Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

At this point unless you want to talk semantics I really can't address your logic.Then you are stuck in your own perspective.Perhaps (regardless of how general or specific you try to be) it's entirely logical to view religion as a form of government, and vice versa....just maybeNo, that is called a theocracy; which is a form of government. Just because religion is can and is used to function a government, does not mean the terms "religion/church" and "state" are essentially synonymous.Many groups of all types can act like a government of their own followers/members, but it does not mean they are--as I said before-- synonymous.That a government can remain neutral in regards to religion...is delusional unless religion isn't about idea propagation.That is up to the people, not a government body as a whole. A government official who is suppose to uphold Separation of Church and State within our laws can be influenced by their religious views or others religious views, but the fact that it's a possibility and does occur does not mean it's required or guaranteed. You seem to assume much simply by the negative influences in governmental affairs. We're talking about a concept, which works just fine if the people would adhere to the concept instead of violating it. It's not expecting too much of people either.Poor me who doesn't understand the MERE basics of your logic!Is this necessary?[[And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two.........]]You have conceded my whole point here.I have not. You did not argue no "true" separation, you argued there is essentially no difference between the two; which is incorrect regardless of whether or not you can have an entirely full separation or not.What I meant by "true" separation is that there are exceptions or rules that might make the separation a bit unclear or up for debate. Like freedom of speech, while the United States has that guaranteed freedom; it is limited. And with a logical backing behind why it should be limited.You can have spaghetti for dinner without eating all the spaghetti in existence. You do not need to have all spaghetti in order to have spaghetti; there is a clear line. The same logic is applied to freedom of speech or separation of church and state; except the line is clear with a fuzzy outline. Why? Because most people are not sensitive over spaghetti, but they are over religion.that the phrase and it's processes are possible and existent (albeit founded on faulty logic), I will concede.What faulty logic?That in general I am keen to engage in linguistic forensics (merry-go-linguistics sounds so pejorative) is true, and my tendencies ARE to try helping people (and solicit help from them for myself through conversation) to have a sound logical basis for the terms they use. I was trying to make my point in as few words as possible would have been more truthful. Your BS detector (less pejoratively your intuition) is spot on here. :)Which I would normally applaud such a helpful cause, however, when you sound like an ass with your first post and then proceed to only be interested in semantics itself instead of the argument; no one will want your help or see your cause.I like you use of "philosophically extreme" here....:)I felt as if this was your main intention, to aim in the direction of relativism or solipsism. Which boils down to philosophy, and while I love philosophy, there is a limit on it's productivity in debate. And as for the rest of the post, my responses really don't change when you refer to the previous paragraph.