The law is secular. The seperation of church and state was take beyond what it means in the Constitution.
Well, unless you've been chatting with those who wrote the constitution lately, then that would just be an opinion :)
It was meant, in original context that the government could not set up a national church. That's now been takien to mean that there should be no religious influence and symbolism in -any- government organization or symbols at all.
So where is the problem in that?
If the fanatic anti-Christians (which is what most of them are since they seem to have no problem with other religions being taught in schools) had their way, religious people would probably loose the right to vote since they are going to obviously want to put religion into law.
While I'm sure there are a handfull of anti religious types who would want to take things to that extreme, the steriotype of the equally fanatically christian would want to turn the country into a theocracy.
The Law, as I stated before, should be secular. It should not give favour to any belief. If laws are passed that give a higher status to one belief, or enforce the beliefs of one group upon others, then there is a problem. The law is no longer fair in that case.
I believe that everyone has the right to think, say, or do what they want, what their faith would have of them, right up to the point that it infringes on the beliefs of others. That's why the law has to remain separate from a particular groupings beliefs.
But since we seem to be moving somewhat OT here, should we split this off to a separate thread?