This article is rather odd.

A call to give religion full voice in the public square

Because, as we all know, theocrats have had such a hard time getting any representation at all these days.


Major presidential candidates shunning evangelical Christian leader


Christians in Washington state protesting atheists putting up one sign in a public place

The article centers on the remarks of one Eddie S. Glaude Jr., a professor of religion at Princeton, which apparently is a real job.

The professor says Obama’s ode to the power of faith “as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life” reached a conclusion that actually cuts people out of public political expression or forces them to disguise their true religious motivation. Obama said,

I believe that democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values.

Right. If you’re (say) against abortion, your religious reasons aren’t going to cut it with people who aren’t members of your church. You need to put it in (as Obama says) ‘universal values’. So what’s the problem?

Glaude said this would mean only those who argue from reason, i.e. facts or science, not from revelation, can make their case in the public square.

Oh, that we lived in such a world. People should be embarrassed to claim that the voices in your head should trump facts and science, but here is Mr Glaude unabashedly claiming exactly this.

He rejects this attempt to “tidy up” the mess of democratic conversation, saying it leads to an “unchristian result – people won’t speak the truth and will be forced to mislead to make their voices heard.”

Shorter Glaude: accept what we say without criticism or analysis — or we’ll be forced to lie to you.

Except this isn’t an un-Christian result at all. Christians routinely and habitually lie in order to get their agenda passed. Look at Proposition 8, fronted by the LDS Church, who staked the election on false and misleading claims.

[A]dvertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.

Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.

“We bet the campaign on education,” Mr. Schubert said.

Or the deception of creationists, notably those involved in the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Judge Jones said in his decision:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

And, of course, the way Christians seem to routinely portray atheists as a pack of amoral hedonists in need of salvation instead of, well, regular people.

These examples of dishonesty aren’t anomalous. Shading the facts is necessary when the facts don’t support your deeply-held worldview. But as someone who strives for reality-based living, I resent this view that we need to treat superstitious ignorance with the same regard as science and reason. It’s insulting for Glaude to say that he shouldn’t even have to try and convince non-believers. Forced to lie? No. Forced to reason.