>>720346
>You justify church state in law you justify sharia.
This is fallacious reasoning. It's like saying if you accept that "a belief" is beneficial to the state you must accept that "any belief" is beneficial to the state.
Obviously not. You're buying into the false dichotomy of atheists that all religion is the same. It isn't.
Christian state = good
Islamic state = evil
no-religion state = not as good as Christian state but better than Islamic state.
You're welcome to say no religion is better than Christianity for the state, but puts you squarely in the Atheist camp, because that's what they propose.
Now, the founding father's didn't want state religion because they didn't want the state taking over religion - that's a valid concern. Also, there were a lot of very serious sects of Christianity at the time who really didn't want to homogenize - Quakers, Puritans, etc.
And, actually, I think Christianity supports that- when Paul tells us that we're all members of the body of Christ but why would an arm want to be an eye or vice-versa. Of course, the Quakers got all crazy corrupt but, at the time, they had some very important points about connecting with the Holy Spirit in ways that had been lost to a lot of other denominations.
The shame is that the denominations can't just get along- though obviously the modern-bent of mainstream Christianity is despicable and should no longer even be called Christian...
dang, sorry for the tangent.