by Tony Watts

Created on: December 18, 2009   Last Updated: December 20, 2009

Separation of Church and State: The Myth of Neutrality

Moral discernment is a lost art these days and never is it more obvious than when “trusted” political officials, at every conceivable level, decide to ignore the threat against traditional marriage. When "traditional marriage" met gay activism in my home town, Davidson County, NC way back in 2005, our representatives revealed their inability to discern between right and wrong as well as their lack of moral intestinal fortitude to take a stand on such an important issue.

In fact, according to Kristen Johnson of the “Thomasville Times” (April 29, 2005) then Commissioner Sam Watford said the following: “I trust in God and believe in traditional marriage, but I will absolutely decline to debate morality while in this room and while serving in a government capacity. It’s not the time or the place for it.” 

This small town commissioner, unbeknownst to him perhaps, the very mentality that now dictates in our land. In other words, while he is a “religious” man, particularly of the Judeo-Christian stripe, he will not allow his faith to influence how he votes on the matter of traditional marriage.

While such conclusions give every impression of personal piety, political correctness and neutrality, it actually reveals a deeply rooted naiveté about not only the political process but about reality itself. Don’t politicians realize that nature hates a void of any kind and their supposed neutrality concerning the traditional and biblical, paradigm for marriage is no different?   

As naive as it is, the myth of neutrality is very alive and well. Why else would a commissioner say that the “board room was not the correct forum to debate the contentious issue." I am aware of the dilemma into which modern society has thrust Davidson County’s commissioners as well as the dilemma that the current moral environment presents for us all.

The fact remains, however, that once vital moral issues arise, the luxury of neutrality is never afforded someone in their position. The "room" in which politicians discuss their agenda is exactly the place for such dialogue, especially when the foundational element of society, traditional marriage, is under attack.

Martin Luther, in addressing an "untouchable" issue of his day, was convinced that no matter what issue he stood against, he was cowering if he failed to stand for the truth that was at

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>