Our states' Common Law developed from older legal systems, including religious ones, such as that of Rome and Exodus. All states are subordinate to their Common Law (as I presume that Britian and the other Commonwealth countries are as well), which includes elements of the golden rule, such as respect for people, their families, their property. In this sense, I'd argue that our law is already religious, and while I won't equate all who are not religious with nihilists, a nihilist could argue that there is nothing wrong with rape, murder, molesting children and so forth - however the law will impose those religious morals on one who does those acts by force, whether they like it or not. So whether one wishes to call it "secular or religious", false as I'd argue that dichotomy is (given that even "secular" systems are based on faith-based axioms, such as human rights, and that religious systems did not likely develop "in a vacuum" to begin with - for example, harsh as it may be by our standard today, laws requiring the death penalty for adultery likely served as a form of population control in ancient societies, such as that of Iron Age Israel.) My point is that the law imposes morality or "religion" on those who have none, no self-restraint or moral qualms about murdering, stealing, raping, or abusing children, and so forth. Ideally people would be moral on their own accord, rather than merely out of fear of the law, but nevertheless this is something, I'd argue we take for granted, and often like to deny. In this sense, Christianity, or at least religious axioms such as the golden rule, in regards to respect for other people's life, their family, their property - are already favored by the state over sketchier moral axioms (such as LeVayan Satanism, which, to the best of my knowledge, theoretically doesn't prohibit revenge or polyamory, and so forth - I'm aware that consentual polyamory isn't illegal, but it wouldn't currently be recognized as a legal union, unless someone wants to change that, and given the sentiments expressed about Trump's love life, I don't think the left does). I don't see why, we don't therefore stop pretending that religion, or at least elements of religion are not already favored over others - for example, in order to pretend that a nihilistic worldview, such as that of Satanism or nihilism is "equal" to those Judeo-Christian morals mentioned, we'd have to pretend the law isn't as it already is, should we not? (And yes, I'm aware that axioms like the golden rule are part of other belief systems and philosophies, such as Confucianism, nevertheless they are part of Judeo-Christian morality, with elements of our law today having developed out of Christian ones from the middle ages and so forth, so attempting to deny the religiousity of our law seems false to me).