[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, I gave you that reference, but even in the discussions and writings which did eventually lead up to the final draft of the constitution, those two phrases do not appear.

If it is the same concept why go to all the trouble to come up with different terminology? Look at how often you use the terms essential liberty and freedom of conscience in your arguments and they do not ever appear in the founding documents which you so often cite. And I don't agree about the back and forth rationale either. The dictates of conscience idea was omitted from the text purposefully. A whole lot of things were said and discussed when the US Constitution and the Amendments were being hammered out that did not make it into the founding documents, because the founders thought those words through and realized to include them would surely give rise to the same kinds of compromise and ambiguity which you have proffered here in support liberal heresy.

But you said that man is free to redefine truth, and I say that is the peril associated with those who believe something like that. The revisionist is constantly attempting to redefine and restructure history to suit his liberal palate.

Belief in essential liberty (Ben Franklin) and freedom of conscience (Madison) undergird the Constitution. The Framers sought a State very friendly to Christianity and the Judaeo-Christian tradition. They did not want a Christian state. Those are two different things. Any Christian in this nation who believes they are governed by a hostile State must be living in a bubble, given the real persecution and danger many believers live in around the globe.