[elmerfud]

Having traveled a lot of the world the US does a good job of separation of church and state, even though it's not something specifically enumerated. I believe your core point of contention is not state and religion but religious people who participate in the democratic process.

These two things are drastically different. I challenge you to go to a country where religious ideology is part and parcel of their system of government. Explore that for a while and see what it's really like when the state endorses a religion and then come back to the United States. Nowhere on any government issued ID card is anyone required to list the religion. Even if you were agnostic or wanted to be atheist in some countries you're still required to list an actual religion. Show me where in the United States there is a state sanctioned religious police force ensuring that doctrine is followed. I've not seen it anywhere. I've seen individual bad actors do things and held to account for them.

There is a big difference between the state picking an ideology or a religion and then mandating that religion or ideology enforcement powers and individuals who are religious participating in the democratic process to ensure that laws align with their value system. The first option the people have no choice in the matter. The second option the laws themselves are not a religious doctrine they are laws based on the societal principles that the people voted for and there is a review process to ensure those laws do not violate the rights of the people.

People who are religious do have the ability to participate in the democratic process and get to vote and make proposals about things that align with their value system. Just like people who are not religious get to do the exact same thing. It is very important not conflate things.