Why do you and others on RS refuse to separate social issues from the Federal (Constitution) level?

On a State level, you are right. You are not right on a Federal level.

Contrary to the claims of many accommodationists, virtually nothing in the Constitution references Christian thought and morality. The only explicit mention of religion is the article VI declaration that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned with the secular issues of defining federal power, and distributing that power among the various branches of government.

Quite against the practice of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to God, and does not raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a remarkably secular document for its day and age.

Our e-mail correspondents have occasionally argued that that the structure of our federal government is derived from the Bible; this claim rests on little more than wishful thinking.

The most important features of our federal government include (1) a separation of powers among three branches of government, (2) a bicameral legislature, (3) different modes of representation in each chamber of the legislature, (4) a limited executive, (5) and independent judiciary, and (6) a complex system of checks and balances.

No model of government found in the Bible corresponds to this outline. Ancient Israel was governed first by Judges and then by Kings; in neither system was there separation of powers (i.e., the executive acted as both lawmaker and judge), nor was there any clear distinction between secular and religious law. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anything like a bicameral legislature, or an independent judiciary. Conversely, the New Testament does not contain a model of government; it simply does not function as a political document in the same way as, eg., the Quran does in Islam.

Some accommodationists claim that founders derived the principle of separation of powers from Isaiah 33:22, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King; he will save us.” Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that this verse was ever referred to by the founders in this context, this argument fails on it’s own assumptions: the Constitution sets up an elected executive, not a King, and the tenor of the verse is anti separation-of-powers; it says that all three branches are properly united in one person, the LORD. That the founders would read this verse and derive from it a mandate for divided powers is neither logical nor plausible.

Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10 Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments (i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten. Laws against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and coveting are left entirely to the states.

The secular ethos of the Constitution extends even to the taking of the oath of office. Quite against the practices of the states, the oath of office described in Article II section 2 of the Constitution is completely secular; it is described as an “oath or affirmation,” contains no religious references, and need not be taken on the Bible. The practice of saying “so help me God” is not required by the Constitution; it is a voluntary practice initiated by later presidents.

The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices, and did nothing to promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution, ch. 2).

If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that task. This should make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10a.htm

As for Romans 13. This does not turn over the duties or sharing of the duties of the Church over to the Government. It states, if you obey the laws of man and God, you will have nothing to fear from your rulers.

As for now, the act of abortion is neither Constitutional or non Constitutional.

On a Federal level the act of abortion is legal.

The fight should no longer be for or against abortion.

The fight ( in regards to the Constitution) needs to be wither life legally begins at conception or at birth.

If it is found to legally start at conception, than abortion will be an illegal act of murder and non constitutional at the same time without the need for an amendment.

How ever,this will never happen with out the pro-life compromise to the right to use birth control.

The Founding Fathers were Christian and influenced by a mixture of Christian thought and enlightenment philosophy. (See Michael Novak?s ?On Two Wings) Even Deism is a Christian heresy that holds with some of the traditional Christian doctrine.

Were you there? No

Wilson: Early Presidents Not Religious
“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
– The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of “Christianity,” making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15

Was I there? No

It?s all conjecture on both our parts.

The Constitution is a list of laws for the country to follow.
It was written under the pretence that all men under its rule are of high moral fiber.

This is were the church comes in, not before. This is the true separation of church and state (Constitution)

Do to the erosion of high moral fiber (Church influence) some are trying to impose (force) moral fiber on others through the Constitution and Federal law.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.

Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

– Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

Is he right or wrong?

Everything you said is true.

On a State and local level.

We are talking Constitution where none of it is true without an amendment.