Quite so. The fact that you can believe something so manifestly irrational is a pretty good indicator of how much thought you are likely to have put into your other beliefs.

If I claim to be an expert on art, but my house is full of pictures of crying clowns and blue-skinned women, a disinterested observer will know just how much to trust my judgement.

Lines of argument can stand or fall on thier own merits. It shouldn't matter who advances them. Sometimes, a person's identity can skew their experience of an issue. In those cases, we should explain that, focussing on why the argument is faulty.

MTR's Christianity has become an excuse to attack her, base on this stereotype that Christians impose their morality on others. Christians have as much right to advocate change as anyone else.

MTR's Christianity is her own business. It is her mistrustful attitude towards male sexuality that needs challenging.

I am no fan of MTR - quite the opposite - but this article is an excellent example of why she might be reluctant to discuss her religious beliefs. If her opinions are manifestly incorrect, then we have a duty to correct her using rational argument, not by censoring her for being a Christian. The latter is discrimination, pure and simple. Christians are entitled to make moral decisions like any other person - how they do so is up to their conscience - and attempts to silence anyone because they happen to believe in Jesus Christ betray the intellectual paucity and blatant bigotry of those who have elevated their own beliefs to that of a secular religion. When we say any one group should not be listened to because of their identity - whether they are Christians, women, homosexuals, or socialists - we are advocating discrimination and prejudice.

There are situations where one's belief system does not matter, but there may be situations where people gain publicity for some work yet use that particular publicity for that particular work to unduly influence in other areas while having other agendas.

@Mishka Gora
I'm not "censoring" or "silencing" Reist for her religious beliefs. That is a complete distortion of my position.

I'm asking her to be transparent about how her beliefs impact on her morality campaigns. Just as I would ask a feminist, a Marxist, a Buddhist, etc etc, except people who follow those ideologies aren't generally coy about saying where they're coming from, unlike some Christians.

Far from silencing her, I've asked hundreds of times that she debate her position with those who disagree with her, not necessarily me. Reist will not enter into debate. A public intellectual who will not enter into debate with alternative views? A Christian public intellectual who says her faith impacts on her message, but will not reveal how?

If there is a conflict for some Christians in that they fear their moral arguments will somehow be undermined by the revelation of their faith, then the problem lies with them and their faith, not with those of us who ask perfectly reasonable questions about it.

Or are you suggesting we have no right to ask anyone anything about their religious, political, ideological beliefs and affiliations? Because if Christians are to be exempt from such questioning, so must everybody else.

...And here again, and overtaking as usual, all concerns of the normal man, this special department in OLO dedicated to irrelevance, “La Femme”.