It is my contention, as stated previously, that the more a false, or invalid, premise is stated as ‘fact’ the more it becomes accepted as ‘reality’. An example of this is the following concept, at least as it is commonly thought of in today’s society.

There can be no expression of Faith or Religion in a place that is associated at all with the State. 

Also commonly referred to as the ‘Separation of Church and State.’

Where exactly does this concept originate? First we need to look at the two most relevant pieces.

1) The 1^st Amendment of the Constitution.

2) Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

The concept of "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

The idea of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses:

1) The establishment clause: Generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally.

2) and the free exercise clause: Which ensures that private religious practices are not to be restricted by the government.

The effect, of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions, while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy, has been termed the "separation of church and state."

There are two separate views on this.

The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.

The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

I would consider myself the latter, to some degree.

In doing some reading and research about the subject and I understand where the ‘separationist’ is coming from, yet I do not completely agree. What I believe has happened is that the ‘separationist’ view has been co-opted and used for other purposes. A lot of which does have the appearance of being ‘anti-religious’.

The following is from a website that states and defends the ‘separationist’ point of view and answers the question: Website (To be fair it does not appear to have been updated since 1997)

Don’t separationists want to eliminate religion from public life?

“Absolutely not. If separationism means anything, it is that people should have the freedom to act publicly on their religious beliefs without coercion from the state. This would include the right to vote and run for public office in accordance with one's religious beliefs. More generally, separationists are aware that religion has profoundly influenced the culture and morality of this nation; it is natural and proper that people would identify with that influence, and use it to order their lives.

Nevertheless, the First Amendment had the effect of forbidding anyone from using the government to pass sectarian legislation (i.e., legislation designed to establish religious belief by law). One's decision about how much we should spend on welfare, for example, might well be influenced by one's religious beliefs, but it would surely be unconstitutional to require people to attend church as a condition of welfare. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to know just where to draw the lines between sectarian and non-sectarian legislation, but such lines do need to be drawn. Separationists believe that the religion clauses of the First Amendment serve as an adequate guideline for resolving most of these disputes.”

Most of which I agree with and makes sense. What I do not agree with is how it has been taken to such a degree that is has today. Hence where Perception has evolved into Reality.

It seems we have arrived at a point where it is no longer a separation of Religion from Government but where Religion is to no longer even be Acknowledged.

Has Freedom Of Religion become Freedom From Religion?

It seems to me that this ‘inviolate line’ is not very clear cut, nor do I think those in the Kingdom would do anything to make it clearer. Why would they? There is no benefit to them to do so.