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

Haha we've already had a few debates on this exact subject.Yours are some of the sharpest arguments I've read, so I appreciate it.The problem it terms.I agree. This is not at all unique between us though. I am convinced that when rigorously examined, people's strongest beliefs prove to be a lot more similar than they appear due to the confusing effects of such "semantic idiosyncrasies".The problem it terms. We can dig all we like and we won't find common ground unless we can agree on terms. Right if we can come to terms we have a chance at a productive logical discussion. I think that articulating the disagreement we aim to resolve, would be something that wouldn't be too hard, and would help us focus the conversation to one that is strictly logical.But if you really want to go there again, I offer a challenge: tell me how and why I am a religious person.There are different senses of the word that I'd like to make clear. First, since I assume that you don't exclusively identify with a particular "institutionalized sect" (a religion), in this sense I am willing to concede that you are not religious or you have no religion.However I think that all humans (therefore you too) practice their own individualized form of religion that I'll describe here as "a devotional practice", "a hierarchal value system", "A culturally inherited (albeit modified) personal belief system", "A system of accepted philosophical or ideological principles". If while practicing your religion, (and I'll argue that you can truly only practice your own) you decide to dismiss some highly popular doctrines, because you don't find them logically acceptable, this doesn't mean you aren't practicing religion at all, it means you are practicing religion differently. Admitting this would give you the elusive "common ground" to logically discuss matters of religion.My definition includes all of those things. Ideology, habits, tradition, the supernatural, theism, ritual, church, dogma, and more.If a definition is built on illogical notions, (such as perhaps supernaturalism and theism), I argue that it is itself by extension, logically unsound.We have other words for belief systems that lack aspects of the supernatural and theism, like "philosophy" and "ideology." If you insist that religion is a belief system, philosophy, or ideology that must by definition involve acceptance of theistic and supernatural concepts, then you should oppose organizations such as the Church of Reality or the First United Church of Kopimism and possibly even Unitarians (Many of which are atheist and don't believe in supernaturalism or spiritualism) from being legally recognized as religions, and therefore having their practices protected under the umbrella of religious liberty. Your position comes across to me as being fundamentally opposed to religions identifying in better ways.When they start talking about the afterlife and spirits and tithing, you know you're no longer dealing with a philosophy and are instead dealing with a religion.I understand your position. It is what I think of as a rigidly orthodox religious outlook.Like I said, among other things. Making a claim about supernatural beings would be a surefire way to assure whatever you are talking about is religious in nature, but it's not the only way to do this.What other surefire way is there to determine if an organization is religious besides descriptions such as "it has clergy" which depend of circular logic. (ie clergy is a "religious" official)Where did I say we should worship the state?Since you said that the state should control religion, this amounts to placing the state in the position of ultimate religious authority. Regarding an entity as an "ultimate authority" or "most high" in regards to religion, is the same as worshiping it. State controlled religion amounts to theocracy.I'm in the field; EMTs are not as highly trained as you might think. I probably should've compared them to GPs, as a chiropractor is technically a medical doctor and probably couldn't do an EMTs job, but I hope you got my point anyways.What job can a politician do that a religious leader can't do or vice versa?What is your point?It would be just as naive to try keeping ideology out of politics as it is to try keeping religion out of politics.My point is that that relationship works one way. Politics can control religion, religion cannot control politics.How do you know it's not the other way around?All religious systems are political, not all political systems are religious.Or alternatively we are talking about the same beast to speak of either.You can have the state without the church but you can't have the church without the state.Or a state is just a church that enforces it's doctrine