Argument against Church/State Separation

The Claimant seems to be arguing:

You cannot separate the 'influence of Church on the State'
Because discrimination against religion is illegal
Therefore any attempt to separate the influence of Church on the State would be discriminatory and thus illegal.

Without arguing the actual purport of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, often referred to as a constitutional guarantee of Separation of Church and State, we simply have a circulus in demonstrando (also known as: paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and consequence, reasoning in a circle)

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

From Dr. Bo's Circular Reasoning:

ALSO: The word "influence" is problematic because of its ambiguity which would make this a good candidate for an Equivocation Fallacy.

Religion is a part of people, people are the "government". Therefore religion may influence people in govt......
Separation of church and state, as I thought it is meant, merely means the government cannot force upon its citizens any policies that favor one particular religion.

I sort of hesitate to jump in to this one. Here's my thought: I think this argument is in the line of what philosopher Gilbert Ryle called a "category mistake." That is, let us temporarily assume the premise that religion should be involved in politics. However, your person seems to think that this implies that one particular religion, such as the Christian church, should be involved in politics. That doesn't follow from the premise.

You can't separate the influence of the Church from the state. If you do so, you are rejecting on no other basis than 'It's religious therefore no'.

Just a vacuous claim. How exactly is it asserted that if you seperate the influence of the Church from the state you are only doing it because 'It's religious therefore no'? Many reasons are usually given for trying to seperate the Church from the state that don't simply boil down to 'religious so no'. It's much more than that.

But you can't do that because that would be discrimination based on religion, which is illegal.

Again, this claim is built on the assertion that separating Church from the state is simply because 'religious therefore no', which is a baseless assertion. So anything built on it is baseless too.

You can't discount religious words because they're just as valid as any other sort of opinion or ideological ground.

False assertion. No, not all opinions and ideologies are created equal, and opinions/ideologies that are proven to not work or not help nations thrive are legitimate to be discarded as such for better opinions/ideologies to be adopted.

In this case, the only logical thing to do, is to actively include religion in government processes, because the system by which the government works, including Church separation, forbids you from making religious thought void.

Just because the government prevents you from making any sort of thought void, it doesn't follow that this thought should be actively included in government processes. Non-sequitur. Plus, which religious thought exactly are you forbidden from making void? does that include the Muslim religious thought? If so, should you also actively include sharia law in government processes?

Since religion is a big part of any nation, also to respect the citizens, religion should be part of government.

Again, should sharia law be part of government in a nation where Islam is a big part of that nation? Would it be respectful to the citizens to adpot laws that include throwing gay people off rooftops? Doesn't sound like respect to me (at least not to the gays hitting the floor after being thrown).

It is objectively true that as it presents itself, Separation of Church and State is counter to the interests and rights of the citizens.

Another baseless claim. How is it objectively true?