**As a Christian, I don't think making the country hostile to people who believe differently is what Jesus wants.** As a Christian, I think it is so important that we don’t mix church and state. (I'm focusing on the US in this argument, but this of course should apply anywhere.) - America is an extremely diverse place. Christians only make up [65% of the population of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States), and a democratically elected leader should represent the interests of everyone. - Mixing church and state only aggravates an existing culture of xenophobia and racism. One report found that Trump’s rhetoric and policies have contributed to a [rise in Islamophobic hate crime.](https://www.dw.com/en/anti-muslim-hate-crime-on-the-rise-in-donald-trumps-us-report/a-43500942) Christians should be hyper-aware of this, and care about making the country a more peaceful place that is not hostile to already vulnerable minority groups. - Mixing Church and State is also a threat to the LGBTQ+ community and women’s rights. Trump’s intentions to weaken the separation of Church and State were very damaging, making it easier for employers to discriminate against LGBT workers on religious grounds and making birth control more difficult to access for those who need it, among other policies. (Full timeline of all of the Trump-Pence administration's attacks on church-state separation [here](https://www.au.org/timeline-of-trump-administration-attacks-on-church-state-separation).) - A lot of these policies are based on supporting the religious freedom of Christians. But there can’t be one rule for Christians and one rule for everyone else. Perhaps some Christians would feel more ‘liberated’, but merging church and state impinges upon the freedom of others, either through discriminatory laws or by adding to a culture of racism/xenophobia.

**A separation between church (all religions) and the state should mean that the state is not allowed to dictate how people observe their religions and whether that interferes with their life as a citizen of that state.** - The current idea of separation of church and state is an insufficient division. - For instance, France claims to be secular after having separated church from state in 1905. Despite this, they are still passing laws that seemingly target people from certain religions. - The ['burkini' ban](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach) was implemented due to religious reasons. However, if there was a true separation of the church and state, there wouldn't be a ban implemented as a woman's choice to wear that item of clothing is not an action against the state. - Furthermore, that state is more heavily involved in the regulation in comparison to the UK, which has an official religion and the Queen is a Protestant Christian.

This question needs clarification. There is a difference between what actual separation of church and state is, and what the public perceives the separation of church and state to be. Most typically, the people (and primarily atheists) se the separation of church and state as being a total banning of any expression of theological belief anywhere in public. No crosses, no “Merry Christmas”, no Ten Commandments, no representation of a religion anywhere in public, in shopping malls, government buildings, or private property, anywhere where they can be seen by the public. True separation of church and state means that the government divorces itself from *any* consideration of mandating or banning anything with regards to religious expression. The government must allow any expression of any religion in any public venue, so long no one is being stolen from, abused, or physically harmed in any way. Government cannot mandate a religious practice. Government cannot ban any religious practice. Government cannot force someone to act against their moral compass. Government must divorce itself from any consideration to mandate or ban any practice, so long as it does not harm or steal from another person, and so long as the religious expression does not interfere with another’s constitutional rights. I agree with this second definition of the “Separation of Church and State”, but not the anti-theist definition of it. So, this question needs specific clarification of the terms, before I can answer my perspective in all good conscience.