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.
Editor’s Note: If you would like to read more pros and cons on voting for President Trump, further essays on the subject, each from a different perspective, can be found here, here, here, here, here and here. These articles, and the one below, reflect the views of the individual authors, not of the ... Read More