Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

[Diogenes]

A friend recently wrote:

I watched Ketanji Brown Jackson being sworn in today.
The Constitution prescribes the text of the oath for the President taking office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
_ Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, U.S. Constitution
The Constitution does not list the exact wording for the oath a new Supreme Court Justice takes, so Congress decided a new Justice should pronounce similar words, closing with, "... so help me God."

The Constitution is clear, “there shall be no religious test” for those holding office in the United States. Yet, “… so help me God” was added to the oath which is administered while the new President or Justice holds their hand on the Bible (or two Bibles).
I’m wondering what would happen (and why it hasn’t) if a principled President or Supreme Court Justice refused to say “so help me God” or refused to put their hand on the Bible.
Note: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams did not put their hands on a Bible when sworn.

I wonder whether there are Christians here who resist the current movement among evangelicals to resist the combining of religion and government. For debate:
Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'*

___________
Yes, I am aware 'separation of church and state' is not the phrase used in the Constitution, despite Jefferson referencing the phrase. So for those who reflexively think that actually represents an argument... it does not. The government being foreclosed from 'establishing a religion' amounts to the same thing.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #14

I was also thinking about it in terms of the US not being able to make any laws that have to do with religion or that is based on it. If that's correct, then I would be against separation of church and state in that case because some laws on prohibiting murder and adultery, stem from religion.

Are you saying that atheists are wrong when they say that it's possible to be moral without religion?

Laws against adultery may be sectarian, but there's no secular law against it where I live.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I accept that there are secular systems of morality, as well. Some of the moral standards in secular systems are the same as religion, but others aren't. I don't make any claims as to which system is correct.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #30]

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-45.htm

so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Well my quote was a bit off but the sentiment is there. All good comes from God, even our sense of morality.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #20

The Bible is clear that the sun shines on the righteousness and the wicked. In this context that would mean we all have morality.

If you like, please go ahead and make a thread on the basis of morality without God. Make my day.

I don't have to make such a thread if you're admitting that we all have morality.

Yeah no worries. Don't make my day.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #24]
...You have rights to the extent that you defend them. It's not magic.

I'm inclined to agree your real politik here. However, I would observe that the most effective way to defend your rights is to persuade the nation state you should have them, along with everyone else, and enact suitable legislation, and get the state to enforce it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed. Words, walls, guns, scary lights. All help. But this is a philosophy discussion and my view is that separation of church and state is impossible. Look at all the pathological ideologies running free in govt right now. I highly suspect the purpose even back to the founding fathers was to erode Christianity in society.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #24]
...You have rights to the extent that you defend them. It's not magic.

I'm inclined to agree your real politik here. However, I would observe that the most effective way to defend your rights is to persuade the nation state you should have them, along with everyone else, and enact suitable legislation, and get the state to enforce it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed. Words, walls, guns, scary lights. All help. But this is a philosophy discussion and my view is that separation of church and state is impossible. Look at all the pathological ideologies running free in govt right now. I highly suspect the purpose even back to the founding fathers was to erode Christianity in society.

You could be right. My theory, though, is that the founding fathers were just being careful, and had noted how divisive religion can be, and were simply trying to implement a nation state that wouldn't tear itself apart over religious differences. And it must be admitted that to this day they have largely succeeded in that.

As an aside, in a British army officer's mess, there are two topics of conversation that are banned: religion and politics. Which is understandable, since they do tend to be inflammatory, and the last thing one wants in a regiment is deep and explicit divisions of opinion, when one is trying to weld together a lean, mean, fighting machine.

However, I like discussing both topics, because the tension indicates to me that there is something important going on.

Best wishes, 2RM.