[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Because most Muslims follow Islam where there is no separation of 
church and state. Would you have a problem if Obama were a Muslim? If 
he tried to impose
Sharia law?

[Arlo]
The same problem I would have with a Christian politician trying to 
impose Christian law. You?

Do you think Muslims are more likely than Christians to enact laws 
based on their faith? Should we denounce Christian politicians when they do so?

[Arlo previously]
But if "atheism" is on the "church" side of the separation, along 
with Christianity and Islam, what is on the state side?

[P]
The will of the people, limited by constitutional restrictions on 
government...

[Arlo]
What if the will of the people is Christian law? This is not an 
argument for separation of church and state, it is an argument for 
theocratic populism.

[Arlo previously]
If we should base our laws NOT on faith (where you include atheism), 
but on "something else", what should that "something else" be? What is it now?

[P]
The will of the people through their elected representatives. Do you 
think it should be something else?

[Arlo]
Again, this is an argument against (or at least indifferent) to the 
separation of church and state. What if the will of the people is to 
impose a Christian theocracy, and they elect representatives to enact 
a Christian state? Is that okay?

My question is, if we adhere to the separation of church and state, 
and if you place atheism alongside Christianity on the "church" side, 
on what basis should our laws be founded? If we can't have Christian 
laws, and we can't have Atheistic laws, what kind of laws should we 
have? What is on the "state" side of the wall? Reason?