Such advocacy, however, carries with it certain perils. Whenever the faith is identified too closely with a particular political movement, a political party or even (as in recent years) with a specific administration, the faith loses its prophetic edge. Let me offer an example. Earlier this year, in the course of writing Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, I contacted eight Religious Right organizations with a simple, straightforward question. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization’s position on the use of torture. Let’s remember that these groups have detailed position papers on everything from same-sex unions to stem-cell research. And I guess that in posing the question I really didn’t expect the Religious Right to climb out of the Republican Party’s cozy bed. But I did think they might stick out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.

Sadly, tragically, I was mistaken. I heard from only two of those organizations. Both of them defended the Bush administration’s policies on torture.

These are groups that claim to be “pro-life,” people who purport to hear a “fetal scream.” But they turn a deaf ear to the real screams of fully formed human beings who are being tortured in our name. And even to this day, to the best of my knowledge, no person or organization identified with the Religious Right has issued an unequivocal denunciation of the use of torture.

This illustrates, I think, the dangers of lusting after power and political influence, especially for people of faith, because in so doing you surrender the capacity for critical engagement and prophetic dissent. In fact, my reading of American religious history suggests that religion always functions best from the margins of society and not in the councils of power.

The other cautionary lesson of the Religious Right has to do with its conduct, specifically its desire to commandeer the conversation and its refusal to acknowledge other voices of faith. As a citizen of a free society, taking full advantage of the First Amendment, I have every right to express myself and my views. I can argue, wheedle and cajole, but I have no right to coerce or to drown out other voices. My ability to advocate certain positions presupposes my willingness to allow other people of differing views the opportunity to speak as well.

That’s the fundamental etiquette of democracy, especially in a pluralistic society. And it is a courtesy too often ignored by people of faith.