Is there wisdom in your adoption of separation of the state and the church?

Answer 1

Separation of church and state prevents a theocracy from developing. A theocracy is a type of oligarchy, representative of autocratic rulership. In theocratic nations (such as Iran), all power resides with a ruling council of religious figures who tend to arbitrarily impose their power on the populace, without allowing the people to form laws adaptive to their own community's circumstances. Theocratic rule would be more centralized than the federal government we have currently. Little power would be available to the states and the local governance system which we have in place, currently. Also, in a democratic system of government, with checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, there is less opportunity for oligarchic, autocratic and certainly, dictatorial rule.

This is one "theory", and very liberal. Here's the answer from the other side of the fence.

There is no wisdom in the separation. It is an unprecented attack on not just an individual belief. It is an attempt to murder history. I don't believe in Islam. I don't have anything against it or those who follow it's teachings either. But I learned a good deal about it's people, their location, populations, living conditions, landscape, habitat, leaders, armies, wars, and more. Christianity also has a history. There are many history books about Christianity. I don't care if the books don't really get into the beliefs. All I learned, doctrine wise, about Islam, was Mohammed. The man, Jesus Christ, started a religion. Lots of stuff happened, wars, relocation, and all that good stuff. And that's what every history book should tell. Even if it wasn't my religion that was excluded from history class in school, I would still agree with the person who's religion it was, to put it in the books.

Answer 2

Not a true Question, but a discussion topic with someone unnamed.

Answer 3

It depends on your point of view.