Two Posts on Religious Arguments in the Public Square

Eugene Volokh (here) and Nate Oman (here) have posted new, interesting thoughts about the use of religious arguments in the public-policy arena.

Nate asks, in light of a reason PETA ad, "is it proper to use religious arguments to persuade a religious believer when you yourself do not accept the religion in question?" He discusses, among other things, "television journalists [who] started lecturing the world about how the terrorism was really inconsistent with Islam and how the Koran doesn't really require this sort of thing"; "gay marriage activists who quote the New Testament at opponents of same sex marriage"; and the "attempts of westerners to persuade Muslims that Islam, properly understood, is not really inconsistent with modern liberal democracy."

Eugene explains why a particular "trope" -- "Those fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their religious opinions on us" -- bothers him. In his view, "that's what most lawmaking is -- trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."

Rick

UPDATE: Volokh has more to say about his post, and reactions to it, here.

UPDATE: For more comments on Nate Oman's on Nate Oman's post, see Crooked Timber, Larry Solum, Sasha Volokh, and our own Steve Bainbridge.