In answer to your question, nope.
I need to explain the conservative wing of the Establishment in the GOP. The conservative wing of the Establishment believes all laws should be Bible based, they never met a war they didn't like, and they want to spend the money instead of the Democrats.
Your hatred of all things theistic calls forth yet another foolish and false statement---the notion that establishment conservative Republicans believe all laws should be Bible based. Where might we find evidence of this evidently essential proposition---in a party platform perhaps, or some other official document intended to express the foundational beliefs of establishment Republicans? Please cite it. You'll search in vain, because it doesn't exist. The Republican Party in 1856, like this country, was founded upon an appeal to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." The phrase "laws of nature" is understood as a reference to unassisted human reason. The laws of "nature's God" is understood as a reference to revelation as embodied in Judeo-Christian revealed religion. In the minds of the Founders, the Founding generation and the Republican Party of 1856, both "reason" and "revelation" were in substantial agreement as to what constituted moral behavior and which ought to inform the understanding of both politicians and the people in governing and being governed. Republicanism was not founded on narrow sectarian grounds, any more than the nation itself and conservative establishment Republicanism today is hardly friendly to Judeo-Christian morality. The current problem isn't that Republican establishment conservatives are too committed to basing policy on the Bible; rather they are insufficiently committed to basing their policies on either the "laws of nature or nature's God". The leading intellectual lights of establishment Republican conservatism of at least the past 30 years have literally hostile to
antecedent moral truths based on the Bible, let alone "the laws of nature". William Rhenquist was a thorough going positivist who believed, without equivocation, that "might makes right", that justice is merely the interest of the stronger. Robert Bork was a severe (and singularly ineffective) critic of the notion that the Constitution somehow incorporates the Declaration of Independence, or that natural law is, in any sense, "real" law; the kind of law upon which a people or a nation should look for guidance as to policy or right behavior. Justice Scalia, (a strong practicing Catholic) the leading juridical intellectual of establishment Republican conservatism is likewise indifferent, if not hostile to the moral truths embodied in the Declaration and the Republican platforms of 1856 and 1860.
But even if what you said were true, why would that be problematic? The Preamble to the Constitution defines the ends of the Constitution as to "secure the
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". A "blessing" is something that God would want you to have; something that God thinks is good for you. The liberties which the Constitution sought to insure---the liberties which were "blessings" are most assuredly not "libertarian" values---which are properly understood as demands for "license", not liberty. The Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" for the "rectitude" of the good intentions of the revolionaries. It makes clear that while "consent" is the proper ground of all laws, consent as such can never authorize any behavior which is intrinsically immoral. Only the "just laws" can be drived from the consent of the governed.
Accordingly, it would be more accurate to say that establishment Republican conservatism is as hostile to biblically based morality as it is hostile to "the laws of nature"---but not nearly as hostile as Libertarianism and Leftism. These two ideologies stand on precisely the same philosophic ground---which has absolutely nothing in common with the Founders, the Declaration or the Constitution, properly understood.
Jordan
