Church and State and the space in between

This nation was founded with the idea that all men and women could practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) that they wished with little to no interference from the government. Because of the government being set up as a contractual government (i.e. the people give the leaders the right to rule and expect fair and just treatment in return) it also expected little to no interference from religion. This is only a right way of thinking if one stops to consider it. In order to allow the practice of any religion or lack thereof, the government itself must be free from the moral and ethical confines of any one religion. It must relegate itself to reason and scientific inquiry in order to achieve the freedom we claim to hold so dear. Yet one religion in particular wants to assert dominance (albeit in a covert manner) over all the others and dominance over the laws of the land. This religion is Christianity. To say this, one must first understand that no claim is made as to the right or wrong character of Christianity or any claim to wish its existence gone. Neither of these is argued or will be argued. It is simply argued that a number of misguided individuals believe the nation should base its laws on Christian ethics and morality and not on what the facts actually say. In addition, these same people desire to have no aid in creating such a nation as they wish to remain tax free. As the saying goes, they wish to have their cake and eat it too. What these individuals refuse to confront is that to base laws not on rational and scientific means, but to base them on one very small subset of the population, denies the ethical considerations of the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the many other religions prevalent in our society. Thus far, the government has done little to interfere with the practice of any religion, but should organizations such as the Westboro Baptist "Church" (Their prevalence of social activities and large expenditure on them, their constant self instigated legal battles, and their lack of any coherent dogma or actual church membership-the "church" is almost exclusively the extended family of "rev." Phelps- makes it hard to take them seriously when they call themselves a church. e.g. by their definition my blog and our family meals are a church), and the numerous Senators and Representatives who pander to their constituents' emotional love of religion, continue then the government should step in. They enjoy a tax free and quiet existence, to ask for laws without even considering that those laws only benefit them and serve no purpose in a rational society, borders on political and not religious organization. In short, the ethical and moral guidelines of Christianity or any other religion have no place in politics. If our laws are based on one particular subset, it is always to the detriment of others. The law must be rational, not religious. Only when the law infringes on the practice of a religion (NOT simply offending them but actually prohibits them from worship in some tangible way) is that religion allowed to petition the government for its change. Any other political speech should , rationally and logically, be avoided by religion OR the religion should be taxed as any other corporation. The space between is the freedom afforded to religion to practice off of public roads and to use public utilities. Any further space invites the tyranny of a State Religion. What do you think? How should church and state be separated? Should they be separated? I look forward to your comments and the probably protest/lawsuit of the Westboro Baptist "Church".