The myth of secular neutrality

A string of legal victories for religious freedom at the Supreme Court seems poised to reframe how Americans understand the so-called separation of church and state. In 1971, in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court established the “Lemon test” to prohibit “excessive entanglement” between church and state.

Over subsequent decades, this test was used to conclude, among other things, that Pennsylvania couldn’t provide instruction materials and equipment to religious schools (Meek v. Pittenger), Alabama public schools couldn’t authorize a moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” (Wallace v. Jaffree), and Kentucky couldn’t have a Ten Commandment display in Kentucky courthouses (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky). Essentially, the Lemon test segregated public spaces and public dollars from anything religious or religion adjacent.

But that was then.

A 2022 decision by the Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Lemon test while saying that a school district could not fire a football coach for praying on the field after a game (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). But even before that, the Court was already retreating from the position that tax dollars can’t ever be used for religious purposes. Instead, the justices took the position more compatible with the original understanding of the First Amendment: Government doesn’t have to be afraid of religion, it just can’t treat one religion better than any other (Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana, Carson v. Makin).

Conservative states have responded to the new legal environment enthusiastically. Oklahoma passed legislation authorizing religious charter schools, Ohio’s “Parent’s Bill of Rights” requires schools to allow students to leave for private religious instruction, and legislators in 15 states have introduced bills that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms.

The end of hostility to religious symbols, organizations, and ideas is a cause for celebration for those who feel religion—and by proxy, virtue—have been excluded from the public square, but a matter of grave concern to those who have confused secularism with neutrality. Proponents of the “separation of church and state” have long argued that the government must always be separate from religion as a way of maintaining religious neutrality. But it has always been a mistake to confuse secularism with religious neutrality. In fact, communist countries constantly remind us that secularism is generally the goal of those who are religiously hostile, not religiously neutral. Indeed, neutrality is impossible.

A teacher in a Christian environment might tell children to respect their fellow students because every person is created in the image of God, while a teacher in a secular environment might tell students to respect others because life will be easier if you do. One is training Christians while the other is training moral consequentialists, but neither is neutral. Yes, a crucifix communicates a religious message, but so does a “Love is Love” coffee mug. To suggest the Ten Commandments is religiously charged but the Pride Flag is appropriately neutral doesn’t pass the straight face test. Today’s secularist would have you believe our Constitution was written to prefer the consequentialist to the Christian in all cases simply because he has no “theo” in his “ology”.

The fact is the concern we see over what is claimed to be co-mingling of church and state is less likely to be principled concerns about the proper limits of government power and more likely to be concerns about how bad it would be if schools start teaching your religion instead of mine.

No, we don’t want the government to require a particular profession of faith, but we shouldn’t confuse religious tolerance with religious neutrality. The former can be helpful, the latter is a fantasy. After all, religious tolerance is a religious idea based on a Christian understanding of what it means to be created in the image of God.

The reversal of the Lemon test and the conversations that have started as a result are good developments. While reasonable minds can disagree over the benefits of Ten Commandment displays and Bible lessons in schools, we shouldn’t pretend moral or religious neutrality is one of the options. Our goal for government should always be the promotion of good and the punishment of evil, and we shouldn’t apologize for it. That’s not only what God created it for, but the only alternative is the promotion of evil and the punishment of good, and no one should want that.