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

Questions That Beg To Be Asked on Sex Ed

I found this graph over at the Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog.  Graph numbers…

Film Review: Unplanned

Adam Graham: Unplanned portrays the power of God’s grace to women who’ve had abortions, and to those who’ve been involved in the abortion industry.

A Defense of Christians From an Unlikely Source

Brandon Ambrosino, a homosexual, defends HGTV’s Chip & Joanna Gaines from being targeted by BuzzFeed because of their assumed position on same-sex marriage.

Rapid-Onset Revolution

Colin Smothers: We would do well to stop chasing what’s in vogue and recommit to the fundamentals of the faith in the Word of God.