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?

You May Also Like

Democratic Party Now Endorses On-Demand Taxpayer Funded Abortion

The 2012 Democratic National Convention kicked off in Charlotte, NC today and…

CDC Report: Fewer High School Students Are Having Sex

A new CDC report reveals almost 60% of high school students today have never had sex. This represents an increase of 28% since 1991.

There Is No New Normal

Dr. Jane Orient: If we let the experts prevail, will we have a brave new happy transhuman utopia? Or a pile of rubble?

The Irish Abortion Referendum: The Fight To Save The 8th

On Friday, May 25th Ireland will vote on whether or not to remove the 8th amendment that bans abortion unless the woman’s life is threatened. John Gustavsson who is in Ireland canvassing for the pro-life cause gives an update.