Separation of State from Church

There has, I think, been a misunderstanding when it comes to the Separation of Church and State. I contend that it is the phraseology of these words that is the root and cause of the problem. We use the metaphor of, "The Separation of Church and State", but the evidence supports the more aptly worded phrase, "The Separation of State from Church".
First off, there is no such thing as a complete two-way separation: a separation of Church from State and a separation of State from Church.
The First Amendment of our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This, in essence, prohibits the Congress from establishing a National Religion.
Further support of the separation of the State from Religion can be found in the writings of John Locke, "According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority."
And again in the Danbury Baptist letters, where Thomas Jefferson replies, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Further on August 15, 1789, James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution said, in reference to the First Amendment, "Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that 'no religious doctrine shall be established by law.'...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that 'Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.'...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent."
And later, in a letter to Edward Livingston, Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
Then in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, we read, "... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
John Tyler, Jr., the tenth President of the United States is quoted in William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine of July, 1904, as having said, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent-that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . . . . The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions cakes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . . . . and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it." (also referenced in Bernard Lewis', "THE ROOTS OF MUSLIM RAGE" and in The Cooper Union and or The Atlantic Monthly, September 1990.)
And while the SCotUS references the "separation" about 25 times, it is not unanimously held. Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference and Justice Scalia criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
Not surprisingly absent from any source and resource on this topic is the idea or understanding that Religion must be separated from the State, only that the State must be separated from Religion. In other words, as a religious entity, I can have influence in the Government, up to but not including, the establishment of a State or National Religion.

(all references maintained at Wikipedia)