separation of church and state - a christian perspective please.

aclj.org writes:The appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy, is certainly one of the most important responsibilities given to the President under our Constitution. President Bush is committed to nominating men and women who "clearly understand the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. To paraphrase James Madison, the courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgment of the law. My judicial nominees will know the difference."Many of the ills that plague our society have resulted from judicial rulings that reflect the personal political agenda of liberal judges, instead of honest, careful interpretations of the Constitution. There are currently over 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary. In some circuits, such as the Sixth Circuit, the situation is especially critical. There are simply not enough judges to handle the court's workload. In his Annual Report to Congress, Chief Justice Rehnquist urged the Senate to confirm more of President Bush's nominees: Senators "ought to act with reasonable promptness to vote each nominee up or down." Yet, Democratic leaders in the Senate, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have announced their intent to stonewall confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees if those nominees do not adhere to left-wing pro-abortion ideology.

Legislating from the bench is an attempt to redefine established standards based on "modern" relativistic concepts.

Spme of us think that humanity is incapable of actually determining morality for itself...since humanity is flawed in nature.

...That's why they don't get to choose which religion/morality is right for the salvation of this nation.

For the conservative, not to decide is to decide.

To not agree on this truth means that everyone agtrees on relative morality and relative truth, which is equal to "ye shall be as gods"....ye shall make your own truth.

Jar writes:You mentioned the Two Great Commandments earlier but if you look at them they are both relative laws.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ...""Love others as ..."These are both qualified laws, they point to internal states and conditions.Where or what is the absolute truth many folk seem to want?

Jar writes:Well, let's look at them.OK.
Love God with all your heart.Does that not imply that there are individual limits? No. If I have a glass of water and a pitcher of water, there are obvious limits regarding the amount of water from each vessel. If I say to pour out all of the water from each one, both have emptied the contents absolutely. It matters not if I have less "heart" than Mother Theresa or..as it were..Lance Armstrong! If all of us are loving with our whole heart, the relativity matters not. It cannot really be measured if the command is "all." Will everyone react the same?No, as I explained. Is it relative to individual capabilities? I would have to think about this for a bit!

And the second, "Love others as you love yourself." How much more relative could you get? How so? Which "others" are we talking about? Does this not break down to Love as you love? Is this relative to the perfect love of Jesus Christ?

How so? Which "others" are we talking about? Does this not break down to Love as you love? Is this relative to the perfect love of Jesus Christ?

Jar writes:If we applied the standards found in the Great Commandments to traffic laws we'd see laws that said "Drive no faster than you safely can" and "Drive as you wish others drove".