Best Answer

Religions have such varying beliefs, common sense legislation should be used for the good of all in a community. * It is "justified" by the 'establishment' clause in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and enforced by the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

User Avatar

Wiki User

17y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago

Yes. For religion to thrive, separation of church and state is essential to assure religious and intellectual freedom. It also means no religion gets to enforce or mandate its religious beliefs on society, but the government leaves churches and individuals to freely follow their beliefs.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago


It should not be necessary, any governing body should realize that religion can sway their decisions in a rather negative way. However with religions grip on society it was necessary to put in place laws that curbed, even only slightly, religions effect on political decisions.


This is a matter of opinion; however, here are some relevant facts: In the past, a church-controlled government impeded scientific progress. At one time, the only accepted belief was that the earth was flat, because religious leaders interpreted The Bible to teach that. Later, also due to faulty interpretation of the Bible, it was dangerous to state that the earth was not the center of the universe. States whose governments are still controlled by religion include Iran and most other Middle-Eastern countries. Nevertheless, many beliefs of the Christian church (which most people are referring to when they mention "church and state") are not unfair and are similar to those of other religions, as well as secular codes of morality. For instance, lying, killing, and stealing are rarely approved of. The U.S. Constitution forbids any laws regarding the establishment of a religion. Instead, legislators should strive to make laws that enforce a universal code of morality, rather than a religious dogma.


Religion and government must be separate because our society is multi-faceted with numerous religious denominations and every other degree of belief and non-belief in deities. A government-sponsored religion would choose one and then force the people to obey the doctrines of that religion. Its doctrines would inform the laws, its religious leaders will gain too much power and that type of power corrupts. Religious majorities have historically been extremely unfair to minorities. The separation between church and state must be guarded in order to preserve freedom.

Most of the founders viewed religious interference as damaging to government. Most were deists who believe in the existence of a remote deity who got things started and then backed off, not interfering with the day-to-day existence of humankind. The type of religionists who want to deny church-state separation today seek to impose their man-made religious dogma on the society-at-large. That is exactly what the founders sought to avoid.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

There's not a whole lot an individual can do to "enforce" the separation of church and state. However, if by "you" you mean the government, then the founding fathers would say yes. A separation of church and state is important in regards to the practice of freedom of religion; for instance, if the government were to provide funding to a certain church but not another, it is expressing a bias or preference and failing to remain religiously neutral, implying that our government only supports certain religious practices.

The Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses both protect the right to freedom of religion in the United States. Both ensure that the government will be neutral towards religious ideas and practices. And both clauses combined with freedom of speech allow for true freedom of expression and belief. The Free Exercise clause is a positive right, giving the people the right to exercise whichever religion they choose, and the Establishment Clause is a negative right, restricting the government from establishing a national religion.

"It remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." -Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

As long as you are keeping government out of the church... I'm all for it.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Should you enforce separation of church and state?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Related questions

Did puritans advocate strict separation of church and state?

Some puritans did advocate for a degree of separation of church and state, believing that the church should have its own authority independent of the state. However, many puritans also believed in a close relationship between church and state, with the state supporting and enforcing the religious beliefs of the church.

Why did the Puritans not believe in a true separation of church and state?

The Puritans did not believe in a true separation of church and state because they viewed the church as a central aspect of their society and government. They believed that the state should enforce religious beliefs and practices in order to maintain social order and moral integrity. They saw the establishment of a particular religious order as essential for the well-being and unity of their community.

What is the term for keeping separation of church and state?

I believe that is the term - "Separation of Church and State".

Are you in favor in the separation of chruch and state?

No I am not in favor of separation of church and state

What did not contribute to the creation of the US?

the seperation of church and state --- nova-net beotch :)

Who was the enlightenment thinker that believed there should be a separation of church and state?

One prominent Enlightenment thinker advocating for the separation of church and state was Voltaire. He believed that the church should not have control over governmental affairs, and that each should operate independently to ensure individual freedoms and prevent corruption.

Do you agree in the separation of the church and state of the Philippines?

The state (or country) should always stay out of the affairs of the church. The church should be free from any restrictions from the state since the head is Christ Himself. This doesn't mean that the church is above the law. The church should obey the law unless the law requires disobedience to God, at which point the church should disobey the law in order to obey God. Any idea of "Separation of Church and State" should be for the church's protection from the state, otherwise the result will be to "kick God out" of the country so to speak and that is never a good thing!

What is the meaning of the inviolability of the separation of church and state?

Government should stay completely out of religion.

Was there a separation of church and state in England in the 1700's?

No there was a state church.

Did Andrew Jackson believe in separation of church and state?

Yes. He felt that the Constitution required a strict separation of church and state.

Secular in a sentence?

The government should remain secular to ensure separation of church and state.

What man determined to build a colony that practiced separation of church and state?

man who determined to build a colony that practiced separation of church and state