I just wanted to address a topic I spent time reading last night......though I won' t go in to the details.......it involved the application of law, by definition what is Ceaser's, and Biblical/Constitutional authority. Specifically, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the role the court was intended to play in law so I will give you a quick train-up. The intention of the Constitution was to be a literally interpreted document, meaning that it was set in stone, understood word for word, and was an absolute authority. The role of the courts was to interpret law, not the Constitution. In other words they took the absolutes of the Constitution and applied them to the law to see if it was infact "Constitutional" This was reflected in law through the type of law that was practiced. For years, as the Constitution was understood literally, the other major source of information for lawyers was Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on Law; which were based on Biblical principals. After Darwin's theory of Evolution became popular a new idea emerged regarding law. Christopher Columbus Langdell of Harvard introduced the idea of case law. He believed that as man is evolving, so should his laws. Case law took the absolutes of the Constitution and gave them over to be interpreted by the Judges. So now the absolutes of Constitutional Law became the opinion of judges based on their morality. Not only that, but the precedence of previous cases means that one bad apple spoils the barrel (Roe vs Wade is a good example) The first major decision in the U.S. court system using case law was the removal of prayer from schools in 1962. Ironically, this is what Hovind was protesting for the benefit of all of us. The Constitution took similar courses as the Bible in the minds of many, since the mainstream worldview has changed. It has become clouded by the idea the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and not the originator of the document. Just as has been done with the Constitution, the authority of the Bible is mocked by those who treat it not as an absolute truth, but a book that can be interpreted to suit their specific beliefs and desires. This kind of thought is a scapegoat people can use to promote their own agenda while convincing others they are in the bounds of the law, when in fact they are not. Sad but true.