State run churches are perhaps the worst idea of all time,  The U.S.  founding fathers realized that and had it written in (legal) granite.   Power hungry churchmen with a government to run would turn any nation into another Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan,  Vatican City   etc...........

     Rational people would suffer for their non-beliefs.

I didnt mean the church should have any say in government afairs. I live in Denmark our situation looks something like this:

80% of the population is member of the state church, but surveys sujests the majority of those are athests or "culturel cristians".  but around 20% beleve in the talking snake.

the state pays I think 40% of the priests wage, and the church has other small benefits, nothing major.

the church could be alot worse, doesnt really have any dogma and forinstance resently when some of the male priests wouldnt shake hands with the female priests public presure could force them to do so ( so they woulndt lose their benefits)

we also have a lesbian and even a atheist priest.

what I wondered was: if the church and the state where to completely seperate the non belevers could no longer keep the church from evoleving to something more ugly, to the damage of both belevers and non belevers.

am I totally off the deep end here?

    Trying to apply Denmark's model to the U.S. and Canada would not work out well.   I can't see any religious order allowing a government control over their clergy but I can see the clergy deeply invovling themselves in government policy.  I'm afraid when it comes to North America your idea is off the deep end.    Now about that atheist priest you mentioned, I'd like to hear more about that?  Is there a link to a news story you can set up for us?

                                .

Here in Norway the state church - a Lutheran outfit - is fighting a rearguard action to keep its position in the face of polls showing a healthy majority of people against the concept (in Norway this is a relatively recent trend) and vocal, intelligent and persuasive opposition to its high-profile stances on gay marriage, homosexuality in general and the responsibility of non-church members to contribute to its upkeep.

The church states often that it does not exert influence on government policy and that its role as state church is "traditional" and on that basis alone worth preserving. More and more people however are asking the pertinent question - "If you don't, or don't want to, exert influence over state government then what's the big deal abut being disestablished?"

Unlike as pertains in other European countries it has been a very long time since the church has had any administrative involvement by assumed right with health, education etc, all of which have been secularised. Its insistence therefore on retaining its status as "official" religion must be related completely to the more prosaic ambition of maintaining its own survival and using the conferred authority of its official position to act as self-appointed moral arbiters to a nation rapidly losing interest in its diktats.

With regard to the point made above from the Danish contributor, it is also a long time since the church was in a position to affect the growth of other rival superstitions and cults.

It does nothing, in other words. It means even less to most of the population. Yet it is tenaciously holding on to its role. Why on earth would any political system want such a self-serving parasite attached to it?

Lets not fall into the fallacy of "if atheists ruled". That is the trap that theists fall into. If all 6 billion people were atheists, problems would still exist and factions would still exist. If there is no such thing as a Christian utopia it would be safe to say there is no such thing as an atheist utopia.

We are human beings subject to the same flaws and to assume that atheists, if in control, could not do bad things to opress others, is as absurd as when Christians assume they have never done that.

Power hungrey people can be theist or atheist. If religion is to die, it cannot be done by force of government anymore than Islam or Christianity can use government to force us to believe in their gods. Only reason and criticism and appeal to intelect can make a solid case. Sticking a gun to someones head to give up something, or take up something merely pisses people off.

I am simply warning you, no matter how absurd magical claims are, wishing a utopia on a governmental or global scale is not taking the issue pragmatically.

A state church is fine except in the west that means only one and killing off all the rest. Should some day we get to the level of religious toleration of the Roman Empire the idea won't be all that bad but then the question of why do it? We know people will start their own religions. The state has a rational interest in it only to the point of prohibiting human sacrifice and like -- things which contravene civil law.

Religion is useful for controlling a population which cannot comprehend laws as it keeps things down to the basics. But this is incompatible with democracy as it lets people who are only bright enough to understand the Big Ten vote for people like Bush who start wars for fun and organize to support religious fanatics like the Israelis against US interests.

So the bottom line is people will create religions on their own and don't need the government and a democracy does not need to encourage such a detrimental aspect of society.

As my fellow Norwegian correctly points out, the state-run church is thankfully on its way out. If the U.S. were to merge church and state, I would argue that it would set us back not 100 but 1,000 years. Norway has had some version of Christianity as the state religion for roughly that long, and it took about 900 years to get rid of it.