Many thanks to Anthony Esolen of Mere Comments for a kind review of my article "The Irrational Faith of the Naked Public Square," which recently appeared in The Christendom Review.
In it I work with what I call a "Generic Naked Public Square" thesis concerning the use of religious reasons in the formation of public policy. I first discuss various attempts to define the term 'religious' using something other than the content of a proposition or argument--e.g., calling an argument "religious" because of a person's motivation for making it, calling an argument or proposition "religious" because of the causal story that lies behind a person's coming to accept it, and so forth. Most (though not quite all) of these uses of 'religious' come from the well-known Christian philosopher Robert Audi, author of Religious Commitment and Secular Reason. Having rejected all but the most ordinary definition of 'religious', I pursue the question of why anyone would think that the role of religious reasons in the public square should be restricted, even voluntarily. And beyond that I'll let the article speak for itself.