Ah! You misunderstood. "The hand of God" was sarcasm. You see, there is no way to get a judiciary in a representative Republic without either (1) electing them or (2) appointing them. Option (2) is the least political, hence the founders were attempting to remove politics from the process.
Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be. There are simply prevailing moral trends that persist from society to society and from generation to generation.
Even hard-core religious zealots of any stripe recognize the fact that morality has fringes as God is unknowable and our perceptions of Him are filtered through humanity. Well, except Muslims. It's part of their faith that the Koran is immutable and literally handed down from Allah and copied exactly every time.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there. The closest you'll get to somebody saying that the Constitution bans abortion, for example, is the "life, liberty, . . ." clause in the Declaration.
But I'm not going to bother to defend what you think that other people think, because that's defending a scarecrow.
(innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story)
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside. Not sure, never saw the film. For me, that era consisted exclusively of the Marx Brothers.
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. Didn't misunderstand and have already dealt with this issue in an earlier post. I guess you read only those posts directed to you (an inference), or remember only what you want to (another inference). Sometimes I do that too, but there's always the risk of getting caught with your pants down - as with spelling errors.:)
Actually, you'd be surprised at what is considered immoral in different cultures at different points in history with different religious views, and how universal it seems to be.
Nope. Wouldn't be surprised and have dealt with the issue in an earlier post as well - althought not as completely or directly as the above. Right there are universals but wrong there are also major differences. Cannabalism, for example.
Well, except Muslims.
Muslims are not too different than medievil Christians or Biblical era Jews.
Careful with the passive voice. It's a strawman just waiting to happen. The liberal interpretation is condemned simply because it makes up things that ain't there.
I don't think so. History is full of groups and individuals who change their legal and political positions in accord with their needs of the moment. I thought I illustrated this when I brought up Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Conservative Republicans of the late 19th century but maybe not. I'm fresh out of other examples but I'm sure you get the point.
"I hate to say it but: There you go again!" I'm sure this has some relevance. Maybe a clever aside...
implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance
I don't know what you mean by "There you go again" but this was "just a little humor at your expense". A very, very clever little girl mispronounced (and undoubtedly would have misspelled) the word.
Actually, that was an inference, which tells more about the hearer than the speaker.
Nope. It was an implication. Come on. 'Fess up. Don't be cowardly.