The separation of church and state has always been part of the US constitution, as the 1st amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is an extremely important measure to protect the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
A government that is not allowed to adopt an official religion, make laws respecting any religion, or prohibit the exercise of any religion is a government where citizens have the freedom over their own beliefs. The government cannot make any sort of religious law or prohibit any religion. This should be kept.
However, if government and religion are merged, the government can and probably WILL assume absolute power over its citizens. How? Let us say the government is now allowed to adopt an official religion, make laws respecting this religion, and (even worse) prohibit the practice of other religions.
This government can then make a law prohibiting any religions but its official, approved one. The official religion would become the only legal one in the country. The religion can then make religious laws stating that all of its members (voluntary or not) MUST follow whatever the government says.
This will lead to a COMPLETE destruction of not only religious freedom, but ALL freedoms.
If religion and government combine, yes, freedom will decline. Drastically. (Or even completely).
In the roman, Greek, and Egyptian empires respectively, you can notice that they started to die when religion and government combined. This can also be noticed in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and many other countries. The separation of religion and government was designed to protect freedom of belief for everyone and must not be trifled with.
This has been raised countless times to the point where the great argument that it is is starting to become diluted, but forgive me as i point to the Constitution- "The Separation of Church and State".
Now, the supreme law of the land aside, lets talk logic. Speaking of logic, that is what good laws should be based of off, not religion. Not to say that good logic cannot come from religion, but only that poor, ignorant, or biased laws may be created from religion. The laws that govern all citizens of a nation should be to the benefit of all citizens, not only to the benefit and satisfaction of a select group of individuals who perceive their faith as something that makes them superior to those who believe another or think that they can dictate how others choose to live their lives.
Simply put, religion and government do not mix. The democratic ideals the American government was built on were for the people (hence the Demo part of the word ). As such, laws should be based upon logic, something that all people can accept, and not belief, which is exclusive to those who have certain faiths.
It has happened in history, up until Napoleonic wars the Papal States originally controlled most of Italy, with an iron fist, they surpassed religious freedom, and learning/knowledge that questioned the authority of the church. After Napoleon invaded and gave the people fresh ideas/knowledge, there was no going back. Napoleon may have been defeated and the land returned to the papal states, but the people rebelled and took over the country, until the papal states consisted solely of Rome and finally Vatican city. The Italians didn't seek to destroy the church they simply refused to have their live ruled by it.
Government is supposed to be there for the ppl. All people. If we throw religion in the mix it will only divide us more as there are many religious beliefs. Religion if you must follow one is a personal choice to be practiced in a place of worship to give you some solace/😄peace whatever. Government has to enforce the law of the land/majority not personal beliefs
I religion and government combine, freedom will decline. In a free country, religion is free and diverse. Anyone can practice their own religion. That is the American dream. But if there was to be only a single religion that the government would use, then their would be no freedom. Everyone would pretty have the same daily thing. The people who practice certain traditions because of their religion would not be able to have the same freedom.
Theocracies have never worked- and they certainly never promote freedom. When religion makes laws that the entire populace must follow, it is often punishable by death to even BE another religion. There is no room for theological dissent or differing opinions. Everything declines- education, commerce, personal rights, and the plight of women, children, and minorities.
I would argue that it does not and ultimately it depends on the view of the individual, which is he's either the ultimate social, economic, and political unit or he is subordinate to the state. I think it is quite clear that states without religion can assume absolute power over the population. This would negate your suggestion entirely. I think also that a case could be made that monetary policy can play a role in the survival of nations...The average life expectancy for a fiat currency is 27 years, with the shortest life span being one month.
The founders were not against religion. Quite the contrary. What they didn't want was a preference of one religion over the other. That is not in contradiction with them being devout Christians. They were. But they wanted a democracy so that all religious people could have a stake. That was the point.