“VanDrunen does not think a coercive institution should promote or require religious commitment for participation in the civil order.”
Matthew Tuininga
1.) How is it that the conviction that a coercive institution should not promote or require religious commitment for participation in the civil order isn’t itself the out growth of a a-priori religious commitment of said coercive institution? In other word, that conviction, is conviction born of religion. One wonders if the coercive institution that is agnostic regarding religious commitment for participation in the civil order would use the sword in order to insure their commitment to social order agnosticism?
2.) Of course this assumes that it is possible for a coercive institution to not promote or require religious commitment for participation in the civil order. When the coercive institution doesn’t promote or require religious commitment for participation in the civil order, the result is that the coercive institution promotes the religion of no religion or religion of all religions (much the same) in the civil order. Tuininga (and perhaps VanDrunen) seem to think that it is possible for coercive institutions to be neutral in the civil order.
3.) I trust this means that VanDrunen believes, because of this principle, that all government schools should be closed because they promote religious commitment for participation in the civil order.
4.) Of course this quote above is nonsense. Every time our coercive institution legislates, adjudicates, and executes law at that time our coercive institutions are promoting and requiring religious commitment for participation in the civil order.
