In some circles, it is assumed that anyone against the mixing of government and religion must be against religion. This is far from the truth. The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers interacts with numerous faith-based allies who are wary of politicians who stamp religious symbols all over government action and claim alignment with God to repress minorities. These allies recognize what Christians will lose if the United States drops its wall of separation between church and state.

Religious church-state separationists represent a classical American understanding of the very different roles religious and governmental institutions should play. Read Thomas Jefferson’s famous reply to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, written as he assumed the office of President of the United States. It’s the famous letter cited by courts in which Jefferson assured ministers that America would maintain a “wall of separation between church and state”.

In many regards, the original letter from the Danbury Baptists is more illuminating than Jefferson’s reply. They had written Jefferson about their concerns that religion was becoming “the first object of legislation” and that their religious rights might be treated “as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights”.

These early American Protestants were concerned that opportunistic politicians were using religion to claim a divinely ordained command over mankind. In their words, “those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

Today the fears of the Danbury Baptists are being realized. Influential Christians have adopted dominionist attitudes. Dominionism is the idea that God wants Christians to control government and culture, and that the government should apply biblical interpretations to law and policy. Dominionists want their interpretation of the Bible to control everyone in the country, even the devoutly religious Christians who disagree with the dominionists. Dominionism is the Christian counterpart to Islam’s Sharia.

Plenty of other Christians disagree with the dominionists. They foresee several downsides to a world of Christian government:

Church Functions Will Change

Dominionists assume that their religion will remain unchanged even as its role changes to controlling government policy. Somehow, their churches will remain familiar places of song, fellowship, and support even as they become governance centers vetting the biblical legality of everything from agriculture subsidies to vaccination approvals.

They expect their clergy to remain available and responsive to their individual needs, even as the repeal of the Johnson Amendment would turn churches into political action committees funneling millions of dollars into campaigns.

They expect the Sunday sermon to continue to be biblical and inspirational rather than political stump speeches, even as the core function of the church shifts toward the production of votes and money for elite politicians.

They expect there will be no pressure for the various denominations to converge in their practices and beliefs, or to form alliances, or for denominations to become political enemies.

Dominionists assume that churches will be the same after they have been transformed from “that old time religion” into political action organizations.

Some moderate dominionists may assume their churches will be able to opt out of religious politics if they choose, ignore the money, keep their existing liturgy intact, and not place themselves at risk of persecution in doing so. Is this a naïve expectation too?

Power Will Corrupt Religion

Dominionists envision their churches as the one clean thing in a world dirtied by secular government, culture, and information. By extension, if their churches controlled these areas, the world would become similarly clean. This notion is inspired by the idea that sin and corruption naturally occur wherever religion is not present.

This simple perspective that religion is good and anything secular is bad defies reality. Thousands of cases of sexual abuse by Catholic and Protestant clergy and evidence of cover-ups orchestrated from the highest levels refute the possibility that even worse things wouldn’t occur if clergy had more coercive power and criminal immunity. Believing that religion is incorruptible requires one to ignore the alleged affairs and sexual predations of religious politicians such as Roy Moore, Mark Sanford, Dennis Hastert, and Eric Greitens.

Churches, like any other institution, are comprised of human beings. Dominionists should recognize how entanglement with politics will create new temptations within their congregations as well as their clergy. They should recognize the value of a secular legal system capable of addressing the criminal abuses of even the most charismatic or seemingly pious power-brokers.

Churches Will Persecute People and Struggle for More Power

In nations where a dominant religion is granted the coercive powers of government, the usual outcome has been persecution of anyone who does not conform to the dominant religion.

What happens when the dominant religion shifts because of changing popular beliefs and practices, new philosophies, and changing demographics? The current dominant religion won’t stay dominant forever. Who will choose the next dominant religion and how it will be applied? Who gets to decide which beliefs are the official ones?

As we all (should have) learned in school, the first American colonists came to America as refugees escaping persecution from their own government and its official church. We should also have learned about the 30 years war and many other violent clashes between European Catholics and Protestants that claimed the lives of millions.

The founders of the United States prevented these European bloodbaths from occurring here through a simple Constitutional innovation: strict separation of church and state.

The United States has many faiths and denominations. Imagine what conflicts might occur if these groups could use the power of government to persecute one another, coerce minority faiths to convert, or seize money and property for benefit of the national religion? This question has been answered by history, and it is astounding that anyone would want to go back.

Lots to Lose

Compare these outcomes – all of which have historical precedent – to the Christian experience today.

Americans can go to the church of their choice. They can donate what they want to donate, and not be taxed to support religious organizations they don’t support. They can express their beliefs about the meaning of the Bible without getting a knock on the door from political operatives arresting them, putting them to the Question, or their communities shunning them. They are not constantly at war with other Christians. They have this peace and freedom thanks to that wall of separation.

American Christians have a lot to lose if the wall of separation between church and state falls.