I understand the distinction. What I don't understand is where either God or the U.S. Constitution make the distinction.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land. The question is - should that precious document be interpreted from a liberal darwinian viewpoint (wherein it adopts meaning according the political culture of the day) or according to what the framers meant when they wrote it? That's the question.
It has been your contention all along that the framers intended for the law of God as embodied in the Ten Commandments to be the basis for civil law. And I fully understand how you can arrive at that contention. What I don't understand is how you can arrive at the contention that the framers - not you, or me, but the framers - intended that Commandments 5-10 only should be the basis for civil law, and that the others were up to us. And I don't understand where God said that 5-10 were to be enforced by government, but 1-4 were up to an individual conscience.
If you fall back simply on "you can't legislate matters of conscience," let me remind you of heresy laws. As for the Sabbath, don't you recall those blue laws?
posted on 07/03/2003 3:33:33 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson