The oppositional votes on this issue oftentimes represent ignorance - often willful - of the separation of church and state. Most people find that once they have fully examined the issue, they have more in common with someone who agrees with the notion of church/state separation than someone who doesn't. Not only is church/state separation a good idea, it's the way our system runs and has run for over two hundred years. The separation of church and state is found in the Constitution, where it is plainly written that "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION". In other words, the government will not establish religion on any kind in government. Period. Even if the phrase isn't explicitly in the Constitution does not mean that it is not an important part of the American system. The word "federalism" cannot be found in the Constitution either. The word "trinity" cannot be found in the Bible. Does that mean that neither idea exists? Of course not. I submit that there can be no religious freedom without the separation of church and state, because when the two are mingled, no good can come from the combination. Church/state intermingling damages the state because it forces citizens into a certain set of beliefs whether they agree with those beliefs or not. At the same time, it allows the government to define religion, thereby eliminating any hope for freedom of conscience and forcing the government into the role of enforcing religious belief. In other words, the government becomes a "nanny state" that micromanages religious belief. In our system, church and state are separated, thereby allowing the private citizen to figure out religious matters for themselves instead of the government making decisions for them. ALL religions are allowed to thrive in a government where no religion is established, instead of a certain religion to which the majority happens to adhere. There are many people who then claim that church/state separation is the same thing as disallowing religious speech in government or disallowing religious speech from those in the government. Although the separation of church and state has been used that way in some cases, that is not the purpose of it. The government, meaning the actual body of government and not those who work for the government, has no religious freedom. It does not have the right to establish a religion and force the populace into bowing their knee to that religion. Private citizens, on the other hand, do have religious freedom and can therefore believe whatever they so choose. They have that right thanks to the separation of church and state. To those who think that the separation of church and state is such a bad idea I ask: would you prefer a government that established the Buddhist religion officially? Would you prefer a government that endows Buddhists with special rights and privileges and ostracizes Christians from the political process (disallowing them to vote, run for office, etc)? Would you prefer a government such as some we see in the Middle East, where a certain set of religious beliefs are forced onto the citizens of a country regardless of their personal beliefs? The reason we don't see such occurrences in the United States is due to the separation of church and state. We can debate until Jesus comes whether or not the founders of our country were Christians. Incontrovertible is the fact that they created a country where EVERYONE'S beliefs can thrive - not just the beliefs of those who happen to be in the majority. That "phrase lifted from a letter by Thomas Jefferson" that is so criticized today is what protects your religious beliefs today, whether you acknowledge it or not.