You cannot separate the passage of law from the moral persuasion of the community - its impossible. No one can divorce their beliefs from how they vote, and it was never intended that they do so. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it was both expected and embraced that our constitution protect the citizen from a government that would seek to take away God given rights (all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights according to the declaration), which in the articles were originally life, liberty, property, and the right to protect them. Where do we get an understanding of preexisting rights apart from a belief in something larger than government?
That murder is wrong, for example, or stealing, or any other law is ultimately rooted in the beliefs of the community, wherever they get them. That I support legislation criminalizing murder is rooted in my belief that we are made in God's image, and human life is valuable. If you concur but its based in a different belief, then we have a pluralistic society. If life has no instrinsic value apart from mineral worth after rendering, then why outlaw murder? Vote appropriately, and maybe enough of us will agree (albeit based on various religious understandings, or irreligious) that you shouldn't be rendered.
