“When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. But the people refused to listen to Samuel. ‘No!’ they said. ‘We want a king over us.’” – 1 Samuel 8: 18-19

When people have two things they like, it’s natural they might think about putting them together to create an even better thing.

Sometimes it works – peanut butter and chocolate, tea and lemonade, Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta. Other times the results are less than stellar – movies starring both Batman and Superman, McDonald’s restaurants and ice cream machines, wives’ birthday presents and vacuum cleaners.

Around these parts most folks have an abiding love and pride for the country and state in which they live as well as a desire to serve the Lord.

Separately, these are generally positive qualities for people to have and often lead to good results for their communities and within their own lives. So, why not combine them into one?

The answer is, historically, combining a religion with a government’s power to compel obedience from its citizens tends to worsen the quality of life of the people living under that arrangement.

Examples from Christianity include events such as the Spanish Inquisition being sanctioned by the Spanish monarchy and the Catholic Church or overzealous Puritans in New England conducting the Salem witch trials.

There are also examples from other religions, including the refugee crisis and violence between Muslims and Hindus when Pakistan separated from India in 1947 and the recent state-sponsored terrorism sanctioned by Iran’s Shia Muslim supreme leaders.

From the Biblical perspective with which many of us are familiar, many generations of mostly bad rulers followed Israel’s insistence upon having a king, as Samuel foretold.

So, what causes government and religion to make such a bad cocktail? There are several reasons, but I think there are two main explanations.

First, it makes laws harder to change. Sometimes laws passed with the noblest goals just do not work out as intended. To change a bad law enacted by a religiously based government, you have to argue either the eternal God has somehow changed His mind or the government allegedly sanctioned by God has misinterpreted His will.

Both options are extremely difficult to pull off and are likely dangerous to the person advocating the change.

Second, it removes the people’s power to question the motives or leadership abilities of government officials. After all, if God placed a person in charge of a religiously based government, then God must want that person to carry out His will. It becomes nearly impossible for people to challenge that notion without resorting to violence.

Alabama has a constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot that would require students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance and provide time for “student-initiated and student-led” prayer every day.

I have no problem with saying the Pledge daily, but I will vote no on the amendment because I do not want government creeping into the realm of religion.

School prayer is only a baby step in that direction, but after this amendment passes – and I realize it will likely pass overwhelmingly – government leaders will then look for next steps in how to insert itself further into religious matters.

If you doubt me, look at the message delivered to a group of Birmingham-area pastors by the odds-on favorite to be our next governor.

Tommy Tuberville recalled to AL.com reporter John Sharp what he told these pastors, saying, “I said, ‘Quit trying to keep your jobs. Get up and speak about what this country was about. God is in our Constitution. My gosh. Stand up for this country. So we have to put God first.’”

If I may apply some vernacular from the Judeo sector of Tuberville’s Judeo-Christian worldview, it takes a lot of chutzpah to stand up in front of a bunch of pastors and tell them they are a bunch of knee-knocking sissies.

Even in secular government, the people should want their leaders to exhibit godly virtues. I am not sure Tuberville personified that by dressing down a gaggle of preachers.

However, one piece of information about which I am sure is God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, not even with vague language referencing an almighty Creator.

Sharp’s article correctly points out that Article VI of the Constitution does say, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Constitution’s framers understood government and religion do not mix.

I wonder if Tuberville knows that part.