Question

I read Shalom Tzadik's book A Call for the Revival of Religious Philosophy, and I have several questions I’d like to address to you.
 

1. The book essentially proposes a “religious” model meant to give non-believers the social advantages of religious society (in the author’s view) — rejection and suppression of LGBT people, marriage at a young age, sexual closedness, and the like. If a person does not believe but takes part in prayers in order to achieve that kind of social-educational outcome for himself and his children, can he be counted for a prayer quorum? Is there value to his observance of the commandments, and can others fulfill their obligation through him?
2. Do you think the model presented is actually effective? Is it possible to educate children on the basis of a kind of “white lie”?
3. More generally, it seems to me that, in a hidden way, this model mainly serves one kind of person — men, perhaps weaker and less “attractive,” who prefer the religious model of early marriage and absolute sexual fidelity over the secular dating market, where they have no chance of succeeding. Or alternatively, people (in practice, men) who are very homophobic and use religion as a tool to prevent sexual liberation. Does that seem to you like a correct diagnosis?
4. In addition, do you see a parallel between this and the model of “Cultural Christians” — described this way in an article in an American magazine: they embrace a secular vision of Christian values—tradition, conventional families, and small government—all without the spiritual commitment or conviction… Cultural Christianity’s true believers tend to be drawn to the idea that the faith exists strictly as a rejection of liberal cultural hegemony;