Religious neutrality in politics is a myth the humanists try to impose on Christians, while they themselves are never neutral.” –Tim Price
Some of my own thoughts on the recent SCOTUS declaration of marriage redefinition-
There is no such thing as Secularism unless you define Secularism as Universalism (acceptance of all religions) because even Humanists effectively worship humanity and Metaphysical Naturalists effectively worship the cosmos. And Universalism itself is not religiously neutral. It blesses those religions which are Universal and condemns those which claim exclusivity.
In legislating fundamental marriage redefinition & dilution from the bench, SCOTUS was establishing a government religious standard grounded in Humanism which all must follow or be prosecuted under law, just as private (non-government) businesses like Arlene’s Flowers and Sweet Cakes By Melissa have been prosecuted within the last couple years.
This topic was not forced on America by conservatives or conservatism but by progressives. If they throw religious issues into the limelight – and they seem bent on doing so – it is their moralizing which necessitates addressing how we as conservatives arrive at a response. We’re not the ones dragging religion into the public sphere, they are. Perhaps we should be messaging that, instead of agreeing with the non sequitur logic fallacy that somehow when conservatives speak regarding values it is religious, but when Humanists do it is not.
If you push them for the source of their ideology they’ll eventually wind up at Marx, Engels, Nietzsche and Hegel. If we conservatives are pushed we wind up at Locke, De Montesquieu, Aquinas and Moses. Both sets of philosophers – theirs and ours – are working from inherently religious world views. Modern Humanism is based in the faith of Metaphysical Naturalism – blind faith in a random, self-generating universe, and in random, self-aggregating, self-improving life. Such faith informs the holder’s beliefs regarding origins, their daily decision making and their thoughts on morality. That is the very essence of a religion. What they worship is what they believe to be the highest known cause and the highest known life form. Therefore it’s non sequitur to call our faith religious and theirs non-religious, for their world view effectively does worship mankind and nature.
If we play along and try to accept their religious suppositions in discourse then, what we’re in effect saying is that their religious viewpoint is acceptable for public discussion (deemed “secular”) and ours is not, and so they automatically win any discussion by default before it begins.
That’s why trying to say we should be “secular” in politics is a misnomer, it just declares their religious viewpoint to be supreme.
Tragically we’ve been thoroughly conditioned to keep thinking in terms of secularism by our experiences in law and political discourse, and by our education in public schools – because education as well is an inherently religious exercise.