Since the 1950s, United States Supreme Court holdings have transformed the United States from a polity in which there was a soft establishment of Christianity to a polity in which there is now the establishment of a strong laicism. This essay begins with a brief review of some of the steps through which this transformation occurred in the United States through Supreme Court decisions beginning in the late 1940s. This paper demonstrates that the United States have moved beyond a separation of church and state to an established secular state that establishes policies and laws that are hostile to religious commitments. Such a state is not neutral with respect to religion. This paper demonstrates the extent to which the attempt to be neutral with respect to religion has led to non-neutral policies that privilege ways of life and conceptions of the good that reject religion.
Religion, Christianity, Morality, Principles of Morality, bioethics, laicism, Constituion, Separation of Church and State.
1. Ackerman B. Social Justice in the Liberal State. New Haven, 1980.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Committee on Bioethics. 1995. Pediatrics, vol. 95. pp. 314–417.
3. Ameson R. 2003. Klosko G., Wall S. (eds.) Perfectionism and Neutrality: Essays in Liberal Theory. Lantham, 2003. P. 191–218.
4. Breitowitz Y. 1992. The brain death controversy in Jewish law. Jewish Action, vol. 52, pp. 61–66.
5. Davies M. For Altar and Throne: The Rising in the Vendee. St. Paul (MN), 1998.
6. Engelhardt H., Tristram Jr. Bioethics and Secular Humanism. London, 1991.
7. Engelhardt H., Tristram Jr. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York, 1996.
8. Engelhardt H., Tristram Jr. 2010. Politea, vol. 97, pp. 59–79.
9. Engelhardt H., Tristram Jr. 2011. Christian bioethics after Christendom: living in a secular fundamentalist polity and culture. Christian Bioethics, vol. 17(1), pp. 64–95.
10. Glendon M. A., Yanes R. 1991. Structural free exercise. Michigan Law Review, vol. 90, pp. 477–550.
11. Greenawalt K. 1986. The limits of rationality and the place of religious conviction: Protecting animals and the environment. William and Mary Law Review, vol. 27, pp. 1011–1065.
12. Gutmann A. 1995. Ethics, vol. 105, pp. 557–579.
13. Gutmann A., Thompsons D. Why Deliberate Democracy? Princeton (NJ), 2004.
14. Iltis A. 2009. The failed search for the neutral in the secular: public bioethics in the face of the culture wars. Christian Bioethics, vol. 15(3), pp. 220–233.
15. Iltis A. 2010. Toward a coherent account of pediatric decision making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 35, pp. 526–552.
16. Neuhaus R. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. Grand Rapids (MI), 19862.
17. Ollick R. S. 1991. Brian death, religious freedom, and public policy: New Jersey’s landmark legislative initiative. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 275–288.
18. Patridge B. 2010. Adolescent psychological development, parenting styles and pediatric decision making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 35, pp. 518–525.
19. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge (MA), 1971.
20. Rawls J. Political Liberalism. New York, 1993.
21. Sechter R. A French Genocide: The Vendee. Notre Dame (IN), 2003.
22. Weithorn L. 1983. Children’s capacities to decide about participation in research. IRB: a review of human subjects research, vol. 5(2), pp. 3.
23. Weithorn L., Campbell S. B. 1982. The competence of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions. Child Development, vol. 53, pp. 1589–1598.