"No single party can be both for individual liberty and for theologically-based social policy."Yes, but only if you define liberty as "lawlessness."
Who else might disagree with this sentiment? Oh, The Founding Fathers, perhaps?
Our nation was founded on the belief that God gives each and every one of us the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Our system of government was founded upon the Christian religion.
Over and over in their writings, the Founders powerfully asserted the necessity of the People's being truly moral if the Republic were to succeed.
Whose morality did they codify into Law? They did not choose the intellectually-bankrupt and morally-craven path of Relativism.
They chose the one bedrock for all of the intellectual, social, moral, and technological greatness of Western Civilization (which, not coincidentally, was reaching its zenith in their "grand experiment").
They chose the Holy Scriptures.
A proper personal theology calls for individual liberty without license. Holy Writ tells us that "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free, but do not use your freedom as an excuse for sin."
In the same way, a nation of free people must exercise self-restraint guided by a sound morality. Since any law is the codification of someone's morality, the question becomes, "By whose morality will we guided?"
What Andrew Sullivan and others of the "Don't Force Your Religion on Me" faction apparently fail to recognize is that rejecting the "theologically-based social policy" of our Founding Fathers would mean rejecting our laws against stealing, murder, rape, fraud, and a host of other crimes.
I guess anarchy's fine as long as it is someone else experiencing others' "liberty."
America | Founding Fathers | Moral Relativism and Liberty