Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.(He's speaking of whether or not Germans should be allowed into the UN peacekeeping force headed to Lebanon, but the quote is precious. I wish we could ignore the historical facts all the time!)
File under "Francis Schaeffer's Two-Story Thingamajig"
Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey wrote/write a truckload about how our society is keeping Christianity under wraps by restraining people's faith to an "upper story" of life, where it can bring personal peace and fulfillment, but not real change in the world around us (that would be the "first story" of facts and realities that can be brought to bear on others around us).
In an editorial in the WSJ today, Roger Scruton discusses "Islamofascism" and does, quite honestly, a great job of exploring questions many people have about the "religion of peace" (it's worth reading just for the first half). But then he says this:
Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human socieities should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; what they do with their souls is a matter betrween themselves and God, and all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction.
Much could be said; this is a perfect example of what Pearcey and Schaeffer are talking about. "What you do with God is your business, but don't let it affect me. Now...let's get on to making laws that are purely areligious." Nothing humans do is non-religious. Everything we do is an act of worship to one god or another. Every law we make is a religious law (pssst - remember that the Supreme Court has acknowledged secularism as an official religion).
Perhaps more problematic is the assertion that religions must "bow down" to the authority of the state if they are to exist there. The church should indeed obey all laws that don't require disobedience to God; likewise, the church doesn't have direct authority (i.e., ability to enforce its will) over the state. But where is the ultimate authority in this discussion? Is it not with Christ, who is the King of the Nations? Aren't all leaders exhorted to "kiss the Son, lest He turn and you perish in the way"? We need to spot and name comments like Mr. Scruton's for what they are: reflections of our society's version of tolerance for Christianity. As long as we don't evangelize or preach Christ's kingship or call the nations to repent or call for laws based on Biblical morality, we're fine. But a faith that is merely personal is not the faith Christ has called us to.