A god's role in government should be?

I picked ...Government based on religious laws, with God cited in official actions...Because this is what the country was built on. Do we not still swear on the Bible in the Courts? How about the Pledge..."One nation under God"....look at our money,"In God we Trust" I see people that make a fuss about prayer having no problems spending that money with God on it. But now they are taking prayer out of schools, and getting close to taking God out of the pledge. Why was it ok before, but now it's such a big deal? I think it should be left the way it is.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blreligion.htm

Would those of you choosing option #2 please define what sort of religious laws you would like enacted? I'm curious what a secular government does not offer you.

Hmmm ... I definitely didn't expect to see so many votes for #2, especially since there are none for #1 and they're pretty close to being the same. I don't mean this as an attack, but rather I mean this in the true definition of the words: if you voted for anything other than 3, 4 or 5, I'd say you're either arrogant, self-centered, or ignorant. I'm willing to get into a discussion, but I really don't think it's necessary. Should you choose to argue though, please be prepared to support Iran, Palestine, and the other contries/factions on the long list of religious-based governments. Just to be clear, I'm not saying God shouldn't be an important part of people's lives, I just don't think a God should be cited for "why" we do things in our government.

Enlightened arguments for secular government don't hold up well to events in France (Paris riots), the Netherlands (Theo van Gogh murder), and now Denmark (cartoons).

The antireligionists of the O-Nerd world can be as cleverly secular as they want- but they would do well to more devoutly worship the scientific maxim that nature abhors a vacuum, because radical Muslims are filling it.

All of you religious government advocates always seem to overlook one big thing: what if you're wrong about the origin of the Bible? What if it's merely the creation of men? If that's the case, then you're merely arguing that government be based on laws of men who are also good writers. It's just a thought. I think you must consider the possibility regardless of your beliefs on whether or not it was devinely inspired because there is no way to show that to be true.

You're all quick to tell why it "must" be the bedrock, but you never tell me why it "must" be true. My point is that there are no concepts in the Bible that couldn't be crafted by man and then conveniently said to be from a higher power to ensure that they remain irrefutable.

All I ask is that you argue in full. I've heard time and again from religious people on what to do if the Bible is true. Now, please, present me with your thoughts on what should happen if it's not.

I elected option two and here is my case for that option. First off, Will’s article explains far more eloquently than I could do justice on why having God at the center of government is essential. Like it or not, religion informs our ethical and moral makeup, which informs our laws. We cannot divorce ultimate moral authority from the law. My ideal government would be free of religious persecution (someone forced or coerced to convert is only going through the motions), yet clearly based on religious principles to clearly state the intent and cohesive underlying philosophy and avoid any ambiguity or internal conflict. Don’t like it? Live somewhere else. Israel is clearly based on religious principles, and they make no bones about it. You don’t see Animists clamoring to move to Israel and I don’t see Israel changing their whole government to remove references to God to placate any other religious or atheist groups there. They were pretty clear what the intent of their government was up front and expectations were set accordingly.

Why didn’t I chose option #1, the Theocracy then? Some of you have pointed out the failings of overtly religion-based governments, such as Iran, as an indicator that all Theocracies are doomed to failure, but I think you are off the mark on the cause. The cause is lack of accountability on the parts of the leaders and the corruptibility and shortcomings of man. The Catholic Church, the government of Iran, and many other authoritarian governments, including those who supplanted/prohibited religion with their own religion-like philosophy, (the Soviets, Communist Chinese, Nazis) all succumbed to corruption. Without some type of accountability or balance against the absolute power entrusted to such a government, corruption will ultimately result. The ultimate form of government according to Plato would be a completely objective, incorruptible benevolent dictator who uses their power for the good of the people and not for their own best interests. To some degree, the reforms the Vatican underwent following the Reformation address this. The Pope would have a hard time going completely south without the Cardinals calling his actions to question. Likewise, the government would have to have some sort of overwatch to ensure it is not drifting or dithering from it's duty, and no authoritarian structure or oligarchy would be completely immune to the deleterious effects resulting from unchecked power.

Before commenting, i would like to establish the fact that i was one of the first to vote and only read the comments that had been posted at that time. Since then i've only read a few of the root comments and not a lot of the 100 or so branches. If this has already been brought up, then i apologize.

If you believe in God, then wouldn't you believe also that he SHOULD govern? I made sure to look up "Theocracy", and it is defined as "a government ruled or subject to religious authority". Now, being religious doesnt necessarily mean that you believe your religion to be true, or your God to be perfect. In that case, then your probably arguing for options 2 through 5. Or, if you don't believe in God at all then your most likely rooting for option 6. For myself i am religious, and believe my religion to be true and God to be perfect. A government organized and run by God himself would be perfect. Obviously the human race for itself is incapable of attaining such a government, and my attention is immediately called to option number 1; a Theocratic government. Government itself SHOULD be God's role, in my opinion, and that is why i voted so. What is the logic behind the other 20 accompanying votes?