Synthesis
Take this article by Adam Minter -- a moderately well-written, largely hysteria-restrained take on how bad he thinks the encroachment of religious views on state government is, and one in which he works hard and successfully to only use examples of the religious right trying to enact their views into law -- and then add in this deconstruction of how the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, presenting himself as spokesman for the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, which is the "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota," and speaking before the Crime and Public Safety Committee of the Minnesota House of Representatives (which is not, by the way, an arm of the Minnesota Catholic Conference -- which is "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota," just in case you were wondering) in a bold-faced, unabashed attempt to persuade legislators to enact into law his own neo-lefty, ill-considered, kumbahyah-singing religious views of what public policy should be....

... and what do you have?

Basically, "everybody does it." 

I got a radical idea.  Let's acknowledge that people -- of any religious conviction, or none -- will bring their own religious convictions, if any, about the way that the universe does and ought to work to the table when discussing public policy.  Let's agree that an individual's interpretation of what their own religious denomination, if any, has to say about public policy is entirely up to that individual . . .

. . . and then let's leave it there, and, when talking about public policy, try real hard to talk about it in both sensible and secular terms, and avoid -- particularly in front of official committees of legislative bodies -- thumping the bibles so damn hard, and so bloody often.

Let's not expect that people not of the speaker's sect should waste a moment worrying about what the religious views of some other sect are, not when discussing policy.  Members of the speaker's religious sect?  Hey, it's their call.  Not my problem. 

But for the rest of us?  No special privileges for folks who thump Bibles -- no matter what sect they claim to be thumping said Bibles on behalf of, or how loudly they thump said Bibles... or, for that matter, Korans, Talmuds, or Selections from the Utterances of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.

Let's leave the careful attention to the religious opinions of the Most Reverend Richard E. Pates -- Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and spokesman for the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, which is,  in case the news hasn't gotten to you, "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota" -- back at the offices of his Archdiocese.  

If Rich Pates -- just another unmarried guy who works in St. Paul somewhere -- has something to contribute to the secular discussion of issues involving the law and practice of self-defense, well, then, let him trot it out, and we'll discuss his comments in secular terms.  But let's invite him to introduce himself as Rich Pates -- just another unmarried guy who works in St. Paul somewhere.  When he's talking about public policy, let's not have him be promoted (I was tempted to use a less generous word than "promoted") by Rebecca Thoman or anybody else -- most certainly including Rich Pates -- as the Most Reverend Richard E. Pates (the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and spokesman for the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, which is  "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota", in case you hadn't heard).

If members of his religious sect want to give special weight to his religious pronouncements, well, then, that's fine.  The majority of us -- who aren't bound by even authoritative opinions on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church -- can just turn off our ears, if we'd like, when he's talking about whatever he thinks his religious sect's creed says that the rest of us ought to do.  

Alternately, if there's those of use who feel that the most Reverend Richard E. Pates -- even when presenting himself as Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and spokesman for the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, which is, you might not be surprised to hear, "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota" -- doesn't know squat about self-defense, either in practice, in law, or in public policy... well, let's not be shy about pointing out that Rich Pates, just another unmarried guy who works in St. Paul somewhere, doesn't seem to know much on the subject, and that much of what he seems to know is wrong.

And, fair is fair:  let's do the same for Chaplain Dan Hall, a minister who lobbies on behalf of his own religious beliefs about what law should be.  If Dan Hall has some secular views he wants to share -- about abortion, same-sex marriage, or whatever -- let's give him a listen. 

Here's what let's not do:  let's not give the Most Reverend Richard E. Pates -- Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and spokesman for the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Catholic Conference "the statewide public policy organization of the Roman Catholic Bishops from each of the six Dioceses in Minnesota," just in case you didn't know -- some special secular status mysteriously arising from his pointy hat (bishops got pointy hats, right?)  that we'll deny to Chaplain Dan Hall and his simple clerical collar. 

But, hell, if Rich and Dan have something they want to talk to their own true believers about, in religious terms, that's just fine.  But when they talk to the rest of us, let's try to keep things secular.

Dan?  Rich?  You in?