Too much religion in Sioux City politics?

Is there such as a thing as too much fun? What about too much good health? Some say there is too much faith in Siouan City politics. Anytime an issue pulls passionateness from both sides and is earnestly debated in the presence of our elective officials, it's worthwhile. Why should the subject of faith be excluded from lively treatment and debate?The recent proposal before our City Council of spoken supplication was a thorny one. A recent Diary article by regarding the council’s ballot on the substance quoted Councilman Ferris n “I don’t believe I’ve ever had an issue where I’m on both sides.” Iodine couldn’t hold more.One of our cardinal rights as Americans is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Unfortunately, freedom from faith is exactly what have been subjected upon us (Christians particularly) ever so methodically since the ill-conceived Supreme Court opinion that manufactured a “constitutional” separation of Christian Christian church and state.Expectedly, I was offended when the issue of whether to back up having voluntary spoken supplication before council meetings was being shouted down with the words “separation of church and state." As if merely stating those words ended the argument. As if the separation of Christian church and state is a universally agreed upon and settled matter. Just as the cause of planetary heating is debated within the scientific community, the separation of Christian church and state is debated among constitutional scholars. So, finding oneself on the side of supporting voluntary spoken supplication is not an unreasonable choice.Finding oneself on the side of keeping the minute of silence policy is also not unreasonable. There is even treatment within Christian circles as to whether public supplication have scriptural support. Some point to Saint Matthew 6: 5-6 which states, “And when thousand prayest, thousand shalt not be as the dissemblers are; for they love to pray standing in the temples and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of work force … when thousand prayest, come in into thy cupboard and when thousand have close thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret …” Most would construe this transition as denouncing lip service rather than public supplication and would reason there are many Biblical mentions to public prayer. The point being that even some Christians believe private supplication is preferred over public. It's possible that retaining the minute of silence may not demo discourtesy to our Creator.The very left-of-center '60s coevals adopted a motto of “challenge everything” and they went about the concern of doing just that. For too many years, those on the right were just as passionate about what they believed, but did not fit the left’s activism. That pendulum started to swing back the other manner in recent years. How makes that use to the recent and controversial populace supplication story? Just as the 1860s coevals challenged bondage and the 1960s coevals challenged everything, this coevals can dispute the impression of whether public supplication is a constitutional misdemeanor and whether the impression of separation of Christian church and state is even constitutional.Too much faith in Siouan City politics? You can’t have got too much argument of any issue, including a spiritual one, in the hallways of government.Michael McNeil is a free-lance writer from Dakota City, Neb. You can compose to him in attention of the Diary or at