Admirable Neutrality

That's what they tell us: "Neutral is good." And it seeps into all sorts of things.

"Neutral is good" when it comes to religion. I mean, by all means, believe whatever you want and say whatever you want and feel whatever you want, but do not do it in the public square. Because in the public square religion has no place. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to sexual ethics. You want to argue that sex outside of marriage is bad and sex with animals is bad and sex with people of the same gender is bad and sex between married people is good -- go right ahead. Just don't do it where anyone else can hear it. We suppose you can do it around others who agree, but don't do it in the public square because it's hateful and mean-spirited and narrow-minded. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to politics. There are the far-left types who want Communism or Socialism or some such "ism" and there are the far-right types who want Capitalism and Tradition and other stuff on which this country was built and these are all well and good as long as they aren't on the ballot. We don't want to hear it. Either side. Especially the far right. Because that's the most offensive. In the political arena, what we need is "centrist" because "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to parenting. Some may argue that you should discipline your kids and some may argue that you should teach your kids your religion, but no intelligent person would fall for that sort of thing. So the underground parents, the backwoods types, the ignorant ones may go on with it, but don't let us find out about it because everyone knows that the proper way to raise kids is to be their buddy, not their authority figure, and everyone knows that the only reasonable approach is to let their kids choose their own religion rather than inflicting yours on them. It's only right. "Neutral is good."

And so it goes.

You know, of course, that it's a lie, right? I mean, you're not falling for any of that, are you? Because none of it is neutral. A neutral approach to religion in the public square would be to allow it to be there and to allow it not to be. A neutral approach to sexual ethics would be to recognize my right to view God's version of sin as sin and for me to recognize your right to disagree. A neutral version of politics would be to let all views play out and see what comes of it. A neutral approach to parenting would be to allow parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and consciences. And no one in the public square is advocating any of that. Instead, they recommend that Christians set aside their beliefs in public and hide their morality under a bushel. The rightwing needs to simply go away and parents need to knuckle under to the mainstream beliefs about parenting. This is not neutral.

Is neutrality admirable? I'm not so sure. We can debate it. But here's what I am sure of: No one advocating neutrality in the public square is actually thinking it is admirable. They're saying it, but in the end the aim is to silence their opponents, not to coexist with them. "Tolerance" is "You must agree with us." "Compromise" is "You give up your views in favor of ours." And when we get everyone on board, we can call it "neutrality" and declare it admirable, not because it's truly neutral, but because we've vanquished our foes. And that's not neutral.