Which bible would be basis for laws?

Regarding Mr. Eric Carver's letter (July 17) that Fence Post headed "Mixing Bible, law and government," I can't help but wonder which "bible" or part thereof he thinks should be used by our lawmakers to legislate human behavior.

Should it be the Judaic Holy Scriptures, from which the Old Testament in the Christian Bible was extrapolated?

Or maybe one of the versions of the Holy Scriptures, orthodox or reform.

Or maybe only the Christian New Testament should be the criterion.

Should it be the King James version or should it be one of the many Protestant versions?

Or maybe it should be the Qu'ran, which is considered the Islamic "bible" and refers to Moses, Abraham and Jesus?

Then we have the Jerusalem Bible, a hefty tome which seeks to explain the Bible but, as it contains both the Old and New Testaments, it is (by definition) another version of the Christian bible.

If Mr. Carver would read all of these books, word for word, the differences in them would be manifest.

And no matter what conclusion he arrives at regarding which "bible" should be used, can he logically argue the point that if a "bible" is used to make laws, then all of the "chosen bible's" religious laws should be used, not just a few chosen to satisfy a person's personal beliefs?

Furthermore, although he is correct that the U.S. Constitution does not specifically mandate separation of church and state, if he will read the last paragraph of Article VI, he will find that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Therefore, as laws serve the public trust and are made by state and federal lawmakers, they should not be made on the basis of religious testing, ergo, separation of church and state.

Judith A. Carlson

Des Plaines