Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Let me clarify. It does not necessitate social order. It generally is a personal order, which is the point of it, to give an individual clarity and answers over existence.And while it does make sense that personal order leads to social order, this doesn't mean it happens every time.We are born into a social order and our religious beliefs are not formed irrespective of itAs a general rule, people do things to survive, in the long run. Creating social groups because of shared belief is, therefore, not a constant or necessary factor in the creation of order.Abandoning sociality is not a long term survival tactic, and if you don't think shared beliefs are a "constant or necessary factor" in the creation of all types of social orders, I'm not sure how to convince you. It's like you are saying communication is possible without logicExplain this to me in monkey-man words. How is it impossible to make decisions and have opinions separate from religious beliefs?All Individuals and groups have boundaries they must enforce. All have their own particular brand of intolerance. It is absolutely and always the business of states, religions and individuals to maintain these boundaries.A personal belief system is not always a religion.It's not necessarily labeled as such, because sometimes things which are in essence identical, are described with different terms. In my opinion, the statements: "Everyone has a personal belief system", and "everyone has a religion" express the same concept. I don't think there is a valid distinction to be made between supposedly "religious" and "non-religious" people.Is believing in a communistic state intrinsically tied into any particular religion?A communistic state (or any state for that matter) is like one big church.Does a capitalist state require it's establishment be Christian to function?We have enough disagreement on terms without getting into what a christian is. A capitalist state requires adequate uniformity of personal belief systems to function, just like any interpersonal organization.Did the rise of Feudal Japan require that everyone be Buddhist, Taoist, and Shintoist?Political conditions are always determined by the most dominant beliefs, whether they are labeled religious or not, and to seriously hold the separation of church and state as an ideal, one must not recognize that.While we have a lot of evidence to suggest that many states rise and revolve around religion, I think it's a huge leap to make the absolutist statement that all states are directly connected to religion.A state is just a religion with the power to enforce it's doctrine (laws)I'm not so sure about that. I think you can believe something strongly without it being religious. With that logic of yours, atheists are religious, because they have a strong belief that there are no deities in any religious mythology in truth.I think there are variants of religious belief and no one including atheists are without their own variant. So yes I think everyone is religious. You are welcome to try persuading me otherwise if you like.And even if everyone does have a strong belief, that doesn't mean said strong belief has anything to do with politics and statehood.You may not (like me) think that beliefs about "ideal social arrangements" are the same as "beliefs about politics and statehood", but I suspect you might admit that everyone has strong beliefs regarding "ideal social arrangements". If so it might not be too big of a leap for you to assume that !!absolutist!! position.If someone believes without a doubt that the Flying Spaghetti monster will return to bring peace on Earth long after said someone has died, why would they ever necessarily bring this view into play when writing up a bill about taxes?I don't assume they would. Other strong beliefs they have would come into play.Like, a pecking order among a lion pride. That is about as basic an orderly community as it gets for us earthling creatures. Now, do the lions form the pecking order because they devoutly believe in something?Oh my goodness. great analogy. The lions form the pecking order based on their strong beliefs about who would best who if it came down to it.Why does the pride determine who is on top and who's behind in the pecking order? Not because they believe anything, but because they have the strongest lion among them 'lead' them, because it's logical for the strong to lead and assist the weak so that the group survives. You don't have a weakling at the very front of the pecking order, cause a weakling wouldn't handle the position.It's almost like you don't want to admit that lions can believe things.But do you see where I am going?Sure you are attempting to defend a popular misconception. I appreciate the effortReligious belief does not necessitate societal order, and societal order does not necessitate religious belief.I agree with the first part but the lion analogy could be applied to the second. Any lion who doesn't believe the alpha's authority is absolute is free to challenge it. but make no mistake it is the alpha's position to by force, insure adequate commonality of belief among the pride.You can maybe believe things, but that doesn't mean those beliefs are relevant to anything you're presently doing, nor necessarily religious beliefs.certainly people can have beliefs that are irrelevant to specific activities, but they can't have beliefs that are somehow disconnected from their system of beliefs as a whole. Using the dictionary definition you cited earlier; a system of beliefs are "held to with ardor and faith" exists within everyone, therefore everyone has religious beliefs and is more of less religious.No need to be insinuative.Don't take it personal, I am just here to refine my thoughts and seek out the most well thought out opposition I can find. I am here to challenge and be challenged.I did after all clarify before even getting to this part of my reply that I understand the difference between religious belief and other belief.I see religious beliefs as being ones that are so deeply held that they literally affect a persons outlook on everything. And everyone has these. They are the beliefs that are so strong, that they can reasonably be classified as certainties. So by my admittedly atypical logic, I would say that my belief that it is about to rain is not a religious belief, but my belief that love is the best ideological first principle is. Finding a "non-religious" belief to be false is not radically life changing.Furthermore, yes, everyone does make decisions based upon beliefs, but these beliefs are not necessarily religious. Religion involves worship. You can have a strong belief without worshiping it.If a belief plays a principal role in ones ideology it becomes part of their "ruling logic" or what is intellectually equivalent to theology. It may be inappropriate to refer to top position beliefs as being "worshiped", but if you did, I suppose you would mean these are a persons axiomatic beliefs, or first principles. If not what does it mean to worship a belief?Which is why, again, you don't classify being a communist as being religious, because believing strongly in a communist state is not a religious belief, even if strong.Arguing that it would be a religious belief, though, would begin to skew the definition of a religious belief, and my tired brain wouldn't be able to handle that. I look at it like I am holding the definition to stricter logical standards, and refining it. I don't believe the orthodox theistic definition of religion is the best we can do. If you don't want to consider that there may be a better way of looking at religion than how you currently do, this is a difference between you and I.Because a state does not necessitate religious belief...A state decides what religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not, and enforces their decisions. Suppose a sect of fundamentalist Jews decided to revive the stoning tradition; the state would step in. Suppose a religious sect arose that was successful at propagating the "religious belief" that everyone had a god given right to set up camp on any vacant piece of land and that to do so did not violate anyones legitimate rights because the earth was a gift from god to all of humanity equally and that states were fictitious entities. The state would quickly assert it's religious authority.None of which are necessarily religious beliefs.I haven't heard a distinction between "religious" and "non-religious" beliefs that holds up under scrutiny besides that "religious" beliefs seriously affect a persons outlook should they be proven incorrect, while "non-religious" beliefs won't. I do think that the religious/secular dichotomy is a farce.A belief that was not necessarily religious.Unless you can tell me in logical terms (Which precludes using terms such as god, supernatural, spiritual etc. to build the definition) what the difference is between a religious and non-religious belief is, that statement is practically meaningless to me.A person can have a strong belief without necessarily having a strong religious belief.see aboveYou still have yet to convince me with apparent logic as to how this absolutism even remotely makes sense, considering you can form order and community, and thus a state, without the incentive from a religious belief.Your view of religion is built on illogical theistic concepts. Until you jettison those your concept of religion will be logically flawed by extension.