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

So, I feel I must rebutt your argument in three parts.Part the FirstIt is very true that like many primitive societies, First Nations such as the Huron, Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, etc, were deeply theocratic in which priests and shamans held a great deal of political capital (sometimes even more than the monarch himself). This was all well and good, even when the Vikings, another primitive theocratic society, attempted to settle in the New World. The Vikings recorded in their Sagas noise weapons which were launched and erupted upon contact with the earth. (Information can be found in the Saga of Eric the Red). However, when the Europeans arrived with explosives of their own, they met with a people who had not changed much since the Vikings arrived centuries earlier. It is a shame that a people who could truly give the Vikings a run for their money did not advance as the Europeans did. Whereas the Europeans had advanced in military technology, medical science, politics, and philosophy, the First Nations such as Iriquois, Huron, Algonquin, and Inuits made no real advancements. The reason for this advancement in one but not the other continental civilization in the exact same span of time is the introduction of Secularism. Starting with the Protestant Reformation[1] and the Rennaissance, Europeans began to question the authority of the Catholic Church, which was in a position, up until those events, to keep Europe in a primitive feudal state. In the early Seventeenth Century the Rationalists[2] (of which Spinoza was one) came onto the scene of philosophy. As they questioned, so did other minds who were experts in other places. Science was no longer restricted by the Church, as evidence by stories such as that of Galileo[3]. Meanwhile, in North and South America, the peoples were living in mineral rich lands still living as like it was Neolithic times. Part the SecondThe reason that one advanced due to Secularism and the other did not is simple: dogma. People living in very theocratic societies are made to be afraid not of the priests or of the despot or oligarchy, but of the god which they claim has granted them their power and authority. So the people, even if they see the hypocrisy and debauchery of the monarchs and priests or find the laws to be unjust and amoral, will not revolt. They fear eternity. You do bring up a point about dogma existing in modern Secular society. Groups like Antifa and the Europa, or ideologies like Feminism, is that they are often called Secular Religions[4]. Although these do not have gods per se, they are just as dogmatic as Christianity or Islam. To allow Secular Religions is just as bad as to allow typical Religions into government (just look at the havoc Feminism has wreaked upon Society). However, these can still be questioned, as that a Secular Religion only has its most ardent adherents who will never hear an opposing side. For example, Americans, especially women, have been turning away from Feminism in the past few years in record numbers[5]. This is because Feminism threatens them with no spooky afterlife. Religion with a deity, however, does offer threats of damnation and eternity in torture[6]. So, people will not be so quick as to rebel against authority when those in that authority claim to have received it from a vengeful god. For example, the people of Saudi Arabia have not rebelled even though that country is very much a dystopia. They fear Allah's wrath.Part the ThirdFinally, you give some examples of "religious institution performing the tasks of government". The examples you give are not quite the duties of government, such as defense or law-enforcement, but the actions of humanitarian organizations. However, these were also the actions of individuals, and not entire religious organizations. For example, while many members of the Catholic clergy were risking their lives smuggling Jews out of Nazi controlled Europe, the Pope (a theocrat) was making deals with Fascists. Even today, the Pope uses his pulpit to push a totalitarian agenda.To grant some credence to this, we see Medecin sans frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and other humanitarian organizations, who often operate without religious intent, performing similar actions, but as whole entities. The Catholic Church, for another example, refused aid to Africans in need up until 2010[7]. The reason? They would dare to use condoms. Dogma even intervenes in their humanitarian efforts. Good Debate! Very enjoyable.SOURCES[1] https://www.britannica.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.biography.com...[4] http://rationalwiki.org...[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...[6] http://www.newadvent.org...[7] http://churchandstate.org.uk...