Church & State - Have we gone too Far?

Did our founding fathers really mean that we should not allow our children to pray at school? If so, why is it that the Army has "Chaplains" - mostly Christian, although recently there has been a specific effort to include other religions - for the specific purpose of ministering to soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines? The Chaplains are on active duty, paid by the government, to hold religious services for and minister to other government employees. Is this an unconstitutional conflict of Church and State? Seriously, how could it get any more DIRECT ... hired by the government to spread God's word to government employees!!! That seems much more direct to me than saying a prayer at school because it is a "public building." I'm not offended if Jewish Americans or Muslim Americans want to hold their own prayer groups at school ... why are the Christians persecuted? Why not let everyone hold a prayer group? Here's a thought ... LET'S BE TOLERANT AND ENCOURAGE COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GROUPS! Wow ... what a novel idea!

A city government seal (Edmond, OK) is not permitted to contain a "cross" as a SMALL part of it's official city seal (see the 10th Circuit Opinion, Certiorari to the US S.Ct. denied). Yet all of the money spent in that same little town (and used to pay those 10th Circuit Court of Appeal Judges) has "IN GOD WE TRUST ON IT!" I am sure that someone can "justify" this with legalese, but the truth is that we are engaged in a double standard.

One must put the separation of Church and State in historic context. At the time of the Constitution's birth, many Americans had come from Europe, where the Church controlled the State or was the government. In view of that historic reality, it seems a much more reasonable interpretation that our founding fathers, and hence the Constitution, separated Church and State because the drafters did not want to restrict religion (many came here to AVOID religious persecution) but rather wanted to make sure the Church never became the government. This stands to reason. If a specific Church became the government, or had undue influence in governmental matters, such a situation would reduce the "freedom of religion" the framers were trying to protect by permitting a larger Church to squeeze out smaller Churches or "freeze" out minority religious views.

Have we now gone too far? Have we now, as a Nation, alienated God? Remember, the three major religions of the world all worship the same God ... Christians came from the Jewish people and worship the same God (with a dispute about Christ's role) and the Muslims worship the same God as well. In seeking to protect "Freedom of Religion" have we now limited it?