“I make no mistake. You do; however, by implying morality/Christianity has no seat at the table.”
Ok, let’s play it out your way:
Where was Christianity’s seat at the table for the California ruling that overturned he peoples will?
If it didn’t have one, why not?
If you want Christianity to have a seat, how does it get it?
I make no distinction, at this point between smaller and limited government - I’ll take either or both.
At some point the limits of government (or limited government, if you prefer) come from the 10th Amendment being re-discovered.
“If not for Christianity —the legitimate basis for limited government; e.g. unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator; would be irrelevant. “
If you haven’t noticed Christianity is already irrelevant to the growth of government. If you advocate a “Christian Revival” as the source of limiting government, you’ll fail - because it’s already failed to limit government.
Eliminate the tyrant, and then let freedom of religion be practiced unimpeded by government - then you can roll up your sleeves and get your Christian Revival, if that is what you want. Let it impact the political process, let it affect judicial nominations, let it go wherever a free and prosperous Christian people want it to go - so long as we remain tolerant of other religions, as directed by our founding fathers.
The judge kicked it to the curb. In essence, agreed with you. In so many words stated as fact that morality premised upon institutional tradition and Christianity was nonsense, myth fairy tale... Further, that law devoid of morality was king -that there is no higher authority than the law of man...
I would suggest this proves my point -no?
This ruling if carried out fully would in essence support the notion that unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator was nonsense, myth fairy tale...
Do you not see this?