Commentary: The problem with building a bridge between church and state

Kenneth Seeskin, Chicago Tribune on Jul 8, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The separation of church and state is under attack from familiar quarters.

Not only does Texas require a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in classrooms, but it has also voted to make Protestant translations of the Bible required reading in English classes. To add insult to injury, the recently released report by the president’s Religious Liberty Commission called for a bridge between church and state rather than a wall as Thomas Jefferson once described it.

The reasoning behind this movement is that America was founded on Christian principles, and, according to some, ought to adopt Christianity as its official religion. This ignores the obvious fact that the Constitution prohibits Congress from giving official status to any religion or from preventing someone from practicing the religion of their choice.

Let’s ignore the Constitution for a moment and ask what the country would look like if it were a Christian nation. The first question we would have to ask is: Whose Christianity?

Would it be Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal or Adventist? Some people raise doubts about Mormons and Unitarians. Anyone who thinks that the differences between these sects are minor is invited to read about the wars, massacres and persecutions that erupted between them in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Once we settle the question of which version of Christianity will be designated the national religion and whose translation of the Bible will be used in schools, we will face a host of other questions. Can non-Christians vote, run for public office or serve in the military? Will tax dollars be used to build churches or pay clergy? Will alcohol be legal? Can stores stay open on Sundays?

We don’t need to speculate to see what life would be like because history offers numerous examples. In Colonial times, it was illegal to celebrate Christmas in Massachusetts because the Puritans considered it a papal and therefore idolatrous celebration. It was not until 1856 that the legislature granted Christmas the status of a legal holiday. At one point, it was illegal to teach the theory of evolution in Tennessee. To this day, many states prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays or Christmas. Some prohibit the sale of automobiles on Sunday as well.

It is not my intention to single out Christianity as exclusively problematic. Jew-on-Jew violence goes back to ancient times. In modern-day Israel, the state grants a monopoly to Orthodox Judaism over marriage, divorce and kosher certification in addition to providing financial support for Orthodox institutions. Shiite and Sunni Muslims have been killing each other for centuries, and the status of women in some Muslims countries is deplorable.

The problem with breaking down the wall that Jefferson envisioned is this. T he state has two ways of regulating behavior: persuasion and coercion. If you are not convinced that paying your taxes is the right thing to do, the state can fine you or incarcerate you. By contrast, the church has only one way: persuasion. If the boundary between them is compromised, the church too will become coercive. This often means that those who are not persuaded by its teachings can be fined, jailed, even killed.

To my way of thinking, it is at exactly the point where religion becomes coercive that it fails us. Instead of promoting quiet virtues such as charity, humility and repentance, it becomes dogmatic, sure that it and only it offers the way to salvation. The next step is often violence against those who think differently.

If religion is corrupted by breaking down the wall of separation, much the same is true of the state. At the moment, Congress is having a terrible time deciding how to levy taxes, go to war, protect Social Security, confirm judges and live within its means. Do we really want it to take up the meaning of what Jesus or another religious figure tried to teach as well?

I suggest that by the 18th century, the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they prevented the establishment of a national religion. Having witnessed centuries of religious warfare in Europe, when millions were killed for their beliefs, the framers took pains to make sure nothing like that would happen here.

We are asking for trouble if we ignore or try to dismantle one of the most important features of our heritage.

____

Kenneth Seeskin is an emeritus professor of philosophy and the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Professor of Jewish Civilization at Northwestern University.

_____