Common Political Language

Further to Rick's critique of Peter Beinart's New Republic piece, I agree with the notion that Christians are not required to translate their claims into a common political language.  However I would add something to Rick's response.  The assumption behind those who take Beinart's position seems to be that while religious arguments are not grounded in "reason and evidence," i.e., those things accessible to others not sharing one's religion, that all other bases of arguments are somehow commonly accessible.  That is patently not the case.  There are plenty of arguments made (by those on both sides of the political spectrum) that, although not religious in tone, are no more accessible to others than religious arguments, that are little more than "I just believe x."  Indeed, Beinart's piece suggests a good example - nondebatable identity claims - which are not limited to religious folk. Yet I've rarely, if ever, heard any criticism of nonaccessibility aimed at any arguments other than religious ones.

Susan