Posted by turmarion
As I wrote the last couple paragraphs of “Heresy: Systems of Control“, I began to fudge on the phrasing a bit, and it occurred to me that I ought to write another post explaining why, and elaborating the issues involved. I almost said that in a pluralistic society we must respect all religious beliefs while keeping public policy neutral. However, that little word–“neutral”–has caused issues in blog discussions elsewhere to which I’ve been privy, so I want to look at it here.
In a confessional state, there is no question of neutrality. A given religion is the official one, simple as that. How this is manifested may vary: there may be no separation between church and state at all, or there may be moderate separation, or the state may acknowledge the state church in merely symbolic ways. Religions other than the official state religion may be banned and persecuted, tolerated with restrictions, or left totally alone. Regardless of the specifics, though, there is no pretense of neutrality–there is the state religion which is favored and enshrined in law, and there is everything else.
The United States, of course, not only has no state religion, but the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures that there never will be an American state religion. We have been a pluralistic society from the beginning: first, with most forms of Christianity represented in colonial times; later on, with immigration and religious ferment, almost all human religions have come to be found within the boundaries of the USA. As a result of this, we tend to think of ourselves as “neutral”–that is, people of all faiths are treated the same, and no one religion should have a special place over any other. This had always seemed to me, for one, to be self-evident. However, in the course of various blog discussions I’ve had over the last year, I’ve come across a frequently expressed counter-narrative.