At one point (and even still today in many countries outside the west), so were the church and state.

The same can be said about religion and state, at least in the US. Doesn't take away from that being the platonic ideal we should strive for.

How about things like education, healthcare and social services? Historically these were all functions of the church, not of the state. Those functions coming under control of the state means, in effect, the state transforming into the church - or at least functionally becoming church-like.

We see how big tech is taking on a lot of functions of a state. Big tech companies are a bit like states. They have something like citizenship, taxes, and laws.

It's probably more efficient.

Reminds me of some paper about Walmart/Amazon systems getting sophisticated enough to run the country better than the govt - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

When you don't need humans it can be very efficient! And opaque once you add arbitration, paid for by these psuedo-governments.

Company towns and scrip were super efficient too!

Not so great for civil rights though.

> It's probably more efficient.

Yeah, government types which disregard democracy tend to have that attribute.

I 100% do not want to live somewhere run by the people who run Walmart.

. Big tech companies are a bit like states. They have something like citizenship, taxes, and laws.

What taxes, laws, and citizenship is unqiue to tech companies? I assume you mean money to join, rules, and membership. There are business outside of tech that have this

It may be also worth noting that the "Separation of Church and State" people often quote is from a poem that a politician was reciting. To my knowledge that concept has never been codified in law.

It is in the first amendment. That is, the US explicitly can not force all citizens into a single church as was common in England where they were Catholic for half a millennia and then replaced that with the Church of England.

People love to bring up “it’s actually not in the constitution” as if explicitly saying that in anyway detracts from the fact that a foundational principle of the nation /separated/ church from state.

That does prevent forcing a particular religion on people but it does not in any way prevent the mix of religion and government. As just one example, court rooms still have people swear on Christian bibles. I believe it has recently become optional. There are also many government buildings that fund the creation and installation of religious statues and bible verses on plaques in their halls using taxpayer funds. There are many laws derived from Christian ethics and values.

There are also unwritten concepts that are effectively enforced such as prison review boards giving credence to someone that has become a Born Again Christian when considering parole. That is not written anywhere to my knowledge.

But you are right, they can not force someone to be Christian.

You’re completely ignoring the fact that the government not forcing a single church is the separation of church and state being talked about

“We can make Christianity the de facto law of the land, have federal holidays be Christian holidays, have the interests of the church intertwined with that of the state, have “secular” state institutions mirror christian sacraments, have our pledge of allegiance essentially be a declaration of our country being Christian — but hey, they can’t make you go to church on Sunday” is not exactly what one might call a strong separation.

American culture is Christian due to it descending from Europeans. No shit.

I never said I wanted to listen to your opinions about the modern state of religion in America. I told you a fact, that church and state are separated by law in this nation. That you dislike American culture having evolved from a Christian one is your own axe to grind clearly.

American culture descended from Christian fundamentalism, not Christianity. It’s a huge difference and it shows all over the place in how bigoted US laws are, compared to most of Europe.

Incorrect. What we now call "Christian fundamentalism" did not exist prior to the 1800s.

America's culture is syncretic, with three primary components:

1. A fundamentalist Protestant Christian ethos, derived from the Puritans;

2. A cosmopolitan and secular ethos, derived from British and Western European mercantilism;

3. Literally everything else, including the last 240 years of immigration and infusion by every non-Christian group under the sun.

Whenever people say that America is "Christian," I wonder if they mean it in that syncretic sense, or in an attempt to erase or obscure it.

The puritans were fleeing persecution by a state church along with economic issues

It’s not about the culture, it’s the fact that the separation isn’t actually really all of that separate. If you swap the “secular” elements enshrined in our government to another faith it becomes glaringly obvious that we are respecting an establishment of religion.

* One nation, under Allah, indivisible… (Islam)

* Marriage is a legal institution between one man any many women (Mormon)

* “The office is closed for Yom Kippur next Monday.” (Judaism)

* The right to bodily autonomy begin at birth so there is no moral issue with abortion (Satanic Temple)

Of course the people are descendants of protestants and so our customs would naturally reflect that but so does our government. As a country we were so concerned about escaping state sponsored religion that we didn’t stop to think at all about how codifying norms into law that come from a particular religion end up creating a religious rule in all but name. Like we don’t even pretend to have religious freedom in any meaningful sense — your right to practice the traditions of your faith or have your institutions respected ends where what is acceptable and normal as defined by Christians ends.

Your examples are as much cultural as religious, at least in this era. "Under god" was added to the anthem in the 50s, and I doubt it'll last another decade.

Plural marriage isn't widely practiced or supported for pragmatic reasons.

Holidays are religious artifacts, yet not all of them, and there is no forced participation anymore. (Except in so far as government services are unavailable.)

Abortion rights have and are evolving. As the old, more religious folks die off it should swing the other way soon.

Is there an alternative to swearing on the Bible for atheist politicians in the US?

You can swear on the constitution or any book you please

>> As just one example, court rooms still have people swear on Christian bibles. I believe it has recently become optional.

You watch too much TV. Most courts do not have you swear "on" anything, you simple raise your hand "Swear or affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury you will tell the truth" some do not even add the "under the pains and penalties of perjury"

if there are any courts in the US still using a Bible they are in the EXTREME minority.

>There are also many government buildings that fund the creation and installation of religious statues and bible verses on plaques in their halls

Pretty sure that is also not true... Governments have allowed the installation of such things but they are often funded by private groups. I would love a citation where the GOVERNMENT paid for out of tax payer money a religious installations is say they last 20 years.. (paid for, not approved)

>>effectively enforced such as prison review boards giving credence to someone that has become a Born Again Christian when considering parole.

Citation...

Parole Boards often require the offender to Admit guilt and ask for forgiveness, this has being interpreted by extreme anti-religious groups as them "requiring people to become born again Christians"

You don't have to swear on a bible

The Constitution says under Article VI:

"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It only works in countries were the majority are atheist. A Constitution, for all it's brilliant eloquence, is just words.

No then the enforced religion just becomes atheism

No it is from Jefferson, whereby he was remarking that the first amendment "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" in response to a church writing him a letter about oppression they were feeling at the hands of a state government.

It was not a Poem.

And what about a state that integrates all religions, instead? Has that been tried?

USSR, perhaps. Really rich with nations and religions.

If it's only been tried once, it's definitely time to try again, except maybe with a focus on wellbeing this time.

I'm not convinced this is entirely true. In the USA maybe it holds some degree of accuracy right now but just looking at China and Tencent shows plenty of evidence for how a tech company might find heavy government interference cumbersome at the very least within certain commercial spaces.

> They're so heavily intertwined that bucketing them into distinct categories that don't talk to each other would be a massive ship to turn around.

never mind, then. the big thing that moral imperatives have in common with the checks and balances necessary for society to be healthy is that none of these things ever require any effort.