CreateDebate


Debate Info

61
37
Yes No
Debate Score:98
Arguments:66
Total Votes:123
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (38)
 
 No (22)

Debate Creator

TheBogle88(115) pic



Should Church & State be separated?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

In the world today, there are many divisive issues tearing at the American social fabric. Not least among these issues lies the separation of Church & State. Some claim that The United States was founded on Christian principals and should be operated as a Christian nation. Others claim that the founders were specifically trying to prevent such a thing from occurring.

 

What is the true purpose of the Establishment clause, as you interpret it?

Yes

Side Score: 61
VS.

No

Side Score: 37
4 points

The purpose of the Establishment clause is to ensure that no religion, up to and including all denominations of Christianity, receives preferential treatment from the Federal Government.

Side: Yes
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

Side: No
3 points

Church is, simply and in a nutshell, a religious matter. Religious matters should stay out of all fourms of the goverment.

Side: Yes
2 points

For instance, In God We Trust has been appearing on our currency since 1956. Why is this necessary?

Side: Yes
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

To vilify communism.

Side: No
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
2 points

Funny you tell other people to elaborate yet you don't do it yourself.

Side: Yes
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

That wasn't necessary then, and it's ludicrous now. Besides using religion to vilify a political movement, they officially adopted the idea that, if there were a deity, its name is God.

Side: Yes
2 points

Separation of Church and State involves both the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause. I feel like people forget that. The purpose is to keep the laws as fair as possible for every citizen to abide by. By keeping religion out of our laws, we can create laws that cover nearly every citizen if not close to it. And by keeping government out of religion, we can protect the citizens right to believe how they want to. It protects dictatorship of religion.

Side: Yes
1 point

NO church should no be separated from the state religion is based of this country.

Side: Yes
1 point

NO church should no be separated from the state religion is based of this country.

You know you supported the affirmative, right? Like, you posted on the "yes" side and contributed a "point" to it?

Side: Yes
1 point

I would go farther and say that there should be a separation between government and all enforcement of an active morality. This would include forced charity (welfare) and all other forms of transfer payments.

Side: Yes
1 point

state can not rule what people beliefs...

church is about personal beliefs...

state is about life togeteher with rule....

Side: Yes

Yes. Since not all citizens in a country is religious, therefore it would only be fair that the 2 institutions be separated. The Church must not interfere with the laws of the government since they act only upon their interest. The government must not interfere with the church since the religious are also under the Pope or the Archbishop. These 2 monsters of corruption will only be more powerful if they work together, so it would only be logical if these 2 split.

Side: Yes
1 point

Sorry for the spelling/grammar mistakes that might exist.

tl:dr

If your argument don't have it's basis in something that is demonstrable and repeatable it's not valid in my opinion and should there for not be allowed as an valid argument in politics.

Why is it right?

The story

I shall now tell you about a family of six and their aunt. I will not go into great detail but I will tell you a short story about the cookie jar and what was permitted.

The oldest female child in the family Julia has left a note on the kitchen table that reads: Mother has said that no one is to eat of the cookies in the cookie jar. The younger brother in the family whose name is Eric finds the note and trusts what is written upon it.

The older brother whose name is Peter has left a note on the refrigerator that reads: Father has said that each person is allowed to eat one cookie each. The younger sister Ellie finds the note and trust what is written upon it.

Before this event there has been no communication between any characters about the specific matter. Later when none other than John and Ellie are in the house, John sees Ellie reaching for the jar, he warns her that their mother has said that they shall not eat cookies. Ellie then proceeds to take a cookie anyway because according to their father she is allowed to. John decides to tell his aunt Margret who is babysitting Ellie and John that Ellie took a cookie despite the note. Ellie claims that in her defense she was allowed to eat one cookie by the fathers but Aunt Margret does not believe her and tells her to go to her room and that there will be no desert for Ellie after supper.

The two younger children, John and Ellie now have two conflicting rules given to them indirectly by two separate sources of authority, the mother and the father. The boy chose to obey his source of authority (the mother being his source of authority) and also inform the girl that she was not allowed to proceed with taking a cookie according to his source. The girl who had another source (the father) that did allow her to continue chose to proceed since this was more benefiting for her at the given moment she thought. The girl now had to face the consequences of her actions because Aunt Margret saw one source of authority as more valid than the other and did therefor act upon that basis.

The girl was now punished by the aunt who was in a position to deal out judgment following the indirect authority she believed was the correct one.

To further expand on this story, the mother and the father have left and will not be reachable for the next week. There is also no evidence of the conversations the older brother Peter and the older sister Julia have had with their parents. Peter and Julia are also unreachable the coming week making it impossible for anyone to have them verify who had told them to write the message on the paper and whether what was written actually was true or made up.

All that is left now are the younger children John and Ellie, as well as Aunt Margret and the two notes written by the older children.

The remaining brother and the aunt shares the belief that the note left by Julia is true and they doubt the validity of the note left by Peter. Ellie had the belief that the note left by Julia is old and believe that the note left by Peter is an expansion of the note left by Julia.

Was the aunt right to punish Ellie? Was Ellie right to proceed with taking a cookie even thou she was warned by John that it was not the will of their mother? Witch one of the children follows the correct authority?

I would argue that the Aunt was not right to punish Ellie since she had not validated her source of authority, Julia could have just made up the information on the note. I would also argue that neither Ellie was right to proceed since neither she could validate her source of authority. To conclude I would argue that it is impossible to prove which child follows the correct authority since there is no proof of the notes actually coming from the mother or the father. There is also no way to find out if one of the older children lied in their notes.

Do you agree? If not I would like you to reflect on the following:

The aunt is in a position to pass judgment but is not the one who is the source of the basis for the grounds judgment was passed on. Therefor without being able to validate her basis she had no right passing judgment. In modern society we do not allow judges to pass judgment on suspects just because they in their subjective opinion think the person is guilty. The judges have to base their decision on presented evidence to ensure them not being bios towards an individual or company.

The question that needed validation in the text above was not whether or not Ellie ate the cookie but wheatear it was forbidden or not by a valid authority. The outcome of the validation attempts of the indirect claims from the authorities would have been a valid basis for the aunts’ choice of action when passing judgment. If you do still not agree with me I would like you to reflect upon what you would have done if you in this scenario were Ellie, John or Aunt Margaret. Would you risk Ellie being punished even thou she did nothing wrong? Or risk there being no consequence for Ellie breaking a rule witch might tell her that she can continue to not follow the rules put up by the authority.

Of course there are options where the one passing judgment is passive and do not act and wait, this is only a temporary solution that can be exploited and would not work if the situation appears multiple times and is therefore not a valid option.

The subject I wish to bring light upon is the matter of where we have the basis of our arguments.

Thesis:

In decision making that will affect people of multiple beliefs arguments that have their basis in theism should not be regarded as valid arguments, until the claims of that theistic belief has been proven to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Think about this

In the introduction I told you a story about a family and what was permitted concerning the cookie jar and its content. The story was in fact an analogy to explain the problem with theism as a basis for an argument justifying a decision. In this case the argument justifying the decision was a message declaring a rule written on a note by a potential liability witch supposedly was from the mother which in turn is a figure of authority. The decision was the aunts’ act of punishing Ellie. The decision made by Aunt Margaret was solely based on a belief in that the note truly was from the mother and that the note that Ellie claimed was from the father was fake. In other words the aunts’ decision might as well have been based on personal opinion rather than what rules existed for the children put up by their parents.

If you do some changes to the text in the introduction, changing the parents into deities or other religious positions of authority, changing the two older children into prophets or writers of holy scripture, changing the aunt into a government, changing the younger children into two groups of people who do not share the same religious belief and finally changing the cookie into an act that would be considered a sin by one religion and not by the other. Examples of alternatives to the cookie would be: The consumption of pigs, abortion, adoption, premarital intercourse, visible skin/hair on a female and the act of slaying a human being or animal as sacrifice to a deity you will see how this analogy can be applied to most situations where more than one religion exists within the jurisdiction of one government.

In the story the parents were not reachable, this can be said to be true for diets of all religions to date because of the lack of demonstrable and repeatable evidence for contact with one or more deities. In the story also the older children were absent and unreachable, this cannot be said to be true for all religions but to date there is still no demonstrable and repeatable proof of anyone communicating with a deity. Therefor the presence of a prophet or religious leader will not impact the matter as to what they claim can or cannot be verified.

What about the pink elephant?

Another reason why the story about the family and cookie jar shows that no argument based in theistic belief that is not validated should be valid is the insertion of seemingly absurd claims.

Below I will show that I can exchange character in the story to something that sounds absurd and the story still works the same way if you do some slight grammar adjustments.

Original character: mother New character: The four dimensional pink elephant

Original character: Father New character: The six dimensional yellow and purple unicorn

Original character: Julia New character: Benjamin Franklin

Original character: Peter New character: Darth Vader

Original character: Aunt Margaret New character The government of China

Original character: John New character: The Praisers of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling

Original character: Ellie New character: The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses

Example:

Benjamin Franklin has left a note on the kitchen table that reads: The four dimensional pink elephant has said that no one is to eat of the cookies in the cookie jar. The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling finds the note and trusts what is written upon it.

Darth Vader has left a note on the refrigerator that reads: The six dimensional yellow and purple unicorn has said that each person is allowed to eat one cookie each. The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses finds the note and trust what is written upon it.

Before this event there has been no communications between any characters about the specific matter. Later when none other than The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling and The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses are in the house, a member of The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling sees a member of The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses reaching for the jar, The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling warns The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses that The four dimensional pink elephant has said that they shall not eat cookies. The member of The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses then proceeds to take a cookie anyway because according to the six dimensional yellow and purple unicorn he/she is allowed to. The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling decides to tell the government of China who is governing The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses and The Praises’ of four dimensional elephant poop shoveling that The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses took a cookie despite the note. The Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses claims that in his/her defense she/he was allowed to eat one cookie by the six dimensional yellow and purple unicorn but the government of China does not believe her/him and tells her/him to go to her/his room and that there will be no desert for the member of the Yellow and purple unicorn witnesses after supper.

The text above seems absurd. But it is just as valid as the first version. This example serves to show how flawed the logic is to believe in something that cannot be verified by scientific fact.

But what if there is a God?

Some argue that if there is a God, why risk angering that God? This way of reasoning is very understandable, since we are generally shaped by natural selection to avoid bringing unnecessary harm to our self. The fear of being judged is what keeps many to the standards of society and this leads to the sheep herd mentality we observe within religious communities as well as in the scientific community thou to a lesser extent. It is only natural to also feel this fear from a possible God if you do believe in one. But what are the chances of you choosing the correct religion? Most religions that consist of one main deity like Christianity or Islam have one key rule. Do not worship other Gods, committing this sin will send you to eternal torture and torment. This in combination with the fact that to date no one has been able to prove the existence of a deity, leads to no one being able to prove which religion is the correct one if any.

Trying to be on the safe side obeying a God just in case there actually is one does not make your potential life after death much brighter. The reason being that if the most popular religion on earth would be the correct aka Christianity which holds 32% of the world population, the 68% left would all be punished forever. And if this Christian God is picky he will only save those who believe in the correct version of the Christian religion. Since there are estimated to be up to 3,445,000 versions of Christianity this means that the chance of you choosing the correct religion and then the correct version of that religion is really slim.

Other than the chances of you picking the correct religion being really slim there is another question that needs to be asked.

Why would there be a God?

Some would ask why would there not be a God? And the answer would be why would there? There is no reason for one to exist. We thought a God was needed to create planet earth, today we have proven beyond reasonable doubt how many mechanics of universe works all the way down to quantum mechanics as well as all the way back to when this whole mess was In a very, very dense point of space. We are even able to understand how different numbers of dimensions of space would affect physics and our laws of nature.

To clarify, day by day we gain more and more knowledge about the world. We base this knowledge on science. For something to be deemed scientifically valid it needs repeatable and demonstrable evidence. What there has not been is one scientifically valid theory to explain it all. What there have been is a lot of questions, some still unanswered by science. But just because we have not yet answered all the questions with science it does not mean that there is no answer, or that the answer has to be something not scientifically valid. In the past it was generally accepted that illness was caused by demons, it was also believed that mushrooms only grew where lightning had struck the ground. Science proved this was not the case, and that there was an underlying cause to a disease such as a virus, bacteria or mold. It was believed that to prove that someone was a witch you could stick them with a thick needle, when they didn’t feel the needle you had found the place where the devil had touched them. The problem with this was that it didn’t matter who the person was, the brain would simply stop the pains signals when the body went into chock from the wounds. So if every human had been tested every one would have been declared to be a witch. My point being that assuming a God or some other supernatural cause did it because you do not know the reason or how it works is not a good way to handle a problem.

Why is it right?

Was it fair by Aunt Margaret to punish Ellie? How does Ellie feel? How will aunt Margaret fell if she finds out the note from the father was true? What if none of the notes where true but the cookies where a present to the family from the neighbors? Ellie is in her room being punished for an action that may or may not have been forbidden. Does it matter? Ask Ellie.

Who am I to raise my voice and bring light upon this matter? I am no theist, I am no gnostic, I do not claim to know, I do not understand, I cannot understand, I lack the ability to understand.

I am an agnostic atheist, I do not know, I do not understand, I have an opinion based on comparison. I compare me to you, us to them and this to that.

Why do I believe that it is right that in decision making affecting people of multiple beliefs arguments that have their basis in theism should not be regarded as valid arguments, until the claims of that theistic belief has been proven to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Because it is fair compared to the decision based upon an argument based in theism.

Side: Yes
1 point

Hell yes. When religion and government combine, bad things happen. Look at Saudi Arabia.

Side: Yes
1 point

When religion and government combine, tyranny reigns .

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes Christians should not trick are government into their BS! That crum scum is found in the mid-west. The true way is to make heven on earth through science. We will advance until we get what Create-tards call heven.

Side: Yes

Its the only thing that protects us from a fascist theocracy

Side: Yes

I def think so. People hjave the right to freedom of belief, choice, and speech.

Side: Yes

Both conflict with each other. Churches should keep out of politics.

Side: Yes
3 points

I'm a constitutionalist, so I can't knock the Bill of Rights, but I do think some take their interpretation of the Establishment Clause a bit too far. I once had an Atheist tell me that religion shouldn't influence anything in the public sphere: that "everyone should become agnostic at the polls." Well, shit, that belief in itself is influenced by a religious Atheism. America was founded on principles of the freedom to religion, not freedom from it. I'm not gonna go around advocating compulsory prayer in public schools or anything, but attempts to eliminate the influences of people's beliefs on their behavior are both odious and futile.

Side: No
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
4 points

America was founded on principles of the freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. I don't wish to ask anyone to stop practicing their faith; only to keep that faith reasonably private.

Side: Yes
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

Not at all. There's a stark distinction between liberation and liberty. They might sometimes overlap in effect, but neither one entails the other; in some ways, they're mutually exclusive. If you mean private in a fiscal sense, I agree entirely. No one should be compelled to pay for the publication of someone else's beliefs. But if I want to genuflect for Jesus and spout scripture and speak in tongues in the middle of the mall, for everyone and their impressionable child-babies to hear, I should be able to do it. And any law that denied me that right, I say, would be unconstitutional.

Side: No
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

Well, shit, that belief in itself is influenced by a religious Atheism

Atheism isn't a religion genius.

Side: Yes
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

I didn't say it was. In fact, my word choice implicitly and intentionally implied the opposite: "religious [religion]" is a redundancy in the same way "artistic art" is. You wouldn't call Christianity "religious;" you'd call it "a religion." On the other hand, it's possible to regard any number of things "religiously:" you could be a religious viewer of Honey Boo Boo. That doesn't mean Honey Boo Boo is a religion.

Seriously, dude, I know you've got a crush on me or whatever, but please fucking think about what I'm actually saying before you react to it. You're embarrassing yourself.

Side: No
copycat042(166) Clarified
2 points

Atheism isn't a religion genius.

It is a definite belief about a deity.

Atheists tend to preach atheism and proselytise as much as Christians, with no more proof of the position than any other religion.

I would say that modern atheism has become more anti-theism, and has many of the hallmarks of religion.

IMHO, atheism is a de facto religion.

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

You are not a Constitutionalist if you vote No....................................................

Side: Yes
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

Side: No
2 points

What would the Vatican do?? They are a Church State. This would be very uncomfortable.

Side: No
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
2 points

Seeing as I quoted the Constitution in the description of the debate, it would be reasonable to assume I'm speaking of the United States. However, I'm not a fan of the Vatican, so I wouldn't mind seeing the Holy Sea dry up.

Side: Yes
riahlize(1573) Disputed
2 points

The Vatican is not located in the United States.

Side: Yes
1 point

No lets just throw freedom of religion right out of the window.

Side: No
3 points

yep, your a troll

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

Says the troll.

Side: No
1 point

You see if congress had to pick between us or government they will easily pick the government but we have more strength

Side: No
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
2 points

Elaborate. .

Side: Yes
1 point

The fundamentals behind separation of church and state are sound and it exists in America for a very clear reason. for example, when Kennedy ran he had to reassure the American public he wouldn't take orders from the pope. church and state SHOULD be separated, however it is unreasonable to expect that man and church be separate and as long as a government is meant to be an extension of the public then it cant separate from church or lack there of. (atheism is also a religion)

Side: No
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
1 point

it is unreasonable to expect that man and church be separate and as long as a government is meant to be an extension of the public then it cant separate from church or lack there of.

Is it unreasonable for a man to set aside his personal, religious beliefs where they may be in conflict with a majority of the population? If a persons religious convictions dictate he ought not use birth-control, is it unreasonable to ask he not impose that personal conviction on the nation as a whole?

Side: Yes
1 point

The fundamentals behind separation of church and state are sound and it exists in America for a very clear reason. for example, when Kennedy ran he had to reassure the American public he wouldn't take orders from the pope. church and state SHOULD be separated, however it is unreasonable to expect that man and church be separate and as long as a government is meant to be an extension of the public then it cant separate from church or lack there of. (atheism is also a religion)

Side: No