It is the contention of the Secular Square that debate in the public square should be secular in tone. This is not to suggest that religious people, particularly Christians in our western culture, have no right to engage in policy debate. No litmus test, religious or otherwise, should restrict public debate. Anyone should be able to weigh in on defense policy , economic and monetary policy , health care and health insurance, marriage licensing, abortion, or any other topic. Neither does this view suggest that Christians should not base their views on their scriptures. All insight should be welcome in the discussion of policies to enhance the happiness and prosperity of Americans. But when someone prefaces an argument with the phrase, “God says that . . . ,” it creates a whole set of problems.
First, how are Americans who do not accept the premise of the argument supposed to respond? If someone objects to that premise of that argument, important public debate can be sidetracked into a philosophical and theological discussion of the merits of the claim that the bible is God’s word to man. Such a debate is not likely to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the near future. Christians have been working to establish the truth of that claim for 2000 years and will be continuing to do so for the next 2000. Second, if everyone concedes to that claim, can meaningful debate continue? How are unbelievers supposed to contribute to debate if they are arguing against the word of God to man? Non-Christians become sort of a dhimmitude while Christians argue among themselves about appropriate policy decisions. A third option is possible but unlikely. Non-believers could assert that they, too, agree that the bible is God’s word but that they owe their allegiance to the Prince of Darkness and must to fight on. Meaningful debate can continue under that scenario, but debate is likely to be even less civil than it is already.
Second, as implied in the second point above, Christians themselves disagree on social issues. Liberal Christians and conservative Christians have disagreed on a host of public policy issues in the past and continue to do so today: alcohol, drugs, capital punishment, integration, marriage, divorce, reproductive rights, abortion, education, and religious displays and monuments on government property. Both sides claim the sanction of God’s word.
Finally, basing arguments on scriptures does not facilitate political compromise that is often necessary for government action. How can one compromise God’s revealed will? Christians could assert that compromise on personal obedience to scripture is sin and concede that compromise on public policy is permissible. But will Christians disagree about that as well? Of course, lack of compromise is not a problem particular to Christians. Ideologues of all political persuasions are out there unwilling to compromise their views in order to reach some policy resolution. But it is debatable how much if anything they contribute to meaningful resolutions in our democracy.
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” It may sooth the minds of Christians and insulate them from being troubled by the perplexing questions we face as citizens. It does nothing to clarify discussion or to provide answers to those questions.