>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Madison: Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominions of false religions, and how small is the former! Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of Truth, from coming into the regions of it...
>>
>>Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. "
>>
>>Sounds like a God fearing man to me? Notice the "not yet yielded to the evidence."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>I agree with you on Madison being a religious man. I have no problem with that. I do have a little problem with his comment you quoted ("not yet yielded to the evidence"). What evidence? Can it be proved? In a court of law?
>
>You see I can't prove it one way or the other. I am not an atheist as you see but an agnostic.
>
>Peace.


These were Madison's words. However, I agree. If you walked into a room and saw a glass of milk spilled all over the floor and a child with milk on his/her lips standing near the glass wouldn't you deduce that the child had dropped the glass? In that light, doesn't the existence of the universe demand a creator?