"The Dis-Integration of Neutrality"

As Marc noted a few days ago, my friend and former colleague, Steve Smith, is blogging over at St. John's' Center for Law and Religion Forum.  Here is his latest post, "The Dis-Integration of Neutrality," which is, like everything Steve writes, a must-read.  Here's a taste:

Most of so-called neutralities (non-sectarianism, for example) are upon examination not really versions of neutrality: at least they do not fit the official specifications or deliver what “neutrality” was supposed to deliver.  And, alas, the only version of neutrality that seems on its face truly neutral . . . is impossible and self-negating, as critics argue.  It is only through obfuscation and equivocation that we manage to avoid this distressing verdict, and to persist in professing an ideal that we are not prepared to relinquish. . .

But why does “neutrality” have such a powerful spell over us?  A principal reason, I suspect, is because to admit that neutrality is impossible and that governments are not, never have been, and never could be religiously neutral might imply that we ought candidly to explain why our governments in fact favor some religious (or anti-religious) positions and reject others.  And as things stand, “we” as a society are constitutionally unprepared to do that. . . .