{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023719165085388995, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003795066413662239, 'mean_word_length': 5.098265895953757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Religion in Public Life: The “Pfefferian Inversion” Reconsidered

In 1984, Richard John Neuhaus's book, The Naked Public Square, initiated a proliferation of publications addressing the role of religion in public life. Many of these echoed Neuhaus's concern that a strict adherence to the separation of church and state, particularly by the U.S. Supreme Court, has marginalized religious voices to the detriment of American culture. Consequently, the separationist position is now widely understood to mean that, as the following quote from a text on religion and politics illustrates, religion is to be kept out of public life. The separationist position believes that religion should be kept in the private realm. It tends to emphasize the problems involved in the absolute nature of religion's claims over and against the compromises required for democratic life. Thus religious claims tend to divide the culture, rather than to unite it, which makes religion a potentially dangerous element in public life, and it should be kept in the private realm.