It seems like some of the people who are alarmist about Sharia law coming to America might also the same people that don't want there to be any separation between religion and the State. This seems like hypocrisy.
If you don't want separation between religion and the State (at any level; Federal, State, local, etc.), then you have to be willing to accept religious laws/virtues/sins/instructions being entered as public law that are not of your own religion, and you also have to be willing to accept religions you may disagree with becoming Federal/State/city/district official religions (paying homage to the "off with his head" Church of England), potentially with penalties for not following the "official" religion or its laws. This includes having to be willing to accept Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, etc., because if there is no separation between religion and State, that does not mean that only Christianity can take advantage of State enhanced powers, it means that any religion can, including those you do not agree with.
There are many ways you could take the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and State", and I do not think that it is meant to be taken to mean that public officials cannot be religious or practice any religion they like openly. That is fine for them to do, there is nothing against that, and it would be nice to see more religious diversity in Congress and State Congresses to help strengthen religious freedom and guard against government favoritism of religion.
There are other facets to the subject I am not touching on here. But it can be dangerous if we allow the State to legislate favors or punishments for some religions over others (including non-religion), because it gives some groups more privileges and special favor than others, creating an "accepted" and privileged caste (those that follow the State religion), and an unprivileged caste (those that follow any other religion, or those without religion). This would be unjust, and potentially oppressive. This would be theocratic tyranny.
A better option would be to allow freedom of religion to the maximum extent (rather than the alternative: government monopoly on and regulation of religion, otherwise known as no separation of religion and State), and we all know that freedom is inversely proportional to government involvement. Are some here actually arguing that we need more government involvement in people's personal religious lives, by legislating unjust laws that favor a locally predominant religion while repressing all other locally less popular religions, in an effort to make all non-State enhanced religions appear to be less legitimate to further promote the State sanctioned religion? It is unfair, unjust, and misleading to have the State promote one religion over another, because even if it is only words coming from a public official, if those words are used in an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of locally less popular religions in order to further promote a State sanctioned religion, then those words are actively oppressive.
