Defining Neutrality, Combating Polarization

Douglas Laycock’s career in Religion Clause scholarship and advocacy spans two periods marked by two distinct concerns at the heart of the debates. This article connects them. In the first period, from the 1980s into the 2000s, the central issue was what general value or principle should drive Religion Clause decision-making. Laycock’s approach, substantive neutrality toward religion, focused on minimizing government effects on religious choices and thus led the way in reconciling two key values: neutrality on the one hand, and religious liberty or voluntarism on the other. In the second period, from the mid-2000s forward, religious liberty became caught up in the United States’ cycle of polarization. Laycock again led the way; his work on Religion Clause neutrality supports the effective defense of religious liberty in a polarized age. In particular, he called for aggregating neutrality: recognizing that any policy can have differing effects on the religious choices of different relevant actors and comparing those effects with the goal of minimizing burdensome effects on religious choices overall. This approach, done with care, can take account of the effect on competing sides and thus productively address polarized conflicts

Neutrality · Polarization (electrochemistry) · Political science · Australian History and Society · Chemistry · Law