Although most of our founding fathers were Christian, it was their very clear intention to separate church and state. They were not agnostic, as some have mistaken them to be, but they wanted a clear separation. That is obvious from the Federalist Papers onward. They came here from countries where religious differences were matters of life and death. Those guys are among my heroes. They operated under duress, as in you might get a bullet through your head at any moment, and put down guidelines we are basically still guided by, with tinkering, 230 years later. Prominent among these guidelines is that the minority will not be tyrannized by the majority.


>People forget that our constitution does not actually separate church and state in its writing. It simply stated:
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
>
>really meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the discrimmination among different religions.
>
>It also has a prohibition of religious texts for public office
>
>An interesting read here:
>
>http://www.iog.unc.edu/organizations/planning/onlinepubs/pzb-a2.htm
>
>
>
>>>The article highlights conflicts with "separation between church and state". It seems to me that what the people who challenge the programs mentioned want to avoid is that certain religious groups get a preferred treatment over others.
>>>
>>>It makes sense in a way - many people feel that it is not the government's duty, nor even its right, to impose Shia Islam, or Protestant Christianity (to give just two examples) as a state religion, or even to give one of them a preferred treatment. Perhaps you think that one specific religion (or belief, whatever you call it) (for instance, Protestant Christianity) is the right one, but a government of some country may not agree with you, and try to impose another belief (for instance, Shia Islam, Buddhism, etc.) on its peoples.
>>
>>while the discussion runs over "preferred treatment", we (the human kind) are all loosing the focus.. The opportunity..
>>
>>Shia Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Popeye, Maradona, Bush, etc.. Are all only names/denominations compared with the value of the human life.. The value of a restored father that comes back to his family..
>>>
>>>On the other hand, care must be taken that the situation doesn't go to extremes of anti-religious attitudes in general. After all, religion can be a powerful force of good,<snip>
>>
>>>although it has often been abused.
>>>
>>If followers of Bahay faith decide to help a life of a single man and need a government support.. All that we have to say is: Aleluiah!! Here is my point.. The "life" should be the first priority before ALL of the things..
>>
>>Otherwise, empty religion only..