>but the principle of separation of state and church is not too closely adhered to by allowing to put up the 10 commandments on state property
>
>As I understand it, this means that the government will not establish a religion (like the Church of England, for example).

I see that more in historical context, as in medieval times church and state both tried to rule - bishops asked for taxes for the pope, had huge possesions which were partly reposessed/sold under duress but with payment running still today in napoleonic times, walk to Canossa and all that stuff. Not that the principle is totally followed in reality - (church tax over here, but you can opt out, services and so on) but they should either have sold the property or get rent from it if somebody wants to erect 10 commandments in stone again. And the other way around (religion establishing state rules and laws) is the thing I am more afraid of - see Sharia for instance.