"Religious" Arguments, Public Debate, and the New Republic

A few days ago, I linked to an interesting post by Professor Eugene Volokh on the place and role of "religious" arguments in discussions and debates about public policy, noting the important work that our colleague Michael Perry has done on the matter.  Well, here is an essay on the same subject, by the New Republic's Peter Beinart (generally an astute and careful observer), that -- although it makes many sound points -- in my judgment misses the mark.  He writes:

It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. . . .  Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate. . . .  But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It's no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you're a racist. Al Sharpton couldn't have said it better.

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

Beinart is absolutely right to note that Christian "conservatives" should not equate opposition to the merits of their political and policy views with "anti-Christian bigotry," and that they should avoid "identity politics."  If Christians want to enter the public square, they must expect to be engaged and challenged on the merits. 

Beinart is also right to note (as Michael Perry has), that Christians hoping to persuade others of the merits of their (Christianity-informed) policy positions will often do well to employ a variety of arguments, including not-obviously-theological ones.  But Beinart -- as I read him -- says more than this; he seems to embrace the common-yet-mistaken notion that the rules of a diverse democracy somehow require religious believers to translate their claims into what he calls a "common political language."  Putting aside questions such as, "what is this language?" and "are we sure that, in America, our 'common political language' is not religious?", it seems to me that Christians owe to their fellow citizens -- and this is no small thing! -- not re-packaging, but a good-faith presentation of the reasons that are, for them, persuasive and operative.  The "rules" of a diverse democracy permit such a presentation.

I'd welcome Michael Perry's reactions to the piece.

Rick