Religious conscience in public debate

God’s critics frequently refuse to accept the same burden of proof they demand of believers.

In law, a foundational evidentiary protection is known as the burden of proof. A litigant asserting a particular fact must establish it by a "preponderance of evidence" in civil matters and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. Once a litigant meets his burden of proof, the burden shifts to the party opposing the evidence.

However, when public life affects religious conscience, opponents of faith will not accept their burden of proof. Despite the overwhelming evidence of God in their lives, naysayers reject proof of deity without a corresponding willingness to produce their own proof that God can’t help us. They use the First Amendment as a sword, not as the protecting shield for which it was intended.

Read the rest of this story at
Comments and feedback can be sent to