Robert G. Ingersoll Quotes

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both.

… the best thing that ever happened to the state of Connecticut. It cut the churches loose from dependence on state support. It threw them wholly on their own resources and on God.

the separation of church and state grew out of a desire, not so much to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from government.

History showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith.

If the distinction provided by Jesus' words: Give unto god, what is god's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's! is carried through, then other necessary intrusions by the national state into the domain of church creeds can be completely avoided.

Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether.

Authentic religion does not require politicians

It is neither sacrilegious or antireligious to say that each separate government should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.

We early freed ourselves from the incubus of a State Church.

Total separation of church and state was considered the best safeguard for the health of each. As [Andrew] Jackson explained, in refusing to name a fast day, he feared to 'disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country, in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.'

The separation of church and state is necessary partly because if religion is good then the state shouldn't interfere with the religious vision or with the religious prophet. There must be a realm of truth beyond political competence, that's why there must be a separation of churches, but if religion is bad and a bad religion is one that gives an ultimate sanctity to some particular cause. Then religion mustn't interfere with the state - so one of the basic Democratic principles as we know it in America is the separation of church and state.

It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar.

The separation of church and state is necessary partly because if religion is good then the state shouldn't interfere with the religious vision or with the religious prophet.

The church must be the critic and guide of the state, and never its tool.

Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between church and state.

The Constitution treats religious belief as uniquely special, uniquely central to the dignity of the human person, and, for that reason, beyond the power of the state to control.

We want Austrian-style Islam, not one controlled by other states.

Religion, too, is a weapon. What manner of weapon is religion when it becomes the government?

When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.

The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rathe, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other.

All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy - making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures.

There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church

When kings interfere in matters of religion, they enslave instead of protecting it.

I fully understand it's important to maintain the separation of church and state. We don't want the state to become the church, nor do we want the church to become the state.

One of the primary questions in a state-church arrangement is, 'which controls which?' . . . In Norway, for example, the liberal labor government has regularly angered Church officials by making controversial ministerial appointments against the wishes of the clergy. . . . These and other actions have strained the church-state relationship almost to the breaking point. As a result, some of the bishops have advocated disestablishment.