"Separation of Church and State" is always the best form of government

Secularism (that is the separation of Church and State) is always the best choice for government. The reason Secularism has been a defining characteristic and an important factor in the success of Western democracy is because the West toiled for seventeen centuries under theocracy. From the Caesars who proclaimed themselves gods to the Medieval Kings who were ordained as chosen by god, theocracy, whether as an actual institution or as an element, is poisonous to everyone except whoever is on top. You mention Asian countries: What Asian countries practice theocracy that are actually fine places to live? Could it be North Korea where the people are forced to worship Kim Il-Sung, their country's dead founder?[1] Or China where the teachings of Confucius were outlawed by Mao so that his own Cult of Personality could take the place of ancient philosophy[2]? Or the Phillipines, a very dogmatic Catholic culture[3] where people must primarily depnend on handouts and foreign employment? How should these Asian countries compare with South Korea, which has developed from the third world into the first world over about sixty years, and with one of the highest percentages of Atheists in the world[4]?And what of the Catholic Church, which still practices priestly interpretation of the Bible, worried that some common people might develop their own thoughts? These are all examples of theocracies. In my first argument I pointed out how the RCC anointed the same barbaric rulers who terrorized their own people to gain plunder and riches. This is the effect of theocracy.Why is theocracy dystopian? Because of dogma[5]. Societies, whether they are monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, or some hybrid of those three, needs to have inquiry and debate in which there can be no unquestionable truths. For example, you mention theocracy as something that came with Islam from its cradle. Before 1050, the Islamic world was rife with philosophical and scientific debate between Muslims, Christians and Jews. What happened? Why did the home of Algebra never advance even while their barbaric European neighbors became the rulers of the world? One man. Muhammad al-Ghazali. This man was a Muslim philosopher who preached dogma over debate[6]. You mention the Eastern Roman Empire as well. This was a great empire, and really still the Roman Empire, that continued for nearly another millenium after Rome fell to the Goths. They were very much intertwined with religion, as the Alexiad of Anna Comnena suggests. However, one need examine an even older text, the Secret Histories by Procopious, to see the goings on in the Byzantine court. Justinian and Theodora were far from saintly individuals, and yet it is their images that covers the walls of the Basilica in Ravenna[7]. Clearly, this theocratic monarchy was one where virtue of birth determined saintliness, not virtue of deed. To grant some credence to this, this was the Empire that accomplished little after the Goths invaded the two halves of the Roman Empire. And after the fall of its sister country in Italy, Muslims, Catholics, Vikings, and nomads all chipped away at it. Full of its self, deluded with the grandeur of antiquity and, yes, drugged by the opiate of religion, it could not properly adapt to fight the Ottoman threat. I do not refer only to the events of 1458 when what remained of this once great empire fell: I refer to fact that they had to enlist the aid of neighboring kingdoms like Transylvania and Bulgaria. The fact that they had to employ Vikings as Varangians[8]. The fact that Alexios, Anna's father, had to appeal to Roman Catholics and beg for a Crusade in order to stave off total annihilation for another few centuries[9]. But what is most sad about this example is the poor choice this example gives. There is a reason that most people are taught Assytia was the first Empire in history when it was really Akkadia, why people disinterested in history know of Egypt but not of the Hittites, and why most schoolchildren know the names Julius and Augustus but most adults know nothing of the Byzantines (save for those with an interest in history or a penchant for strategy games): It is because conquest without contribution means nothing. Most theocracies, whether they are Saudi Arabia or the Byzantine Empire, contribute extraordinarily little to the world. But Secular nations and ideas contribute a great deal. The US was a powerhouse of advancement in the 20th Century, the French Secular philosophers of the 18th Century gave us many of the ideas we still hold today, to include, but not limited to, the Social Contract, universal equality, the Middle Class, Capitalism, and Human Rights. Even now in the culture war, it is the side that is not dogmatic that is winning. Satire and reason outdo hysteria and outlandish claims each time. Secularism, first truly conceived by the great Rationalist Baruch Spinoza[10] is the better option every time. Now yes, it is difficult to reach citizens like those in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia with Secular ideas. But it is not because the people are addicted to religion, but that the governments are. Philosophers like Rousseau, Voltaire, and most certainly the Jewish Spinoza are outlawed in those countries. In his book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky notes an aside by one of the men who accompanied President Nixon on his diplomatic trip to China. This judge (whose name I cannot recall right now) asked every member of Mao's government one question: "Why Communism?" And each time the answer was the same: "Marx was the only revolutionary text available to us." Imagine, if you will, what would be in China, Vietnam, and Cambodia if the US had distributed Bastiat, Smith, Hayek, and Rousseau there instead of taking no interest due to racial reasons. It may seem like an aside, but (partly) thanks to a president who believed his god told him to invade Iraq, we now have ISIS. Instead of invading those lands and saying "here is democracy, let our men with guns show you how it works" we should distribute in any way possible the works of Secular and Liberal thinkers to those countries. The Revolutions would then occur on their own and the Middle East could finally shake off the shackles of theocracy. SOURCES[1] http://www.charismanews.com...[2] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...[3] http://news.abs-cbn.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.dictionary.com...[6] https://youtu.be...[7] http://www.sacred-destinations.com...[8] http://www.soldiers-of-misfortune.com...[9] http://www.history.com...[10] https://plato.stanford.edu...