//I'm not sure but Massachussets is the absolute last place I would be using as reference for anything.
They were possibly the first state to legalise queers and all that they stand for.//

So we shouldn't have separation of church and state because Massachusetts may (or the logical corollary, may not) have been the first state to decriminalise homosexuality (for the record, they weren't)?

O.... kay.

Are you familiar with the concept of a non-sequitur? You do realise that in order to persuade people that the separation of church and state is a bad thing, you have to make at least a token effort to explain why it is bad?

It's not sufficient to point to states that embrace the separation of church and state and say 'look, they have bad laws, so it must be a bad idea, QED'. Because one can just as easily turn around and point to countries where church and state aren't separate and point out that they have worse laws (Saudi Arabia, anyone?). States are always going to enact bad laws, but most of them having nothing to do with the separation of church and state. The White Australia Policy is a good example: bad law, but since it was racially based it had nothing to do with the separation of church and state, and is therefore not a cogent argument against it.

In order to demonstrate that separation of church and state is a bad thing you'll need to use an example of a law enacted on that principle, such as France's hijab ban or the ban on government schools promoting any particular religion, then explain why we should regard those sort of laws - and by extension the separation of church and state - as undesirable.

Massachusetts did not have separation of church and state until 1833, possibly the last state in the USA having the separation.

https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3331

“… When Massachusetts finally established its Constitution in 1780, changes in society and popular thought spurred great debate among the people of Massachusetts. Mandatory taxation in support of community churches, religious requirements of government officials, and mandatory attendance of religious instruction were among the most fervently debated topics. Even after the creation of the Constitution, the people of Massachusetts continually forced the legislation to look closely at the rigid laws concerning religious obligation. Court cases and petitions requiring interpretation of these laws flooded the General and Supreme courts. However, true change did not occur until 1833, more than fifty years later. The final blows to the Constitution in favor of the elimination of religion were fierce and unstoppable in the end. By the time Massachusetts removed religion from its Constitution, Massachusetts was far behind other state and federal laws. Many other states had removed the religious clauses from their laws and the federal government had refused to include one in its Constitution of 1787. Life and culture in Massachusetts had changed. Religious tolerance was no longer the question of the day but rather the demand of the people. Massachusetts could no longer ignore that demand. In order to secure peace within its own realm, Massachusetts had to relieve the people of the burden of established religion. Massachusetts’ founders believed every person should live a God-centered, governmentally controlled life, however, after two centuries, the people of Massachusetts learned that the government could not make that decision for the individual.”

Separation of state and church was necessary for religious tolerance and freedom of religion

Toni, so Australia being founded on and still is, (in law) a christian country, I would contend that it would be a far better place if we lived under, oh I don't know, say the law of God as prescribed in the Bible, for example.
I am not a practicing christian so I'm not pushing the Bible.
What I am suggesting is that as in most religions, their 'Bible' already has the rules and in some ways the laws by which to live.
This is not to say the Bibles of various religions are always right, such as some of the more questionable teachings of the quoran, in reference to the killing of the infidels,and so many anti social teachings.
So it is that society has drifted from a cohesive and socially tolerant one to a adversarial, self centred and anti-social one.
The Muslim religion is such a religion.
You must become one (a Muslim)and you must never leave as you will be killed.

People who advocate living by the Bible may not be aware of the questionable passages in the Bible. For example:

Numbers 15:32-36 New King James Version (NKJV)

Penalty for Violating the Sabbath

32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

I think it’s a bit unreasonable to kill somebody for violating the Sabbath. Do you kill a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jew for violating the Sabbath because Saturday is their Sabbath rather than Sunday?

The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. Christians could fight for the Confederacy during the Civil War as they relied on the fact the Bible accepted slavery.

I haven’t compared the Bible and the Koran so I don’t know which has the more questionable passages, but I think the laws of Australia are fairer and less questionable than either the Bible or the Koran.

//This is not to say the Bibles of various religions are always right, such as some of the more questionable teachings of the quoran, in reference to the killing of the infidels,and so many anti social teachings.//

Yeah, you're not making a real good case for a theocracy there, are you ALTRAV?

yeah we know David f you see yourself smarter than Jesus Christ. Pity you fail the character and judgenment test miserably. No wonder with such a lack of moral basis you can't discern between Mohammed and Jesus Christ.