Christians: Do you support a government based on secularism and reason or one based on Biblical principles?

Question

Serious answers only please.

As a Christian, would you favor a government based entirely on the principles of the Bible, or would you prefer a secular government based on reason that was entirely nonreligious (but would do nothing to inhibit religious practices among non-governmental groups)?

For example, a secular government would prohibit displaying the ten commandments on government buildings, forbid prayer in public schools, and show no preference for any religion.

On the other hand, a Biblically based government would base its laws on the text of the Bible, (forbidding abortion, homosexuality, etc.) Such a government would also strongly endorse churches (if church attendance was not made compulsory).

Please limit your answers to one of the two choices.

Answer 1

As a Christian living in a diverse population I would support a secular government that was fair for all residents, not just a chosen few. What I believe is my choice, just as it is someone Else's choice to practice Buddhism, or whatever else they want. I don't want our government dictating what I practice, or what I teach my children. They already have a great deal of control over many things...religion is not one of them I want them to have control over. Look at the countries that dictate religion....not always a great situation.

Answer 2

I would choose a "secular" government over that of a theocracy, as I think most people who put reasonable thought into the question would. The primary reason? You cannot have a theocracy and democracy at the same time. A theocracy of any type is going to squelch the voice and power of the masses. The church would have ultimate say about any policy decision and would, in fact, be the government.

However, the idea of a government having no influence from nor a preference to religion is highly unlikely. Many of today's modern laws have been formed from those religious texts. That is why the argument to display the ten commandments is somewhat valid. The ten commandments is a law document in the sense that the Magna Carta is.

Also, if this secular government was a democracy, the religion of those participating would always have some influence in their decisions.

However, and I find this to be the most interesting part, is that religion would be more likely to flourish on the peoples free will in a "secular" government then it would in a Theocracy.

Answer 3

A bit of both. Biblical principles are based on logic. I don't see why they couldn't co-exist with each other. I would favor a government where the 10 commandments are displayed, prayer is allowed (at specific times... ex: if students want to pray in the morning at a certain time then they can do so) However people would not be obligated to be christian or religious. People do not have to believe in christianity to tolerate christian symbols.... of course you also have to add in another part to the equation, other religions...

I think people should be allowed to do what they wanted and the government should be secular but with tolerance to the personal beliefs of individuals. Both worlds can co-exist.

Answer 4

Since the USA is based on Biblical Principles, and since I love the USA (at least the way it was originally represented) I'd have to go for the Biblical government.
The USA was founded on Biblical principles.
From the Mayflower Compact, to the Declaration Of Independence, "God" is peppered throughout the papers of the founders of the United States of America!!! Even in Patrick Henry's famed speech, God is mentioned.
I'd much rather have the nation run under what it is suppose to be run by than some secular government.

Answer 5

Biblical principals!!!! Now that would be a PERFECT government.

Petra and a few others need to wake up and look around if they do not think the government is controlling religion. We are not aloud to talk about politics, we are being told as pastors what we can and cannot preach, we are told we cannot say anything that may upset a small minority of the population, I could go on for a long time but I wont.
If this is not controlling religion I do not know what is.

Answer 6

As one of the Christian Faith I would warn against any "government" of theocracy... whatever the "religious" bent...The constitutional form of the U.S is the best that has ever been and will be for the rest of mortal existance...unless the americans keep screwing it up and lose it... Yes, it was founded with some "Biblical" principles... but it is not a theocracy... that leads to toalitrian domionation...

At the end of this earth. there will be a genuine theocracy formed... and Jesus The Christ will be The Head... At that time it will be for the good of all mankind...not based on man invented religion for persona gain and donmination.

Answer 7

I'm an atheist, and I'm gay. I'm totally against religious influence in politics. I don't understand why anyone would want to do anything like that, put religion in politics, I mean.

People have told me they want to have the governmental system based on the bible because it's moral and a good code to live by. I tell them, I may be an atheist but I am in no way immoral or afflicted. You don't have to take my rights away for me to be a good, moral person!

If I can mind my business and I can support your right to do whatever it is you want to do safely, and express your religion, why can't you do the same for me???

I just wanna live like everyone else. I want the same rights.

I would MUCH rather the country stay religiously-neutral, as in the first situation you hypothesized.

Answer 8

I think that a secular government whose decisions are informed by a Christian worldview is what we are looking for. You know, like the one established by our Constitution.

George Washington, in his farewell address said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson when he was President, used tax money to purchase Bibles and the Watts Hymnal to be used in classrooms in Washington D.C. And this from the one atheists champion as the promoter of "separation fo church and state."

Naturally, I could add numerous other examples of our Founder's intentions on how government and the Christian faith worked, but these should suffice for now.

Answer 9

This is a serious issue that should be a great concern to anyone who loves American democracy.
While I believe that everyone should be permitted to practice any kind of religious beliefs they choose, as long as it does not interfere with the beliefs of others, I also believe that religion by it's very nature must be a form of bigotry.
The religious are religious because of faith, a notoriously faulty method of knowing. The religious faithful believe that their dogma is the ONLY TRUE dogma, therefore, all other dogmas should be prohibited. If you do not believe this, you aren't really religious. The really religious also believe that they should convert non-believers or kill them, either one is OK but it has to be one or the other.
Religion, as practiced by southern baptists and Pat Robertson is very anti-democratic; they want a Christian theocracy, a dogma dictatorship.
For me, this is really dangerous.

Answer 10

i doesn't. i do not understand of a unmarried faith the position that has gone nicely because even interior the finest of circumstances there are imperfect people operating issues and making mistakes. I also imagine that it style of negates the prospect I even might want to extra acceptable myself if that is being required by using the state. Banking should be finished ethically as different activities might want to, yet i do not confuse God because the author of all banking. In a prefect society with acceptable people there will be no favor for banks besides, so it turns right into a moot factor. on the different hand a suitable banking equipment couldn't exist without acceptable people which do not exist. Likewise all of your governing platforms at the on the spot are not required if people were acceptable yet none are achievable to be acceptable crammed by using imperfect occupants. I believe you in this one.