The bigger issue at stake is not, I think, whether there is a theistic basis to the institutes of governement (and theism is a big enough word to encompass deism, so I'll just use it for convenience), but what that theism has to say about the idea of natural law.

We would all probably agree that there ought to be some moral basis for justice, some mode of assigning moral value to some actions as over against some other actions. The founders seemed to hold very strongly to the idea that this moral value was not assigned by human action or established by common cultural perspective, but was inherent in the natural order.

Why does this matter? When the authors of the founding documents set to work drawing up the protections of human liberty, they didn't think of themselves as creating or establishing new rights or freedoms, they understood themselves to be giving protection to rights and freedoms that already existed as part of natural law. The right to speak is not created by the 1st amendment, the right to speak is recognized and protected by the 1st amendment. This distinction is crucial. The moral value of the right was already established by natural law, it was now being codified by written law.

Do today's lawmakers still hold to this idea, even a little bit? I don't care really at all if anyone on the bench or in the legislature, or even in the oval office, believes in a higher power, or how they understand that higher power as operating in the world. But I want to know, with great assurance, that they see the moral value of their actions as accountable to something other than, higher than, personal perspective (subjectivism), public sentiment (relativism), or brute pragmatism (consequentialism). I want them to view themselves as explicators and protectors of priorly existent moral law, not as omnipotent moral powers creating their own moral values.

-ml

I would like that framework more if it weren't the people claiming a higher power trying to do end runs around the first ammendment.

Considering that even if every law book were tens of thousands of pages long, it could not explicitly account for every event, there will always be interpretation.

Remember, the worst attacks on judges in the Schaivo case were on judges who were ruling on the letter of the law.

Also, no law can be written which violates the Constitution, which is a very broad document.

I take a more Libertarian view, the more freedom that people are allowed, at least in the privacy of their own homes, the better. I probably set more limits on that statement than a true Libertarian, but it's not a bad concept.

The problem with the whole "let's bring religion into schools" crowd is that they forget that since school is mandatory, this means that students are forced to endure whatever happens there. This is why everyone who believes religion is like 'moral spinach' for children is upset about judges who keep public schools strictly secular.

Of course, if this were a Muslim society and Christians were in the minorty, they would give profound thanks for such a separation.

What really annoys me is the impression given by fundies that judges are taking away religious freedom by keeping schools free of religion. This of course ignores the fact that the courts are not preventing religion in church and home, or even private religious observance in schools. In fact, they are actually protecting the right of the religious (and not religious) minority from being force-fed state sanctioned religion, and anyone who does not wish this is free to use home school or private school. It is only in the public school where the courts rule to protect students who are compelled to attend. In keeping the public school free of religion, the courts are allowing control of religious instruction to be the sole province of the child's parents, which by the way, is in keeping with the fifth commandment (Thou shalt honour thy mother and father).

Has anyone nominated the title of this thread for "Most Obvious Cellar Thread Title of 2005" yet?

How about the constitution?

You think that the constitution assigns moral value? really?

The declaration isn't a bad place to start.

I've higlighted a number of things that may be relevant considering the current and ongoing themes in Washington. I'm not pointing fingers at any party or person, but they seem to be relevent to me.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

...snip...

I took that to mean the morality of making the right decisions based on a higher authority rather than their own personal view. Did I misread it/you?
If not then I think the constitution is a damn good guide for their decisions and if they do that conscientiously, thier actions will be morally correct. I don't want judges making judgements of my or anyone elses morality. I want them to make judgements on the legality of the law.