When it comes to discussing theistic skeptics, Martin Gardner is occasionally mentioned as an example. I'm quite sure that this happened at TAM8, though I can't remember exactly what they said about it.2 Martin Gardner's fideism was briefly described, and someone said that Martin Gardner is still cool because his belief is entirely untestable.
According to Wikipedia, tokenism is defined as "policy or practice of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, usually creating a false appearance of inclusive practices, intentional or not." To be honest, the skeptical movement's treatment of Martin Gardner strikes me as tokenism. To demonstrate, here are some similar statements:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say atheists deserve respect. They're not hurting anyone as long as they're not mocking my beliefs, like that Richard Dawkins guy (why's he so angry?).But maybe you don't think that these statements should be interpreted the same way. Maybe you think it's different with Martin Gardner because fideism really is the only possible form of theism which is compatible with skepticism.
People think I'm putting fiction down, but I love fiction! As long as it is science fiction and stays as true as possible to accurate science, I love fiction.
Of course I respect gay people! My best friend is gay, and that's cool with me since he doesn't do any of those annoying girly things.
Some say you can't be a skeptic who believes in a god, but just look at Martin Gardner! This doesn't disqualify him as a skeptic, because he's a fideist!
But I must disagree with this point of view, because, well, I disagree pretty strongly with fideism. I believe the act of forsaking reason for faith is very anti-skeptical in spirit. It doesn't matter how little evidence there is to bear on the question, you still shouldn't answer the question with faith.3
In short, I think fideism is very anti-skeptical, and yet I still consider Martin Gardner to be a personal hero and a hero to the skeptical movement. So why should I treat other forms of theism significantly differently? Fideism is a wrong belief and that is my opinion. And all my opinions are greatly influenced by skeptical thought, so I could definitely call it a skeptical opinion. But that's okay, because there is room for disagreement in skepticism.
There are limits, of course. If a skeptic believed in the miracles at Fatima, I might regard him/her with the same suspicion as I'd regard a skeptic who believes that UFOs must be visiting aliens. And not all wrong beliefs are made equal. But it is silly to highlight fideism as especially acceptable.
In general, I think the best path to inclusion is by accepting disagreements rather than shoving them under the rug in hopes that they'll disappear. If you shove them under a rug, it's not just the disagreements that will disappear, but the people who are doing the disagreeing as well.
1. See Martin Gardner's own words
2. To show that I'm not completely making this up, Hemant mentioned it in his TAM8 liveblogging. Randi states that JREF is not an atheist organization, and avoids untestable claims. Then Martin Gardner's belief in a god comes up, and Paul Kurtz refers to the belief as "charming".
3. For a more expanded opinion, see Robert Carroll.