[TheRealThing]

The four questions or steps to take in evaluating the Founders as presented in the Brittannica article are not biased. If pursued, they lead toward an inexorable conclusion. I simply invite other posters to make their own inquiry.

Freedom of conscience does not sanctify the choice. It does not seek to change moral law. What it does is recognize the dangers inherent in too much power vested in church or state. The individual chooser will stand before the Almighty in my view to give account. I do not believe God wants anything but worship and love freely chosen, freely given. The dangers of man's trampling of conscience fill history's pages. Our founding documents evidence this awareness.

I used the Theory of Evolution for a reason. As I said, man finding himself in a position such that he wanted to reject or rebel against the rightful authority of God, came up with his own idea of how he came into existence. What we got as the replacement for God's own account of creation was the big bang and Evolutionism. In an attempt to develop those theories and make them plausibly applicable, scientists used proven science to retro-engineer what have since become the present day elaborate fabrications being taught to every American. Which theories BTW, being exposed to constant scrutiny, every so often run up against the hard reality of actual proof and creative allowances must be made to prop things back up. The two theories, though incredibly intricate, rest none the less on one false premise. There is no God.

The four questions are just another example of retro-engineered reasoning by the writers of your Britannica article, who would never have even ventured down that path if they did not have an ax to grind with our factually traditional Christian heritage. Those who are so rightly uncomfortable with the prospect of one day facing The Omnipotent Creator and Judge, like the scientific community who represent them, strive continually to defend things like global warming, Evolutionism and other secular and religious heresies. None of whom like the idea that the US was founded on Christian principles. Hence the hair on fire push to separate the Church's influence on issues of State, and the exclusion of nativity scenes from town squares. So it's off to shoot the messengers again, this time the very persons of the founders. The onslaught is being perpetrated by revisionists and heretics. The fruits of their labor may be seen on the campuses of US institutions of higher learning as students are demanding they be made 'safe zones', free evidently from the burden of US law. So the future leaders of this land known for being a nation of laws, are calling for zones free from laws. Anybody else see trouble brewing here?

The words freedom of conscience are not included within any founding document. As I mentioned to you, the only known mention was in state law in the process of being hammered out, (one state), but was intentionally omitted from the final draft. There are no dangers in a proper understanding and adherence to Scriptural truths applicable to any life situation known to man. However, the notions of men who follow their own conscience freely are rife with guarantee of error. Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I know better than to get drawn into a protracted and convoluted debate made so complex and convoluted by the debates of days past, by better men than I. The founders knew the arguments you're trying to make front and back, and the language of the documents was thoroughly debated. I defer to them.