spiritual treatment exceptions -Reply

[Emily Hartigan]

Brad J. wrote this today --

"BTW, what can "secular perspective" possibly mean in this context?
 The parents have a world view that informs their child-rearing
decisions; the bureaucrats have a world view that may cause them to
believe that it is better to immunize than not.  How can the government,
   without violating the EC, claim that one of these conceptions of the
 ways that God and the universe operate should trump the other?"

I wonder when, on this list, we will get the actual conversation that
honoring the reality, not just the theoretical possibility [sotto voce denied,
in secular-legal-talk], of this named difference requires?  That is (for
those who claim not to understand what I say often), what Brad says is
for me TRUE, and the "standoff" between the secular view championed
by some on this list, and the God-is-real view held by others of us, does
not honor his reality and mine, when we are forced back into the "default
discourse" of secularism.  The state must honor those who do not
believe in God and it must honor those who do, and there is no SIMPLE
way of doing that.  Until we start having that complex conversation, we
will reach the point Brad has, over and over and over, and get not one
interchange further. WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE FOR THOSE OF YOU
WHO BELIEVE THERE IS A PURELY "SECULAR" REALM, TO TAKE
BRAD'S REALITY SERIOUSLY AS HIS PRIMARY GROUND OF
CONVERSATION?