Is separation of church and state important...?

In response to Is separation of church and state important...? by brennalass:

In response to Is separation of church and state important...? by LandSurveyorK:
I saw this in someone else's journal, and just wanted to chime in...

Loaded question. They're both parts of peoples lives, right? Church should be part of peoples personal/social/culteral lives, and the state should have such an insignifigant role in peoples lives that you hardly notice it (except when you're mailing a letter/mass transit/library/standing army for defense). I don't see how they can be seperate, but realistically I see how they are so prevanlent in everyone's life. Ignore either unless you need them.

First, I have to agree, our government is waaaay too invasive, involved in a lot of things it has no right being involved in. It's getting to the point where before too much longer, we'll need a permit to breathe... and you can be sure there will be a hefty tax associated with said permit... 

I also agree that it is impossible for them to be completely separate. I'm so tired of hearing "separation of church and state" raised as a battle cry for people who want to live in either a completely oppressive state, or total anarchy, I haven't figured out which is the ultimate goal yet... . . . .

Unfortunately, too many Americans, untutored in Jefferson's original correspondence with regard to religious liberties, commit the logical fallacy of reading the "establishment clause" as a "disestablishment mandate" with regards to religion.

Jefferson's wall, meant to shield religion from the unchecked unilateral power of government, today is heaved down upon believers like so many unmortared stones at a lapidation.

A full interpretation of the spirit of the "separation of church and state" would amend Justice Souter's opinion in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, as follows: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion, [or irreligion to religion]".

Until that bracketed portion is recognized as a logically equal and necessary consequence of the First Amendment, we will continue to see misguided activists who would insist that, in effect, "Congress should make law respecting the establishment of secularism."

See subsequent comments following the original version of this post.