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

Then you are stuck in your own perspective.Who's not though seriously. I am giving a go at understanding yours and others as I participate in a website specifically for that.So I might better scrutinize your perspective, list some differences between religion and government. I bet I could list more similarities.No, that is called a theocracy; which is a form of government.I don't see any value in categorizing governmental dictatorships as theocratic. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of what popular misconceptions are taken advantage in order to gain power.Just because religion is can and is used to function a government, does not mean the terms "religion/church" and "state" are essentially synonymous.True, but if the differences are only in what metaphors are utilized to establish the authority structure then perceived differences are as far as I can tell illusory.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.All a group needs to do to BE a government is to act like one, the same is true of a religion. How about this...Tell me something true of a government that is not also true of a religion. <That is up to the people, not a government body as a whole.A government body is made up of people, so that's another false distinction. If you view religion in it's broadest sense (a belief/value system), it's easy to see how such matters are something no person or interpersonal organization can be neutral about. Like that Rush song points out "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".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. A persons religious views represent their most deeply held beliefs/values. Claiming that people "can be" influenced by them is a gross understatement. Like it or not, neutrality on such matters is an impossibility.You seem to assume much simply by the negative influences in governmental affairs.Historically, what interpersonal organizations are most responsible for promoting the belief that violence is an effective, even admirable way to settle differences? Religious or Governmental? Neither and both....they are fundamentally indistinguishable IMOWe'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.Works just fine? How in the world could matters of fundamental beliefs and values be kept separate from governance. A person or groups actions are flat out dictated by their belief/value system. You're right, it's not expecting "too much", it's expecting the impossible.Is this necessary?No. That was a response to what I interpreted (perhaps mistakenly?)as an also unnecessary attempt to degrade..to wit: "And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics". So if we can dispense with what usually leads to pointless bickering, and work to expose which one of us is lacking a sound logical basis, I'd be pleased. Go ahead and ask any pointed questions you can come up with, and I'll be sure to answer them. If you'll do me the same courtesy, we'll have some rapport.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.You cannot have "true" separation. You cannot have "entirely full" separation. And you cannot tell me the difference between religious and governmental concerns.Since I think that government and religion are basically the same thing, I suppose attempts to separate them are based on an illusory notion that it is possible at all. An institution, be it labeled political or religious cannot be neutral in regards to other institutions who may be promoting ideologies contrary to their interests.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.I'd replace "might" with "definitely" and the phrase "a bit" with "extremely"Like freedom of speech, while the United States has that guaranteed freedom; it is limited.It's limited when a determination is made that such speech is contrary to it's interests. The defining of interests is a belief/value system thing. Government is dogmatic. Face it.And with a logical backing behind why it should be limited.And the premises of that logic are that the institution is worth preserving at any cost.What faulty logic?The same logic behind any claim to non-biasWhich 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 could say you were being an ass and therefore I shouldn't bother engage you but I have better manners than that. You can shrink from inquiry and be disrespectful if that's your disposition.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.I try to aim in the direction of deeper thinking. I am looking for challenges to how I think, and to challenge others. You can of course decide that conversation with me is not worthwhile, it's your prerogative.