The Enlightenment didn't intend for laws to be created out of thin air, although Rousseau's social contract, which inspired our founding fathers, implied this to some extent. Rousseau's ideas evolved and were carried forward to become the socialism and anarchism of today, and I don't think that's what any of us wants. What I'm talking about is the way laws are proposed, passed, enacted, and imposed. Roy Moore in effect tried to say that he was free to interpret the first amendment any way he liked, since he was God's messenger. Where is the rule of law in that? He couldn't wait to appeal his case. He couldn't wait to pass laws in the legislature overriding Thompson, etc... American laws should be rational. They can be argued in terms of "I believe God would prefer this..." but not in terms of "I believe I can impose this on you because it is God's will." There's a big difference, and it's very important. Will laws about stealing and murder be similar to the 10 commandments? Yes, and they're frequently this way under other religions as well. But what about the first four commandments? I couldn't support any of these laws going on our books. The reasons are many, but clearly they put the state in charge of men's faith.
You get my drift.