fair enough, but how do the anti-religious progressives rectify this with their support of obama, who OUTWARDLY is religious and claims to base policy in religion
either they accept it as a lie, or they are hypocrites
This really doesn't seem that hard of a nut to crack. Unless anti-religion is someone's main issue (which would be nuts imo), I don't see why anyone should really care about that much about someone's statements of their beliefs as long as they agree with their policies.
Look, I know anti-religious conservatives. They still vote for religious politicians, even--gasp--Mormons.
a foundation of progressivism
progressivism cannot exist without noble lies. they are foundational blocks of their "ends justify the means" philosophy
No, the noble lie is one of the foundations of politics. Cf. the Declaration of Independence, John Locke on the state of nature, etc. It really has nothing to do with "ends justifying the means", which is a wholly separate issue.
hiding information is different than intentionally spreading false information
Usually these go hand-in-hand. I.e., there's an "official story" that doesn't reflect so well "what really happened".
or, at the least, anti-religious people who claim religion is for idiots while supporting the policies of a person they identify as an idiot via religious affiliation
again, couldnt you same the same thing about all the evangelicals and catholics who voted for the mormon romney?
lying about faith to trick the population into supporting you is very immoral in my book
I disagree. I am not religious, so what does it matter to me what mythologies people use? The example of Lincoln comes to mind, as does the example of Jefferson. I'm not really sure you can call what their use of Christian terminology, etc. "lies".