That [Group X] would be wise to be mindful of something does not entail that it is not so being. That I make such a claim invites the interpretation that I think it is not, but I meant my post to be construed more narrowly. I do not endorse everything Kathleen has said on this topic, and am not trying to defend, in general, what Shannen describes as Kathleen’s mission. I offered what seems to me the most sensible interpretation of the central thesis in Kathleen’s column today: the suggestion that we make arguments in non-religious terms. This strikes me as sensible because such arguments will not rest atop claims that are widely and acrimoniously disputed. I don’t claim that Kathleen’s suggestion is worth making only to religious conservatives. I think it is worth making to certain preachers of black-liberation theology, to mainline Protestants who justify welfarist policies with reference to the New Testament, etc. If I am to generalize about what religious people are actually doing, what I will say is that some argue poorly and others well, that this is true of all brands of religion, and that when religious conservatives lapse they pay a higher price for it owing to preexisting stereotypes about them (particularly among those who are most powerful in media and entertainment). I share Mark’s view that attacks on religious conservatives are troubling. Thanks to both Shannen and Mark for prodding me to clarify this.