As evidenced by 1600s Europe, religious wars took place between Protestantism and Catholicism and it became a power struggle and nothing else.

With a neutral and secular government, all religions will be treated with equality under the law. A Protestant should not have an advantage just because they are in the United States, a Catholic shouldn't have an advantage because they are in Poland, a Hindu should not have advantage because they are in India. They are all humans, and should all be looked at according to the rule of law and equality under the law.

They are all free to pursue their religious beliefs under secularism, and will not live in fear of persecution like Protestants in Catholic 17th century France had to do!

When you are free to chose and practice your religion, it has been proven to do more to make a nation thrive and discuss prevail at the coffeehouses of discourse!

If your religion is the most dominate in society, it will become corrupted and more concerned with governmental power than accomplishing the religion's main purpose. If your religion is the minority religion in a non-secular country? you are in trouble.

Wrapping up, I've noticed lately secularism tends to be considered old-fashioned. One of my government textbooks is all about how the world is becoming less secular. I hope we can keep in mind that separation of church and state should still be discussed today, and is a key to protecting democracy in the 21st century.

Thank you for reading my defense of secularism! Disagree? I'd love to hear what you have to say in an Odyssey article.