Rev. Debra Haffner and Timothy Palmer were the first to my knowledge, to go public about the silencing campaign, in their essay last year (prior to the election) in Dispatches from the Religious Left:  The Future of Faith and Politics in America. (Full disclosure: I was the editor of that book.)  It is an essay that has proved prophetic.  

Many progressive leaders today sense a shift toward moderation among some religious conservatives, as both sides of this seemingly promising trend seek common ground, and a set of shared interests on which a political coalition might be built. But there is a troubling underside:  Some well-meaning progressives are privately cautioning advocates for sexual justice to recede quietly into the background.  ...Their concern is that differences over sexuality will hinder them from forming coalitions with moderate evangelicals and Catholics, thus forestalling the election of progressive candidates. Instead, they prefer to seek common ground with the right on shared issues.

[Emphasis added]

Since the publication of this essay, evidence surfaced that this big idea has not worked nearly as well as advertised -- and this fact has thus understandably been the source of some sometimes contentious discussion.

But Haffner and Palmer sounded the alarm not about whether or not these methods would lead to success in the slicing of bigger hunks of  hypothetical demographic pie in electoral contests --  but what the ideas themselves might mean for people.

"This approach is narrow-minded and dangerous for millions of people and their families, as abortion and marriage equality cannot be considered peripheral issues by any reasonable standard. Consider that more than a third of American women have had abortions, and that four in ten Americans have a family member or close friend who is lesbian or gay.  Indeed, the full scope of sexual justice embraces anyone who is concerned with gender equality, reproductive rights and healthcare, and the right to privacy, not to mention education, equality of opportunity and the dignity of all persons.  These issues are too important to the well-being of the nation to be buried under "common ground."

The effort to silence religious progressives continued after the election as well, as Rev. Peter Laarman (also a Dispatches contributor) explained at the (unrelated) webzine Religion Dispatches. He minces no words when he declares that contemporary approaches to common ground may be a "killing ground for democratic aspiration."

There are occasions in life in which polarization simply means that the opposing parties should try harder to forge common positions. This is not one of them. An inconvenient truth here is that religious conservatives often sacralize their positions in ways that make them immune to compromise, whereas many religious liberals are only too willing to yield on their positions. This makes for an unstable mix...   in which conservative positions steadily gain ground, issue after issue.

Health care reform provides a good case in point. A significant part of the conservative community is determined to insert a hard prohibition on federal abortion funding into the final reform legislation--a provision that will remove existing access to abortion services from the insurance plans of millions of women. Conservatives unhesitatingly frame this as an issue of fundamental conscience. In response, many good liberals bite their tongues and go along for the sake of the supposed greater good of achieving universal coverage.

The silencing of a progressive religious voice for the sake of creating an imaginary common ground is also evident in the informal agreement to remove entire issues--marriage equality, for example--from the table. Whereas abortion can be admitted to the conversation on the right's terms, equal rights for sexual minorities cannot be admitted at all. The religious right's position, "we're not even going to discuss this," becomes tacitly accepted by everyone else.

It wasn't supposed to work this way. Four and a half years ago, after the religious right's pivotal role in reelecting George W. Bush spurred a frenzy of anguished discussion and planning among progressive religious leaders, the operative rationale for building new "open source" structures was that progressives would slowly domesticate the conservatives; tempering their rhetoric if not actually winning them over to more moderate positions. But there is scant evidence that anything like this has happened. What has happened instead amounts to moving the goalpost rightward: some notably sex-phobic evangelical and Roman Catholic individuals and entities have been rebranded as the progressive forces watch, while actual progressives (solidly feminist and pro-LGBTQ religious leaders) have disappeared from view.

The silencing of the religious left is so effective that even to call attention to the rebranding process is to make oneself persona non grata. Some colleagues have dressed me down both publicly and privately on more than one occasion for pointing out that certain men with long histories of indifference or hostility to the concerns of women and gays should not be lifted up as exemplars of progressive religious leadership.

[Emphases added]

Haffner, Palmer and Laarman no doubt have their reasons for not naming names in their published complaints -- complaints which were obviously not made lightly. I will join them in this, and say that I know that they are not the only ones who were told to shut-up; and that I hope that more of those who have been told to shut up will eventually come forward.

There is obviously much that could be said about all this, but for now, I am going to add just one point. It has been my experience over the years, that while there are many obstacles to understanding the Religious Right and its various constituent parts with knowledge and clarity; and applying that knowledge in useful ways; among these are often closely related political obstacles, posed by usually well-intentioned people who are reliant on false assumptions or wishful thinking about the Religious Right.  

Meanwhile, the silencing of religious progressives is apparently part of an effort to ensure a certain hegemony over the discourse, and to stifle criticism from the left. New York Times best-selling author Jeff Sharlet observed in his 2008 essay in Dispatches from the Religious Left:  The Future of Faith and Politics in America, that the grouping

"heralded by mainstream media as a resurgent Religious Left is neither left nor surging. Rather, it's a centrist coalition of the willing that's reporting for duty -- not to the task of prophetically challenging power but to a Democratic Party bent on peeling off undecided voters.  The religious centrists call this initiative "faith outreach," an ironic label for a process that is neither faithful -- to the core value of both democracy and most of the believers involved, which is that everybody counts -- nor particularly reaching anyone."