Myth:
Religion is necessary for good government.
Response:
Many opponents of church/state separation offer an argument which also seems to be a motivation behind their efforts to blend church and state: good government isn't possible without religion and religious values, so the introduction of religion into government is necessary. Few stop at just religion in general and argue Christian principles specifically are necessary for morality, civility, and good citizenship. They deny that secular government can be good government.
Factually Challenged & Bigoted
The most fundamental problem with this argument is that it is factually wrong. Secular governments already exist around the world and many of them arguably do a far better job than America. Governments existed long before Christianity and in areas well before Christianity came around. It's not possible to argue that theocratic Christian governments do any better than secular governments or even theocratic governments based on other religions.
What's more, there is implicit bigotry behind this argument because it assumes that secular atheists are incapable of forming or maintain good government. This is closely related to the popular bigotry that atheists are incapable of morality and moral behavior. Once again, there is absolutely no basis for this belief but many Christians continue to accept and promote it anyway.
Roger Williams & Christian Government
Belief in the necessity of religion for morality is common among religious believers. It may be that, for some people, religion is necessary for them to be good, but there is no reason to think that religion is necessary for government to be good. Indeed, not a few Christians have themselves argued that Christianity is not necessary for government to do its job.
Roger Williams wrote:
All lawful magistrates in the world ...have, and can have not more power, than fundamentally lies in the bodies of fountains themselves, which power, might, or authority, is not religious, Christian, etc., but natural, human and civil. And hence, it is true, that Christian captain, Christian merchant, physician, lawyer, pilot, father, master, and (so, consequently,) magistrate, etc., is no more a captain, merchant, physician, lawyer, pilot, father, master, magistrate, etc., than a captain, merchant, etc., of any other conscience or religion...
A pagan or anti-Christian pilot may be as skillful to carry the ship to its desired port as any Christian mariner or pilot in the world, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed... (The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for cause of Conscience, discussed, in A Conference between Truth and Peace (1644) pp. 398-399)
Williams believed that the qualities which made a person a good ruler were not the same which made a person a good Christian — in fact, those qualities might at times conflict with one another. Expecting leaders to be good Christians was, in his eyes, a grave mistake which would lead to the ruin of good government and the trivialization of Christian beliefs. Whereas the Puritans believed that the founding of America was a key event in God's plan of salvation for humanity, Williams believed that government had no role in God's redemptive plans.
America on God's Side
The belief that America has a religious mission determined by God has become an important political, cultural, and religious tradition in America. It has been preserved through things like Manifest Destiny, civil religion, and popular notions of the special role America plays in world and sacred history. The belief that there is a distinction between good politics and good religion also remains and has been preserved in the constitutional provision for separating church and state — but this tradition is regularly under attack by the former.
We can see this conflict in a statement made by Senator Louis Wyman in the 1960s:
To leave prayer exercises solely in the home or in the church is to mean that for many children there will be no prayers at all and no exposure to prayer, for, unfortunately, too many parents are too busy, too disinterested, or outright disinclined. It is important in this world that we in the United States should be on God's side.
A good historical example of this conflict can be seen in the early 19th century debates over whether or not mail should be delivered and post offices open on Sundays. Some argued that America is a "Christian Nation" and that Sunday mail mocked a holy day. Many government officials argued that a suspension of such delivery would create scheduling problems, increased costs, unnecessary delays, and might even aid foreign agents who could move on Sundays and outpace government delivery of sensitive information. The needs of a "good Christian" were in conflict with the needs of "good government" — and the former won.
Religious Differences as Political Conflict
James Madison argued that religion mixed with government can be a force for social problems because it divides people along passionate lines. He and others were convinced that politics simply wasn't an appropriate or reasonable context where religious differences should even be debated, much less fought out.
In his famous Federalist No. 10 Madison wrote:
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion ...have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
Clearly there is no universal consensus even among religious believers or Christians that particular religious beliefs are necessary for good government or to be a good elected official. It certainly was not a universal belief among those responsible for the development of the Constitution, which means that it cannot be argued that they intended government and religion to mix together because of that. After all, if they really believed that particular religious beliefs made a person a better official, why did they specifically prohibit religious tests for public office?
