Where is our mandate to insist that the secular world (i.e. government) legislate Christian morality?

Gnarwhal said:

I see your point, but I think one could argue that Judaism was in fact the state religion of the Kingdom of Israel, granted I know it wasn't called Judaism until after the Babylonian exile. At any rate, Scripture may not command it but it gives us an example of it within the context of what's implied as the one nation in biblical history that God personally signed off on. In a manner of speaking.

Click to expand...

Yes, Israel was a theocracy. God was (or should have been) their King. Remember what God said to His prophet Samuel when Israel asked for a human king:

“And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.” (1Sa 8:7 NKJV)

The UK is not, and never has been, such a theocracy.

@Gnarwhal - It is sort of interesting that Ben Shapiro probes your topic directly in a recent conversation with Matt Fradd, but Fradd declines to engage the topic (38:00). It doesn't really go anywhere given Fradd's decision not to engage, and Fradd is probably wise to decline given his limited knowledge of the topic, but it was notable to see interest in the theme from Ben's libertarian perspective.

Gnarwhal said:

Wow thanks for the link, I don't really follow Fradd or Shapiro so I didn't realize they had this discussion. Very interesting.

Click to expand...

Sure. One short piece related to the topic is Ratzinger's, "To Change or to Preserve? Political Visions and Political Praxis," particularly the final section, "Consequences for Christian Involvement in Politics."

But concretely the sovereign of a democracy is the majority, and so if we want to use "temporal apparatuses to protect everyone," then the only ultimate way to utilize the democratic apparatus is via the majority. Forcing the majority to do something they do not wish to do is anti-democratic, and this is why democracies are so often associated with immorality and mob rule. There is nothing about the nature of a democracy which makes it accountable to anything outside itself. Because of this your question achieves a broader significance for anyone who wishes to see a democratic state rise above immorality, mob rule, decadence, and ultimately dissolution. Traditionally such individuals would say that the democratic state accesses its moral resilience through non-governmental institutions, such a communities, churches, clubs, etc., and that without such institutions the democracy will be highly unstable.

Everyone has different ideas about what to include as far as morality. God's will includes:
1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

So God intends rulers to punish evildoers. The question though is how and what does this entail. Rosseau had idea to "force men to be free." By "the general will", "Rousseau means a volition or a desire to pursue a common interest or good. It could be considered the shared, collective commitment to a common ideal or value of a people." https://study.com/academy/lesson/general-will-overview-significance.html#:
That is like the Post-Liberal position of Vance. However, you could have all kinds of common values, Christian or otherwise. Adultery could be a crime, cohabitation, or other sexual practices. Speech as well. The Constitution would protect some of these things in the USA because the founders knew that even "Christian" ideas often did not have a consensus so they leaned heavily on individual rights which I think was a great choice.