When it comes to the relationship between church and state, one common position is that of strict separation: churches shouldn't have anything to do with the government and vice-versa. Strict separation is often explained as an extension of neutrality — in order to neither help nor hinder religion, it's best for the state to simply stay our of religious matters as much as possible.
- Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.
- Abe Fortas, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 1968.
In this passage, Abe Fortas offers perhaps the most famous and succinct expression government neutrality in religious matters. Being "neutral" means not favoring any side over any other in a dispute. Being "neutral" in religious matters means not taking any sides in any religious disagreements. A state that is "neutral" towards religion doesn't favor one church over another, one denomination over another, one sect over another, one theological position over another, or even religion generally over non-religion.
At first glance, this seems like an obvious and unobjectionable principle to adopt. Who wants government bureaucrats favoring polytheism over monotheism, Islam over Christianity, liberal Episcopalians over conservative Catholics, etc.? No one — but there are people who would like to see government bureaucrats doing the opposite: favoring monotheism over polytheism, Christianity over Islam, and conservative Catholicism over liberal Episcopalianism. People seem to believe in government neutrality when it appears that their religion might be disfavored, but not when they think that their religion might be favored.
The problem is, there is no way to achieve the latter without risking the former... at least, not unless something like a quasi-official theocracy is set up. If the government is given the power and authority to favor monotheism over polytheism, then it is given the power and authority to do the opposite. If the government is given the power and authority to favor Christianity over Islam, then it is given the power and authority to do the opposite.
This is why the most devoutly religious people should also be the staunchest defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Given the awesome power of the modern state, religious people should want to do everything reasonable to reduce the risk that the state will interfere with their religious institutions, and that would include the state coming down against them in theological matters. Accomplishing this requires removing from the government the authority to support them in theological matters as well.
Unfortunately, too few people seem to be aware of this — or, if they are, they don't consider the risk to be high enough to give up the benefits of state endorsement. This may seem like a reasonable gamble, given America's history as having a predominantly Christian population. It's an unwise gamble, though, given how much variety there is within American Christianity and how far religious pluralism has advanced in recent decades.
There are people who believe that government "neutrality" is the same as government "hostility," but exactly the opposite is actually the case. If the government is not neutral, then the government is taking sides. If the government is taking sides on behalf of one group or belief, then it is also taking sides against the alternative groups or beliefs. Perhaps it isn't the intention of the government to send the message that those alternatives are worse, but it does so necessarily when it signals that the chosen option is favored by endorsing, supporting, or promoting it. That, in turn, qualifies as a form of "hostility."
