The Myth of Neutrality Series brings together four essays that dismantle the illusion that life can be lived from a position of detachment. Each domain—culture, speech, origins, and worldview choice—claims neutrality to evade judgment, yet all are shaped upstream by the reality of liberty of conscience, a probationary freedom that is never consequence-free.
These essays show how neutrality is a mask: culture always encodes value, speech is never just information, science is never method without metaphysics, and worldview choice is never a protected immunity. Taken together, they demonstrate that neutrality is not protection but abdication—and that every posture already bends toward fidelity or fraud.
The Myth of Neutral Culture ( Morality Made Visible)
The Myth of Neutral Expression (Freedom of Speech)
The Myth of Neutral Origins (Evolution)
The Myth of Neutral Choice (Worldviews)
Alongside the five main essays, the same pattern of counterfeit neutrality appears in wider civic systems. The brief sketches below are not full treatments, but pointers. They can be pondered in light of the fuller discussions of justice , economics , and government found elsewhere in the appendices. Their purpose here is to show how the neutrality myth recurs whenever systems present themselves as detached or impartial.
Judicial systems often claim neutrality by reducing wrongs to institutional infractions rather than relational ruptures. Courts can adjudicate contracts and crimes, but they cannot restore trust or reconcile estranged persons. The myth of neutrality appears when due process is treated as ontological vindication. Neutral justice is no justice: it displaces persons with procedures and obscures the need for reconciliation.
Fuller treatment of Justice here.
Markets present themselves as impartial arenas where price signals embody “neutral” information. Yet every transaction carries axiological weight: what is valued, who is included, what is sacrificed. Neutrality masks allegiance to accumulation while sidelining stewardship. Neutral markets do not exist; economic systems always encode a moral order—either stewardship or exploitation.
Fuller review of Economics here.
Governments present themselves as detached arbiters, yet biblical patterns placed responsibility first on parties themselves, with higher adjudication invoked only when disputes could not be reconciled (Exod. 18:13–26). Modern systems invert this order: they default to institutional judgment while presenting it as neutrality. Neutral governance is not neutral: it erases relational duty under the guise of institutional detachment.
Fuller analysis of human governmental systems here.
