The author's choice of the word "Taboo" refers to the game called "Taboo" described in the first paragraph. It does not imply any special ideological stance.
It's clear that the author is not referring to the game Taboo:
> The illusion of unity across religions can be dispelled by making the term "God" taboo, and asking them to say what it is they believe in; or making the word "faith" taboo, and asking them why they believe it.
He chooses to not represent certain things in language, but if we are operating in a situation where science has not or cannot make firm pronouncements, how do we act? The approach he is presenting is akin to just slicing off the fuzzy corners of a map, since by his estimation the clear parts are the only _real_ map. How we cut off those chunks of the map is arbitrary, and in that sense belies the ideological background of whoever employs this technique.
