If the justification is that practically everyone is part of a societal (secular) consensus to outlaw larceny, there are also problems. It used to be that there was societal consensus against abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and socialism every bit as much as there still is such a consensus against humans engagng in "sex" with animals. We have now "matured" (degenerated) so as to accept abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and socialism. Soon enough, we will have to protect Fido and Tabby and maybe even the pet goldfish or parakeet from the lustful attention of ever more "enlightened" liberals since we must not impose those dread religious values on those who disagree, right?
It is time to admit that the SCOTUS and other American courts following SCOTUS's lead have been gravely in error in the eccentric view that would drive religion from public life and it is time that the out-of-control judiciary got the firm and final societal and, yes, religious spanking it has long deserved from men and women of good faith.
As SCOTUS says regarding pornography, we may not be able to precisely define "good faith" or "good Faith" but we know it when we see it. That some of us are Catholic, some Baptist, some Methodist, some Episcopalian, some Lutheran, some Jewish, some Islamic, some Hindu and some not religious at all does not mean that a significant number (vast majorities actually) ought not to be heeded as to morality at all and that we must continue to wallow in a SCOTUS created moral sewer that has most recently murdered an innocent woman in Floriduh because she was inconvenient and did so by methods that would get you jailed if you performed such atrocity upon Rover or little Kitty or Scott Peterson or "Judge" Greer for that matter.
As a Catholic, I'd choose Catholic morality. As a citizen, I note that Catholic morality is not just reflective of Catholic belief. You do not have to be Catholic or even a believer to be pro-life, anti-homosexuality, etc. It is time to stick a cork in judicial tyranny. If not us, who? If not now, when?
There are problems with most methods of making those choices. You mention two, religion and majority consensus. Neither one works well. I prefer a method based on individual rights.
It appears to me that Danforth's point is that using faith alone to make law is not a good idea. That doesn't mean that faith can't guide some one; but law made by one's faith may not be shared by others and problems will result. People with different faiths are unlikely to reach agreement on matters purely by faith. The differences will not reconcile. So I stand by my original question; how do you choose which one?