Recently two states made new attempts to interject religion into public schools. The Oklahoma state school superintendent has decreed that Bibles must be in all classrooms and taught in relevant subjects. Meanwhile, Louisiana has legislated that the Ten Commandments must be displayed in all state classrooms, a practice forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980. The governor has said he “can’t wait to be sued.”

One of the core principles of American democracy is the separation of church and state. The first words of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That this is the first thing to be said in the Bill of Rights would seem to indicate the idea was pretty important to its creators.

Yet it is also no surprise that in the two centuries since, many people have objected to such a notion. The amendment’s writers were not stupid. They knew they were going against the historical grain in creating such a principle. To this day, many, if not most, countries give tacit, if not explicit, benefits and support to religion generally or to the prevailing religion of their population.

But the constitution’s framers wanted something else. Filled with Enlightenment zeal, they were well aware of the inter-religious strife that had torn Europe apart in previous centuries and of the common abuses of religious privilege in both Catholic and Protestant countries. So on this question of political governance, as they did on many others, these early American leaders said, “We’re going to do it different.” Religion would receive no special privilege and have no official status in the American political system.

In practice, of course, it hasn’t been that simple. Over the years, the creators, interpreters, and enforcers of America’s laws were often themselves religious people. The upper class, anxious about the influx of immigrants, the lawlessness of the frontier, and the growing urban worker population, saw religion as way to tame the unruliness of America’s expanding culture.

In the 20^th century, business and political leaders’ fear of communism further fueled the tendency to see religion, and usually Christianity, as essential to American well-being. This led during the Cold War to the two words “under God” being slipped into the Pledge of Allegiance, a grade school ritual, and the phrase “In God we trust” was added to the nation’s coinage and currency. That this would have puzzled, and likely appalled, the nation’s founders was ignored.

But those founders were swimming against a deeper and broader stream than they realized. Historical and archaeological research have shown that religion and politics have always been intertwined. Excavation of ancient capital cities routinely show palace and temple side-by-side. While there were always tensions and rivalries, it was assumed that the priesthood and monarchy would mutually support each other. The Old Testament prophets stand out for challenging religion’s unquestioned support of the state. Not surprisingly, they were mostly ignored or killed. And we all know what happened to Jesus.

In modern times, both political and religious leaders have downplayed or ignored this mutual handwashing. “Nothing to see here.” Especially in times of crisis, politicians have promoted generic religiosity to skirt the constitution’s boundaries. Thus, an agnostic like Lincoln still called for “a Day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father” to unite the country in its struggle against the Confederate rebellion. And while peacetime Nazis were indifferent or hostile to Christmas, during wartime they were supporters and even advocates as a way to maintain public morale.

Nor has religion been above soliciting political support. This is what Jessica Grose, a writer for The New York Times, sees in these latest religious legislation attempts. Grose has written a series of essays about the rise of spirituality versus the decline of religion. This week she writes that these new laws are ways to push backs against religion’s decline.

There are those whose fears about the retreat of organized religion have reached the point that they insist the world would be a better place if more people were forced to be like them. You see the fruits of this panic everywhere: in Louisiana’s new law that requires posting the Ten Commandments in all classrooms, and in the Oklahoma state superintendent’s edict that the Bible must be taught in all public schools.

I have often heard it said that the “disestablishment” of religion in the U.S. has actually made churches and other religious organizations healthier and stronger. Self-reliance and competition have forced them to stand on their own two feet. Today, however, there are fewer advocates for that notion. But I still think, even if it wasn’t their intent, that the country’s founders did religion a favor in adopting the First Amendment.

Oklahoma and Louisiana’s new rules are signs of religious weakness, not strength. Placing Bibles and Ten Commandment posters are purely symbolic gestures. They will have no more influence than the verbal additions mandated by the 1950’s cold warriors. Worse, they trivialize them into tools for politicians’ self-promotion and campaign sloganeering.

The establishment of religion that was the norm during ancient and medieval times just doesn’t work today. Attempts to reverse that will always look pathetic and only further alienate those who feel religion is irrelevant or worse. To be of value today, religion needs to genuinely adapt to the real world in which people live. Looking for political support will only create gimmicks that distract from that challenge.