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.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I'm not American and not much a believer in human rights. I think all the constitution does is puts people to sleep. It really seems kind of cultish the obsession with the constitution.

Like in this example.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I'm not American and not much a believer in human rights. I think all the constitution does is puts people to sleep. It really seems kind of cultish the obsession with the constitution.

"I'm not an American...." I am relieved.
"I'm... not much a believer in human rights." I'm not surprised.
"... all the constitution does is puts people to sleep." This reflects upon you, not the Constitution.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I'm not American and not much a believer in human rights. I think all the constitution does is puts people to sleep. It really seems kind of cultish the obsession with the constitution.

"I'm not an American...." I am relieved.
"I'm... not much a believer in human rights." I'm not surprised.
"... all the constitution does is puts people to sleep." This reflects upon you, not the Constitution.

Well ... no., it's not a mirror. Your summary dismissal of actually deep points is unlike you. The rules, generally put people to sleep. It's like a magic trick, the rules are there for you to see so you don't see the trick.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #16]

I'm...not much a believer in human rights...

Hmmm. I suspect your opinion might change, Wootah, if yours were threatened in some way. Suppose, for example, your government proposed to remove your right to marry and found a family, or decided it had the power to detain you without due process of law. What, in such circumstances, would be your objection to human rights?

Best wishes, 2RM

[Wootah]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #24]

Of course I do not object to words on a page but it's make believe.

You have rights to the extent that you defend them. It's not magic.

[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.

[Athetotheist]

[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.

[2ndRateMind]

[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.

I'm not at all sure I follow your reasoning here. Would you like to expound?

Best wishes 2RM

[Athetotheist]

[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.

I'm not at all sure I follow your reasoning here. Would you like to expound?

What are you asking me to expound on? What you quoted isn't what I wrote.

[2ndRateMind]

[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.

I'm not at all sure I follow your reasoning here. Would you like to expound?

What are you asking me to expound on? What you quoted isn't what I wrote.

I'm addressing the question to Wootah. I apologise for not making that clearer.

Best wishes, 2RM