How hard can this be??

The separation between "Church" and "State" literally means there is a wall between religion and secular society.  It was stated by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, who had borrowed the concept from the founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, who had first enunciated it in 1644. 

That's why we have churches, synagogues, temples and mosques, so people can exercise their religion as they wish and ensure their beliefs don't spill over into the public thoroughfare.  How can this be so difficult to get?!

Apparently, some religions don't.  Following this logic, this is why the wearing of a turban, niqab, hijab or yarmulke in the public thoroughfare -- where people of all religions congregate as one democratic mass -- is not appropriate.  It is not appropriate because by doing so, you are bringing your religion into secular society where people of all -- or no -- faiths are exposed to it.  This is also why there would be a perception that your religious beliefs might influence the performance of your job.  In the Catholic Church, for instance, many orders have abandoned the traditional nun's habit so these women can work within their communities as part of -- not separate from -- those with whom they work. These religious are called "lay orders".  On the other hand, cloistered nuns and brothers don't mingle in greater society, so they dress according to their specific order.   

This is why there is a separation between "Church" and "State".  It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion; Canada already assures this in its constitution.  But religious and special-interest groups have hijacked this principle and turned it on its head, accusing those who object of being prejudiced and racist.  How can anyone be "racist" when we are all one race:  the human one.   

When I look at our defence minister, I know immediately he is a Muslim.  Do I want to know this?  No because I don't care what his personal, religious beliefs are.  To take this to its ultimately logical point (a trait with which I am constantly burdened), what if someone said, "My religion says I have to wear different shoes than the prescribed military footwear, so I am going to wear other shoes."  Or if someone said, "My religion stipulates that I have to wear a different uniform jacket, so I am not going to wear the army attire issued."   

It could go on and on.  And does!  When I see a woman in a burka, I immediately know she does not share Canadian principles, as prescribed in The Constitution Act of 1982.  I immediately know she is under the control of her father or husband -- something I find offensive.  And can you imagine if a native leader walked into the office wearing a headdress and beads?  It's all so ludicrous. 

It's not about religion, it's about how we govern ourselves in a secular society.