The Legitimacy of Separation of Church and State

"What would a state established religion do to prohibit the rights of the people? The only point in my argument was that states are, and should be, able to establish their own religion. I don't think that if State A wants to make it's religion, say, Christianity, that it would infringe on the rights of, say, an atheist. Just because a majority of a state may be Christian, this doesn't mean that the rights of an atheist or any other kind of religion that has views that are generally anti-Christian can't enjoy all the rights as a Christian would have in said state. It only allows this said religion the right in the states' federal facilities, like schools, post offices, etc., etc., if the offices wish to engage in the practice." Well, if the state government were to allow Christian symbols into say a post office and also deny a satanist to put his symbols in the same post office, then that would be unfair discrimination that directly goes against the Due Process clause and the Establishment clause as well. A major point I have been trying to make is that even if state governments were to disregard the First Amendment, they would still not be allowed to let one religion into government without letting them all in under the Fourteenth Amendment. Once again, if a state building allows a Ten Commandments statue on its property and also denies the Satanist Statue that is being petitioned to be put next to it, then that is religious discrimination violating the Fourteenth and First Amendments. These things have happened before with a Festivus pole and a Flying Spaghetti Monster idol being placed right next to a Nativity scene in the capitol of Florida. It will likely happen again with the previously mentioned statue of Satan next to the Ten Commandments. Festivus and Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Satan statue: http://cnsnews.com... I guarantee you, for every Christian or otherwise religious symbol someone puts on state property, there will be a statue of Satan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. commissioned to sit right next to it. And if the state prevents them from doing this, then that will be unfair and religious discrimination that will result in them being punished. The Fourteenth Amendment demands that all people be treated equally regardless of religion. And you cannot give preferrential treatment to any religion without breaking the Due Process Clause. What this would mean is hundreds of instances of religion poking in on government affairs that will cost time and likely offend people. "In an argument of employment or participation, I think private businesses have all the rights they want to have within reason. Religious or anti-religious, private businesses have the rights to deny service to anyone on any basis, once again, within reason." This is somewhat of a different subject, but I will debate you on this. Under law, private businesses cannot refuse service to anyone on the issue of race, gender, religion, birthplace etc. The specific law that prevents this is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a law that specifically states, "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." They don't have any grounds to deny service to anyone based on religion. "I am digressing. I only intend to use these examples to express that even if a state may have a religion, the businesses within the state can still do what they want." They can do what they want as long as they don't discriminate against people, and this includes religion. Businesses under law cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion. "On your argument of religious equality. Once again, I am reaffirming my argument with the Tenth Amendment. So long as Congress does not endorse a uniform religion, it should be alright. Think of it this way. State A is a Christian state. State B is Atheistic. State C is Mormon. State D is Satanic. State F is Shinto, and so forth. If government funded all of these states, equally, then it wouldn't be a problem, since the the government is accepting all religions." You and I both know that the only religion that could possibly become the official religion in any state is Christianity. Christians make a majority in every single state. This would result in 50 Christian states, being no different than having a Christian Nation basically. And furthermore, even if other religions were to win in other states, there are still the religious minority in every single state who would disagree with the state religion. If a religious minority tried to insert a religious symbol into state government or tried to insert its religion where the "official" religion already was and was denied the ability to do this, then that is unfair discrimination that directly opposes the Fourteenth Amendment. States still cannot make any official religion even if they disregard the First Amendment. But because the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the states, that example would be directly contradicting both of those amendments. "The reason I brought this up is that religious discrimination happens anyways, and it would only be peaceful if this "Separation of Church and State" was invalid, because, as I stated in my example, if different states set up all different kinds of religions, whether it'd be Atheism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Satanism, Islam, Hinduism, and so foth, and the government funded all of these states, it shouldn't be a problem. It would show that the government is accepting of all religions." Religious discrimination by law is not allowed. I don't know what religious discrimination you think there is going on right now, unless you think that people not being able to insert their religion into government is discrimination (which it is not). The government is forced to separate itself from religion, and as a result only takes a neutral stance as long as religions don't break the law. People trying to insert their religion into government is against the law, and thus the government must be forced to not let them. What you are proposing would not be peaceful whatsoever because of how it would strip the rights away from religious minorities in each state and also break the Fourteenth and First Amendments. The best course of action for everyone would be to agree that we must keep religion from corrupting the state, and the state from corrupting religion. We can all agree to live together and serve each other regardless of anyone's religion. In conclusion: I sincerely believe that what you are proposing would just serve to cause more hatred. Not only are states disallowed to insert any religion into government, but they also can't prefer any one religion over the other without facing punishment for violating the Due Process Clause. This would result in many religious symbols and statues being placed on federal property and various religions allowed into meetings to pray and perform religious rituals. I see absolutely no reason for why people would want to tear down the wall that separates religion and government, except to further their own religious agenda. It would be a giant waste of time to be bombarded by various religions on federal property all trying to force their agenda into government and advocate for converts. And ultimately whenever religion is inserted into government, discrimination and oppression ensues. Even if it is confined to each state, no amount of religious discrimination is acceptable. I reaffirm my argument that our government is and should remain separate from religion by law. The government will continue to protect religious liberty and punish those who perpetuate religious discrimination. We are a religiously diverse nation that will prosper most from everyone agreeing to keep church and state separate.