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

Keith Olbermann Suspended by NBC For Donating To The People He Shills For

NBC has suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely without pay because of campaign contributions…

Christian Citizenship Part 1: A Christian Nation?

Brian Myers: When considering the responsibilities for the Christian in relation to his citizenship, we first need to consider what kind of nation we are in.

Union Overlords Cave … Partially

This isn’t the end of the story. There will be more to…

St. Nicholas and the Financial Crisis of 2008

Note: I wrote this piece back in December of 2008. It was…