Christian Social Thought puts it, the “encumbered self.” Religionists are not simply free-will individuals bound to choose their religious convictions as they choose between McDonalds or Burger King. Rather, people of faith are fundamentally identified by their faith convictions and communities. These commitments are seemingly foreign to the court that Hitchcock describes. Will religious institutions, as a community of faith, be able to withstand employment discrimination lawsuits posed by individuals? Will parents, as the children’s most fundamental community, continue to be able to pass on religious values, through private education and homeschooling, even if deemed divisive and irrational by society at large? Furthermore, a liberal worldview that views true knowledge as rational and leaves issues of faith to personal speculations necessarily gives religious believers a disadvantage in the area of church-state relations. As Hitchcock accurately explains, the court, by defining religion as irrational and subjective belief may provide the benefits of the free exercise clause to political and philosophic viewpoints, including secularism. On the other hand, the establishment clause restricts the actions of traditional religions such as Christianity, while allowing other “faiths” to escape. This disadvantage plays out not only in traditional church-state issues such as funding (e.g., faith-based initiatives) but also in the rapidly escalating church-state discussion surrounding moral issues. For example, religious arguments made in the public square on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are deemed less effective and potentially in violation of the establishment clause in contrast to secular arguments that are based on science and facts (i.e., truth). Hitchcock’s work offers timely admonition to those who are concerned about religion, politics,