Atypican cannot be defeated with dictionary definitions.

It's like trying to use evidence to debate a person who doesn't value evidence.

It's like trying to use logic to debate a person who doesn't value logic.

He has transcended the mere dictionary definitions that the rest of us are bound by.

He is unstoppable.

Do you know what the ontological argument does? It reduces God to a belief-properly-so-called. God is reduced to the point in which all other view points take their substances from. Is logic actually logical? Is reality actually real? We can never know, and must take them on faith. Once we have established these beliefs-properly-so-called, in faith, then every other belief from that point is affected. If I don't think reality to be real, then morality is theoretically irrelevant. The same is with God. Once we have established God to be or not to be, and what the truth of God is within the faith of God being real, all our other view points are affected. Morality is affected. Economics is affected. Political theory is affected. Every philosophy is affected by this belief-properly-so-called. So how one views God, in his or her belief-properly-so-called, then one's view of politics and of the government is affected. All of my views, which have been affected by my views of God, play a role in the government, since people run the government, and each person has his or her own view on this topic. Moreover, to drive the nail into the coffin, as long as there is one religious person, regardless of how one views the definition of "religion", and the government rules over this person, then the government will have no possible way to separate religion from politics and from the government. The government will have to respond to this person. In fact, by the mere notion that of a "separation of church and state" one can determine that religion has impacted governmental affairs, which is necessarily not a separation of church and state. So, no, it is impossible to separate religion from the government and politics.

Religion defined: an organized system of bliefs, ceremonies, and rules USED TO WORSHIP A GOD OR GODS.

Since I know that there are religious systems of beliefs/practices that are not worship/theism based, I can't accept this definition.

Politics defined: the art or science of government, activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting or keeping power in a government.

Accepted

Government defined: a group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, a particular system for controlling a country or state.

Accepted

Okay, this is the deal. The person I am debating says that you cannot separate religion and government.

Correct

I say that you can, and here is why: 1. Religion is about the supernatural and the spiritual.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just about fellowship with those who share common values with you

Government is not.

Agreed

2. The separation of church and state is essential to preserving civil liberties for people with all kinds of beliefs. If a Hindu tries to force Hinduism on Jews, that would be a violation of civil rights. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Humkan rights states that people have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This cannot happenm without the serparation of church and state. Do Christians have the right to force their beliefs on atheists? Atheists on Muslims? No? Than Vote yes.

So how about people who as a matter of religion, believe that they are not subject to any world governments, how tolerant of that religious belief do you think a government can be?

3. If religion was used for government, who is the lucky religion? Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and so on? People of varying faiths better get along when they are not pitted against each other in a contest to control politics.

Which ever one, (formally established or not) that's most popular in the region. And the various faiths always have been and alays will be pitted against each other in a contest for political control.

4. I do affirm that religion and government have some things in common, but that does not make them synonymous. My hand has something in common with my foot, does that make them the same? no.

That's another argument. In this one I have accepted (for the sake of argument) the IMO excessively narrow definition of government you presented.

5. I have prsented my case, now Atypican can present his.

I am comfortable that I have sufficiently presented my position in contrast to yours and the critical thinking of any readers can handle the rest, Although I am open to either submit to a series of questions aimed at exposing any logical contradictions in my ideology that I am unaware of OR to ask you a set of questions oriented at helping you identify logical flaws in yours.

Here's a debate I created for this purpose I don't care if you'd rather examine me first or be examined by me first. It's your choice. I consider reluctance to take this next step a sign that you are aware of the untenability of your position.