Well, here are my thoughts on it all, from what you guys would call a "religious conservative."
First of all, this whole arguement seems to make an a priori assumption that the Christian faith (face it, you werent targeting this towards Muslims) is not true. Because if you grant that it is true, then obviously the Bible will be above and beyond ANY strictly human document.
But, going from there, everyone comes into something with a bias (i.e. previous experience making them the person they are today). Why are people liberal? Why are people conservative?
There is something within each and every one of us that guides every decision we make. We all have a world view, and interpret the world around us through that lense. Two worldviews are atheistic and theistic in their make-up. A theist will certainly interpret the constituition differently then an atheist will.
Of course, the atheist has only himself and people to answer to, while the theist also has God to answer to over the decisions that this person makes. This brings me back to what I said in my first paragraph. Those who fundamentally disagree with theists on the bench, interpreting the constituition based on their worldview, will not allow them to factor in the existence of God into their court decisions.
You will shout and proclaim "Theocracy!" or whatever in protest. We allow religious freedom in this country, the ability for the people of this nation to freely worship their chosen God as they see fit. Why then, do we suddenly strip that right to people within government when they render judgements according to their worldview? Why do we consider this wrong? I have yet to see an example within any of the three branches of government where someone, against their own will, was forced to accept a
religion based on the decrees from a religious government official.
What I see GAF protest about so loudly is not a theocracy forcing people to accept such and such god or whatever, but of people, mainly theists, making moral decisions based upon their religious beliefs, which is protected within the Bill of Rights!
My own father is not in the least bit religious, yet he is a conservative like I am. What is the difference between secular and religious arguements against abortion? Both theism and atheism are on the same playing ground, as both ultimatly cannot be 100% proven, so therefore each rely on faith. Why then, is atheism always seen as the de facto standard to judge everything else against? Yet an atheist could view mankind as the highest being on this planet, and from that, deem all humanity as incredibly valuable, from the tiny fetus to the elderly. He appeals to humanity for it's inherent worth, and a theist appeals to God for humanity's declared worth. Would you actually support the secular argument against abortion more so then a theistic one?
Here is an interesting set of verses from the book of Romans concerning how a Christian should act towards the government:
Romans 13:1-10
Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks.
Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor. Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment--all are summed up by this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.
These are the commands that drive religious conservatives within office. The second paragraph, while from the Bible, are moral commands that are good for all of society to follow. I doubt any of you would seriously disagree with me, as it leads to a functioning, and safe society. The first paragraph though, was written specificaly towards Christians to follow (the "Everyone" refers to Christians within the context of the chapter).
Christians, or religious conservatives, try to do their best to practice both paragraphs within governement. Not only do they follow the governement instituted by God (through the Constitition) but they also add the commandments from the second paragraph when interpreting it. As they see God's law (for instance, concerning murder) as one higher then any right that can be granted to people under the Constitution (such as with the case of abortion, etc.) So by their conscience, just like everyone else, they are guided by what they believe to be true.
I think essentially, what you are against are simply people using religion as a means to promote whatever moral stance. So your beef, if you have any, is really with the moral stance to begin with, and you use religion as a scapegoat.
I am confident that you would have no problem with a self professed Christian on the bench who freely supported abortion, strict seperation of church and state, and full homosexual rights, etc, even though these are impossible to support from a Christian perspective.
I have written about two things here: Why religious conservatives decide what they decide, and why I think you oppose them (if you do, but I at least can assumme most of GAF opposes them anyways)
