Thou shalt (not)

Just a "quick" thought for this morning. I was reading the Times online, as per my usual routine, and stumbled across part 3 (or so) of an ongoing discussion about the burqa. The paragraph below refers to Roger Williams, who was one of the founders of Rhode Island and had the most fascinating approach to the Church vs. State argument that's been raging since the USA was born:

Williams is an inspiring figure, indeed.  Feeling firsthand the constraint of religious conformism in England and in Massachusetts Bay, he developed a uniquely broad position on religious toleration, one encompassing not only Protestants of all stripes, but Roman Catholics, Jews and Muslims.  The state, in his view, can legitimately enforce only the second tablet of the Decalogue — those final five commandments covering murder, theft, and the like.  All matters of worship covered by the first tablet must be left to the individual conscience.

Crazy idea, right? Here's a refresher on the Ten C's, in case any of you are rusty (I had to look it up to really grasp the full concept too, don't freak. And click to enlarge.)

(Handy table stolen from Wikipedia.)

As a self-proclaimed - if not thusly registered - libertarian, this makes total sense to me. There is an unfortunate, unwritten "God clause" in our legal system, where the notion of a Puritanical deity still has an ironclad grip on the rights of everyone (but especially minorities). The deity itself has no grip - no God I'd ever want to worship would be half as cruel as the religious bigots out there make him out to be - so why have we subscribed to the idea that the State has the right to decide to whom we owe worship and accountability? That's a personal matter, not a State matter. And Williams had his head on straight. Not bad for a heretic ;)