Therefoe we have a [politico-legal] system in place which has identified good and evil.

I don’t deny that lawmakers will often use conventional morality as a guide in the making of laws. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud and for the enforcement of contracts are no-brainers… and if that’s all you were saying then all I can say is “WELL, DUH!”
I think your statement actually implied something more substantial and less obvious; i.e. that the State defines moral boundaries itself. This is far more contentious. The same state also sanctions abortion. The same state tolerates homosexuality, atheism, and even Satanism. Many would say that this is immoral… nay, even EVIL.
Sure, there is a sense in which the State takes guidance from notions of good and evil… but not entirely. Modern states are also based on a different kind of ethical base from that which gave us the notion of sin, and good and evil.
You may wish, Facelift, in your wildest fantasies, that the State would put the full force of its power behind policing the boundaries between good and evil in their entirety… but the question will arise, “whose Good and Evil?”. The choice would yield a theocracy… or something analogous.

You have sinned today by failing to observe the requirement to rest on the Sabbath.

Terrorists’ opinions of others not of their ilk being evil doesn’t negate the evil means they use to further their cause.

“They are evil because they do evil to us” pretty much sums up what evil, for all practical purposes, actually means.

Don’t we call this system ‘law’ or ‘justice’? Isn’t it generally organised and adjusted by the people we empower as law makers and law keepers. Therefoe we have a system in place which has identified good and evil.

I don’t think the precepts and prohibitions of law and justice are at all equivalent with the categories “good” and “evil”. You are suggesting that politicians are the guardians and interpreters of moral absolutes. I don’t think any good Christian, let alone anyone secular, would condone that.

If we were to set up a universal code of ethics wich identifies the difference between right and wrong for creatures of our level of intelligence and conscience, then we would have standards and values which indicate ‘normal’ behaviour and separate good from evil. Don’t we call this system ‘law’ or ‘justice’? Isn’t it generally organised and adjusted by the people we empower as law makers and law keepers. Therefoe we have a system in place which has identified good and evil. Mast nations on earth would judge the actions of terrorists to bee outside the law and therefore evil, regardless of their possiblee belief to the contrary.

The fact of systems of justice doesn’t indicate the presence of a devil, but it does demonstrate a high level of justice which shows that we are dependent, to a certain extent, on conscience and consensus, or, better, a consensus of conscience, as a foundational part of our law making system, whihc in turn throws up a value which demands a descriptor of what is generallyb accepted as good or generally acccepted as evil.

I’ve tried whispering into GWB’s ear, but as you should know he took the temperance Pledge a while back.

And you believe him? Bwaaahahahaha