There's a line in the Juan Williams article that I reference below that I had missed when it first graced the editorial pages of The New York Times that struck me as symptomatic of the secular left's view of religion and the public policy arena.

Writing in response to Barack Obama's "race speech" a couple months back, the Times editorial writers had this to say:

The New York Times editorialized that "Mr. Obama's eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government."

Say what?

Of course Barack Obama would take his religion into government. That's what he promises to do every day on the stump. How is the social justice gospel preached regularly at Trinity United Church of Christ different from the public policy positions Obama touts?

Trick question. It's indistinguishable.

For the secular left and much of the media, the following things are evidence of a "Christianist agenda:"

• Keeping marriage defined as one man, one woman.
• Reversing Roe v. Wade
• Allowing crosses on placed on public land decades ago to stay on public land.

These things are not evidence of a "Christianist agenda:"

• Universal government health care insurance
• Giving more money to the poor and needy
• Providing free day care for the poor.
• Providing free or reduced-price housing for the poor.

The real truth is that both of these public policy prescriptions could be seen as part of a Christianist agenda. After all, Christ spent a lot of time encouraging his followers to care for "the least of these." The debate between left and right in this country isn't over whether or not people should get necessary health care or feeding the hungry or housing the homeless -- it's whether that should be accomplished through government coercion (read: taxes) or through the millions of churches, synagogues, etc. across America voluntarily.

What should be laughed out of the public square is the idea that the latter group of policies aren't religious-based while the former are. They both are.