He can only negate the law if it is in conflict with the Constitution, not if it is unfair or conflicts with religious teachings. If he cannot accept the law because of his religion, his only option is to step down, a third option. To overrule the law would be to substitute religion for legal reasoning which was my point.
Beyond that, my point is, and you continue to disagree form every angle, that religion is simply a part of human existence.
I don't disagree. Of course it is a part of human existence. The degree to which it is a controlling part though, is the question. Our culture includes many facets and religion is clearly one.
Secularism is also a religion; so is atheism.
Those are simply meaningless and intended to prove that in fact all people are religious, which of course, they are not.
You are a pro-life secularist. I am sure you have come across the argument, directed at you, that your pro-life conviction is a religious conviction.
Only from you. I have stated before that to abhor murder does not require a belief in any particular religion, or in a higher being. To abhor a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not require a religious philosophy. I am not an atheist, but I do know atheists who feel very strongly about the rights to life, liberty and property. So no, a pro-life conviction is not necessarily a religious one.
Why should a conviction be discredited merely because there is a religion that holds it? Is is not reasonable to say that convictions are upheld by a religion because they are true?
Most religions are morally based, and as such, much of their ideology would complement those held by secularists and even atheists as I have pointed out earlier. To say that either the secular laws depend on a religious foundation, or that religious convictions are the creator of similarly moral laws is a basic flaw of logic. Because religion has such an influence in our society, of course some laws may well have been enacted by those with religious backgrounds. That by itself does not ratify your conclusion that the particular religion was the cause of that law. We differ in that you (appear to) believe that no law that recognizes rights in humans could have been enacted without the influence if not control of religion. I believe that humanity has progressed to the point where enlightened people can and do protect the rights of other humans, with no influence from religion. Did O'Hare not care for people?
Perhaps the most basic conservative philosophy is that of institutions. A conservative believes that what we have today was greatly influenced by the past, and continuity is all important. So no true conservative rules out religion and the part it plays in the culture and society we enjoy today. But a true conservative also recognizes the dangers throughout history that religious institutions have played when attempting to manipulate and even control secular governments. A true conservative can honor and respect both institutions, but can demand that both maintain their distance from each other.
Christians and Muslims agree on few things theologically, but the Muslim are our best allies in the fight against legalized abortion. Sharia prohibits abortion. So?
That's your argument? That two otherwise completely divergent religious philosophies agree on one point, makes a point? Even within the family of Christian religions, abortion is accepted by some. You are against divorce, but doesn't Judaism permit divorce, as does many Christian sects?
There was a complete separation of church and state. Sounds familiar?
Again, you suffer from causal reductionism, that is using a single issue to explain that which was caused by multiple complex issues. By using the church/state separation issue to explain the vast horrors consummated by the Soviet tyrants is similar to explaining that Europe today is where it is because of a reduction in the numbers of Christians. You can say it, but that doesn't make it so. Nor does it transfer to the church/state separation arguments here in this country.
The truth is that religion, again, is with a man just like a nose is with a man. It is both public and private by definition. If you ban it, you ban people's noses.
Bad analogy. One is spiritual, one physical. Your analogy would seem to indicate that all atheists are simply liars. Man's noses have always been there, religion has not.
You don't think a decision to have a second child versus a second car has anything to do with religion. Wrong, -- it has everything to do with meaning of life (as a secularist would put it), and so is a matter of religion.
Again, you operate under the false assumption that man cannot, without some religious influence, believe in the rights and welfare needs of his fellow man. This is simply without merit. There is nothing older in the history of mankind that social interaction. The family unit and then the larger social unit such as clans and tribes predated any religion of any type. Self protection and the protection of those in your social group were very strong. Though mankind has gone through a terribly horrific history which included the development and inculcation of religious philosophy of the populace, mankind has clearly evolved (if I may use that word) to the point where it can operate quite successfully with both church and state separately.
This is why you see Europe's predicament in random atomistic terms of economics, contraceptive technology, historical experience, etc. You see the effects but you don't see the central organizing principle of these effects.
I merely assert that you are confusing correlation with causation, attempting to attach a simple cause to a complex situation.
Similarly you don't see any harm in the banishment of the Ten Commandments from public life (unless as a museum piece).
I simply pointed out that the justices did see a distinction. There is a fine but serious line that is crossed when you permit the active installation of items reflecting particular religious beliefs at taxpayer's burden, especially in a court of law where jurisprudence and religious philosophy can become so entangled as to lose all recognition of the true meaning of the law. The next step then, is what I predicted earlier. The judge then begins to address the law in terms of his own religious convictions. This is neither just nor a "reasonable" accommodation of religion. You like the thought because you think in terms of Roy Moore. I dislike the thought because I see with our vastly changing society a judge someday with Sharia on his mind.
Sure, Americans can still buy second (or third) cars, have their alimony argued about in courts, haul their 1.3 children off to daycare, watch leftist drivel on TV and decide between a Caesar salad and a hamburger, without religious monuments. But that is not life with a meaning.
Which is the great thing about our society, that is the freedom of choice. I believe that life with a meaning is a life that has done good for humanity. It may or may not have been under the guidance and direction of a specific religion, but good nonetheless.
When the man cured of blindness sees walking trees, that is because men who don't know Christ are trees. This vision ought to be frightening.
But as you say, it may be literal or metaphorical. Good people exist who don't necessarily believe in everything in the Bible. Good people exist who believe in the Prophet Mohammad. Good can come from many sources, just as can evil. Every society and every religion has had its share of both.
If he cannot accept the law because of his religion, his only option is to step down, a third option.
No, that is the same as apostasy from the religion. If religion says that X is just, and the laws are made that say Y is how you rule, then you do what the religion says, or you don't have the religion.
The rest of my post, I think, you misunderstood, which is of course my fault. Let me put is in simple terms. All religions teach truth most of the time. Irreligion also teaches truth most of the time. Moreover, where they teach different it is, typically, ceremonial practice and not moral law. This is why in reality most judges don't get torn like our hypothetical judge. They are not asked to judge if egg sandwiches are kosher, and all religions teach against theft and murder. But on occasion -- abortion or contraception are good examples, -- there is a disagreement with some secularists. Your secularism seems to say that whenever a particular view is traced to a religion -- e.g. a judge rules against contraception and is Catholic, -- that religious affiliation taints the decision rendering it invalid. I say, the decision may, of course, be badly argued or incorrectly arrived at, but the very fact that the judge's worldview comes form a particular religion is in no way a disqualifier. Secularism is a worldview like any other, it does not confer special privileges to a judge.