The thesis of this Article is that the myth-of-neutrality argument is partially right and partially wrong. For reasons of religious liberty, the state can and should avoid any involvement with matters of religious worship, and the propagation or inculcation of matters that comprise the very heart of one's belief concerning the nature and destiny of mankind. Conversely, the state cannot retreat from the regulation of certain conduct which is arguably immoral and still claim its neutrality concerning the rightness of the conduct. The very decision by the state to withdraw its regulation, leaving the morality of the conduct up to each individual, is a value-ladened choice. In sum, the state cannot be neutral on moral issues, but it can and should be neutral on questions central to religious faith.
Carl H. Esbeck, Religion and a Neutral State: Imperative or Impossibility?, 15 Cumb. L. Rev. 67 (1984)