He pointed to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his famous 2006 speech about faith and public policy. The Illinois senator had said "democracy demands that religiously motivated people translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. Democracy requires that their proposal be subject to argument and amenable to reason."
Based on this philosophy, Obama reasons that even if he may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, he cannot pass a law banning abortion because people of other faiths and no faith may not be of the same opinion. Obama believes he can only ban a practice if it violates a universal principle held by all people.
On the other side of the debate was interfaith leader Eboo Patel, who opposes Hollinger's call for rigorous questioning of politicians' religious ideas. Instead, Patel, an Indian Muslim, advocates building a pluralistic society where people respect each other's differences.
He strongly opposes Hollinger's "cognitive plausibility" idea, arguing that people and their deep moral values do not always fit into this framework. Rather, he believes people should respect others' religious identities just as they respect other characteristics such as race, gender and ethnicity.
"Does that mean that I want my religious understanding to be translated directly into policies," Patel asked. "No, I'm not suggesting that at all. But I am saying that the public square is much broader than policies. And part of what the public square is about is the things with meaning. And part of what meaning is about is respect for people's identity."
The popular religious commentator also said it is for the "national good" that people of different religious communities have positive relations.
"When I'm asked the question, 'You have to tell me how your religious commitments fit into a framework of cognitive plausibility,' I feel pinned against the wall," the interfaith leader said.
"America is built on people like Langston Hughes, citing his heritage from the Nile and the Mississippi ... it is built on people articulating their particular narratives in a way that not only contribute[s] to the common good but sometimes build[s] a higher one," Patel concluded.
Third panelist Melissa Rogers, founder of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School, offered her opinion, saying that religious leaders who endorse political candidates should be analysed. Religious leaders should be treated like secular leaders and have their views inspected, Rogers contended.
The opinions of Hollinger, Patel, Rogers and others are expanded in essays compiled in the book Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy, which was released Tuesday. The book is published by the Center for American Progress, which hosted the panel discussion.
