Englishmen and their reasoning for fleeing to America portrays the
ultimate and drastic effects of an un-separated church and state society. The
majority of the settlers departed from Britain because of their
resentment towards the strict bind on Catholicism and authority’s refusal to
incorporate and tolerate alternative religions, whether they were
stricter or more liberal. “[W]e have solved by fair experiment the great and
interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with
order in government and obedience to the laws.” (Thomas Jefferson, The
Great Quotations on Religious Liberty) This history presents itself as
prime evidence that a separation between church and state is required for
the people to express freedom of religion. There are numerous reasons
and instances where the hypothesis that freedom of religion without the
separation of church and state is proved unfeasible.

            Beginning with the most influential generation, reasons are
discovered why religious freedom would not be tolerated with a
different system. Public schools would fail as safe and open-minded
atmospheres. Any concept a majority believes in or practices, from a clothing
trend to the school’s dominant religion, will rise to cause non-followers
to feel oppressed and uncomfortable. If there were to be a set religion
of a schools, children uninvolved would be outcastes and maybe even
suffer from physical and mental damage. Through the separation of church
and state, no religion is falsely labeled superior by authoritative
figures.

The state might impose harm on the church. For example, the state might
declare a religious ceremony, that is part of a church's creed, as
erroneous. The state might also force a certain aspect into religious
peoples’ lifestyles that offends their religious principle and personal
conscience. Finally, the state might discriminate and favor one religion
and its church above others. This bias attitude might develop into
discrimination and give the prevailing church more power as well as a longer
string to pull in the political world.

The church might harm the state. For example, religious devotion might
lead the state into a brutal war, or the church may fail to supply
adequate force when the state is faulty and requires protection. The church
could possibly produce policies unfair to the minor religions. One
historical example of this is in Europe and other primary regions where the
Catholic Church pushed their view regarding baptism onto citizens,
which led to persecution and emigration to America from the subjugated
people. Another factor to consider is religious passion may provoke
unconquerable conflict because of the impossibility of vanquishing one’s
faith. Also, unworthy candidates may be granted high authoritative status
simply because of their religion. This will furnish numerous figures with
ceded power, which they may abuse in order to advance the church.

Whichever angle the separation between church and state is perceived,
positive attributes are teeming. Unavoidable conflict regarding religion
nests itself as a virus, into society when two dominant powers, such as
church and state, are tightly bound together. However, when wisely torn
apart, the country benefits and flourishes, an example being the United
States’ world dominance. A diverse and tolerant population is the most
rewarding characteristic a country may posses, and pulling church and
state powers together would slaughter this notion.