The more I think about it the more I think this reader is right (though I did say from the outset that the “deplorability” of “recruiting” depends on the details):

Jonah- I found your objection to Derb’s post on Xy and the Enlightenment very interesting. It seems to me that once you call it “recruiting” historical figures to a “cause,” you’ve defined it in such a way that it’s always objectionable, even if in particular cases it’s accurate or verifiable or reasonable. That somebody objects to one’s “recruitment” of an historical figure doesn’t make the connection wrong. I’m sure there are many people who would object to a Christian’s claim that Jesus was the first Christian. It depends on what you mean by the term in a modern context. My point is that it’s not very helpful to say that, as a general practice or habit, “recruiting” historical figures to one’s cause is wrong. Sometimes it’s wrong, sometimes it’s not. It seems to me perfectly legitimate, e.g., to say that Edmund Burke was the first modern conservative, even if there are reasonable (though ultimately unpersuasive) objections to that instance of “recruitment.”