Read Chapter 14, “Conflict and Compromise in the West”, in God & Government by Charles Colson. He had a quote by Joseph Sobran that caught my eye:
The prevailing notion is that the state should be neutral as to religion, and furthermore, that the best way to be neutral about it is to avoid all mention of it. By this sort of logic, nudism is the best compromise among different styles of dress. The secularist version of ‘pluralism’ amounts to theological nudism.
Is this even possible? Can one really be “neutral” when it comes to religion?
The Supreme Court’s working definition of what is considered religion:
“A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by God,” (1965 United States v. Seeger Decision).
It would seem based on this definition that any value or worldview could be considered religious. We don’t live in a vacuum, when one worldview is gone another takes its place.
What do you think? Can one really separate religion (as defined by the Supreme Court) from public life?
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Watch and Recap: Kim Reynolds and Fred Hubbell Meet for 2nd Debate - October 17, 2018
- Pediatricians Group: Comprehensive Sex Education Is a Failure - October 17, 2018
- Iowa’s Revenue Projected to Grow in FY 19 and FY 20 - October 17, 2018