BartSimpson BartSimpson:
They never proposed taking the religion out of the office holders nor did any of them propose excluding religion from the public dialogue.
But they did propose taking religious dialogue out of the discussions by office holders. That's the important factor. They can hold their beliefs, but they shouldn't be governing based on them.
$1:
The government was designed to be a secular government for a religious nation and the idea was that the power of government would be held in check by the convictions of the men running it.
Men without convictions know no limits to their behavior aside only from that which they impose on themselves and that rarely ends well.
The implication is one can not have convictions without Religion?