Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoDrop
Think of our Founding Fathers as Christians (remember this was over 200 years ago), who had deeply held beliefs yet they wanted a country that was governed by both idealists and fundamentalists alike that religion wouldn't create limitations in possibilities for the future. Very pioneering, this was contradictory to the restrictions they and their ancestors faced in England.
|
A very good point. My compliments
However, now we are getting into the quagmire of the goverment-religion debate. The original statement was:
Quote:
|
I didn't know religion was ever a portion, division, piece, or segment of our original government. I thought religion, under the U. S. Constitution, was totally excluded from the cognizance of civil authority.
|
First, he talks to any portion, division . . . . of our
original government. Then he says religion was totally excluded from the
cognizance of civil authority. I must say that communications skills are not his strong suit. I'm left to decipher his point on my own.
While it is true that the Constitution was amended to keep the Congress from making any laws that abridge the freedom of religion. We certainly did not exclude religious beliefs during the debate and construction of our government's authority. Nor do we exclude religious principles from the "cognizance" of civil authority. If I understand what he means by that, he is saying we must exclude religion from all civil authority. That's absurd on the face of it. If it were true then why does the government get involved in issuing marriage licenses? I could see it if the government only issued licenses for civil ceremonies. But any marriage needs civil authority, ergo religion is "cognizant" in our civil authority.
So, I suggest that the original poster clarify what he's talking about so we can all get on the same page and engage in a real debate, that is if one is even needed.
RJ