Religious neutrality or the lack of religion in political dealings has been a hot button topic since the conception of the United States Constitution in 1787. Lawmakers from across the colonies responded to the intentional absence of an established religion with both anger and relief. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was the mastermind behind the “separation of Church and State” argument. Jefferson was a strong believer in the autonomy of government and religion as separate entities. In concordance with Jefferson, religious neutrality in government tangibly helps both religion and government because it ensures that the state may be run in autonomy from the religious agenda and so that the religion does not fall victim to ideological pitfalls that compromise the accuracy of the religion as a whole.
Governments are incredibly intricate machines and rely on the fluidity of all involved organizations to function properly. The failure of even one portion of the governing body to function with autonomy causes the entire system to suffer due to lack of synchronization. However, as seen in much of history, a very influential loss of autonomy is spawned by the use of divine right to reinforce the ruling elite. Such a claim was usually a play to maintain the familial dominance
…show more content…
In the past, states that have sponsored a national religion or have been run by a national religion have encountered problems both in the rigidity of the religious law and also in the tendency to manipulate the religious laws to fit the purposes of the ruling class. This decentralizes the religion as a whole and can create a power vacuum that ultimately casts a poor light on the religion. The separation of Church and State is absolutely necessary for the protection of both government and