Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Your statement was "Church=Religion". Each of these two words has multiple usage definitions which makes it a challenge to establish when someone is committing the fallacy of equivocation while using them in logical argumentation.I was simplifying the epithet "church and state" into it's elementary, generalized terms I could think of without getting leading the debate astray with semantics. If you didn't get it, they were meant to be generalized and encompassing many definitions and categories. And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics: Any religious matters should stay as far separate from legal matters as humanly possible. And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two; just because there is a grey area; does not mean the phrase and it's processes are impossible or nonexistent.I introduced the analogy hoping to avoid hashing out each definition then pinning down which one you were referring to in your equation.I apologize if I am incorrect, but I call bull. Your very first refute seemed particularly aimed at focusing on a game of marry-go-linguistics.This is the case when both terms refer to a "religious sect".Not necessarily. Items, beliefs, symbols, may all be included. But a religious sect or "church" is not the same thing as religion itself.Which I never stated nor implied.They don't just have governing bodies, they are governing bodies. They are branches of the same tree.If you wish to go that route, the same could be said about the government / legal matters. But I argue not, I argue that a school has a governing body. There are followers with no power; thus not a total governing body.If you were to list differences I could reduce them to what would clearly be a commonalities.And we can do the same about reality and delusions or hallucinations depending on how philosophically extreme you wish to be.Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.Wait, are you telling me you're one of those "governing hating, world hating, authority hating who demands from people to prove the difference between reality and what other possibilities may exist"? Ideally governments respect and accept diversity, realistically it doesn't always happen that way but in many areas they do the best they can. Our systems are not perfect, and we have a lot of bias, but that should not rule out another process because it does not work perfectly.So if a church were to emulate that, would it thereby cease being a church as long as it fits your definition of a governing authority?Again, you previously argued wanting to avoid a definition debate, yet here you are, enforcing such debate.But to answer your question, yes it would, in the right context. This group would have to enforce the Constitution as well as live up to it which is all included within creating, interpreting and enforcing our laws. This group would have to be voted in or "hired" on by another governing authority simply because this is how our government works when adding in new people, but other than that, yes they would be.A governing authority personally does not have to strip themselves of religious ties completely, but when enforcing laws on the public and speaking for the country as one, they either have to ignore religion all together or advocate diversity of beliefs ranging from religion and non religion. Why? Because it's the only way to include everyone in the country regarding matters of religion.One can vie in the interest of their religion, or against belief/value systems (religions) that are contrary to their own but attempts to separate religion from government are flat out illogical.For one, every statement in the paragraph from where this quoted statement comes from is refuted by my grey area and imperfection argument.As for this quoted text, that is a statement you must prove, you have asserted a claim.Yes they do.Prove it.You are thankful while religious values you identify with prevail.You have again asserted a claim. Where is your evidence for this? What religious values do I identify with and how do you know these prevail?Including murderers as long as they are doing the murdering for an approved cause.What are you talking about?