Your view of Separation of Church and State is incomplete, as Separation does not simply ask for the state to stay out of the affairs of the church but asks for the church institution to stay out of the affairs of the government. Why does it ask this? Because tyranny can come not only from an overreaching government that attempt to suppress the church, but from an overreaching church institution that can impose its wills and beliefs on the government.

You say that Separation requires, by law, every politician to renounce all religious affiliation and practice. That's a lie. To ask a person in an elected position to renounce their religiosity would not be upholding Separation but would be violating it. Separation seeks religious freedom by keeping the government out of all religious affairs - not individuals who are in the government's employ.

The real problem with your argument is that you're not arguing against the true meaning of Separation between Church and State, but what you wrongly believe is the meaning of Separation of Church and State.

As a matter of fact, the Separation of Church and State is not unconstitutional. It is supported by what the First Amendment itself says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words: The government is not only forbidden from passing a law that establishes religion, but it is forbidden from RESPECTING any law that establishes religion, because such an establishment would be a prohibition of free exercise.

Aren't you glad that our government cares so much for the religious freedom of its citizens that it seeks neither to impose its will on you or your church nor to allow a church to impose its will on the government?