Meaning: The quote you provided is a thought-provoking statement by Arthur Goldberg, a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this quote, Goldberg is addressing the concept of neutrality, particularly in the context of the relationship between the secular and religious spheres. He suggests that a strict adherence to neutrality can lead to a bias in favor of the secular and, in some cases, even hostility towards the religious. Goldberg argues that such outcomes are not mandated by the Constitution and, in his view, are actually prohibited by it.

Goldberg's words touch on a fundamental issue in constitutional law and the interpretation of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state religion. The concept of neutrality in this context refers to the idea that the government should remain neutral and impartial with respect to religion, neither favoring nor discriminating against any particular religious belief or practice.

One interpretation of Goldberg's quote is that a strict adherence to neutrality may unintentionally lead to a bias in favor of secularism. This bias could manifest as a pervasive devotion to secular principles and a corresponding lack of support or even hostility towards religious beliefs and practices. Goldberg seems to be cautioning against an approach that, in the name of neutrality, may actually lead to the marginalization or suppression of religious expression.

Goldberg's perspective on this issue reflects a broader debate in constitutional law and public policy regarding the appropriate role of religion in the public sphere. Some legal scholars and advocates argue that a strict interpretation of the principle of neutrality can lead to a secular bias that undermines the free exercise of religion. They point to instances where religious expression or observance has been restricted or marginalized in public spaces, educational settings, or government institutions under the guise of maintaining neutrality.

On the other hand, proponents of a strict separation between religion and government contend that neutrality is essential for protecting individual freedom of conscience and preventing the imposition of religious beliefs on those who do not share them. They argue that the government should remain neutral in matters of religion to ensure that all individuals are free to practice their faith or hold secular beliefs without interference or favoritism from the state.

Goldberg's assertion that such outcomes are not compelled by the Constitution suggests that he believes there is room for a more balanced and nuanced approach to the relationship between the secular and the religious within the framework of constitutional law. He seems to be advocating for an interpretation of the First Amendment that respects and accommodates religious diversity without privileging any particular belief system.

In summary, Goldberg's quote raises important questions about the potential implications of strict adherence to the principle of neutrality in matters of religion and the need to strike a balance that respects both secular and religious perspectives within the framework of constitutional law. The tension between these competing interests continues to be a subject of ongoing legal and public debate, shaping the boundaries of religious freedom and the role of religion in American society.