The Myth of Neutrality: Part 1

Thinking people in our nation are now immersed in one of the most important ongoing conversations in our political history. I know that sounds a bit dramatic but I will try to justify the drama. As Judge John Roberts moves toward his early September confirmation hearing he is leaving a heated debate in his wake. The real question that we have failed to answer in our recent history is, "What role does religion play in a republican form of government?"

    A common approach to the issue has been to privatize religious faith and relegate it to the realm of subjective opinion. On this view religious faith has nothing to do with knowledge. It functions as a separate spiritual entity that is only pertinent to those who accept it. Since we live in a pluralistic society where everyone does not practice the same religion, religious viewpoints should be left out of public affairs. Under this approach the ideal representative is the person who has the ability to be entirely neutral.
    I would like to make explicit a few of the implicit ideas that accompany this supposedly neutral way of dealing with our question. 1.) Religions do not make truth claims, only faith claims. The problem with this assumptions is that all religions make truth claims; claims about the way things really are. If religion does not get at truth then every religion is a noble deception and should be discarded. If you are a Christian consider the claim, "that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day..." (1 Corinthians 15:3,4). Either it is the truth or our faith is in vain. 2.)All religious ideas are equally valid (which means that they are equally invalid). The position assumes that there are not any ways to test the truth claims that one religion makes in comparison to another. The competing claims are equally invalid in the end. I think it is safe to say that some ideas and ideaologies are clearly wrong. I am not going to outline a case against relativism in this post.
    The major problem with the common approach is that it fails to recognize that people are not neutral and objective observers. The views an individual carries are informed by the ways that they answer the biggest questions in life. Is there a God? Why am I here? What is right and wrong? Is there life after death? What is truth? Everyone answers these questions (and a host of others) in one way or another. The way they answer the question forms their worldview which in turn affects their decisions. They are philosophical/religious questions and we all engage in them. Judge Roberts will make decisions on the bench that are affected by the way he answers the above questions. For this reason many who do not like his Judeo-Christian viewpoint will do everything they can to oppose him and send the message that when it comes to the Supreme Court, no Christians need apply.