Using my real name
Having put up a few posts under my real name already, I should introduce myself. Mine may be a familiar byline to some of you who follow issues of law and litigation; my main blog is Overlawyered, where I just did a post inviting readers to check out Secular Right. My leanings are more to the libertarian side (though conservative by libertarian standards) with some “Center-Right” thrown in. I’ve written for many well-known conservative periodicals and for a while did a column for Reason, where I explored frictions between religious and secular forces on the right here, here, and here, for example.
I am fascinated by the skill that some elements of the religious conservative movement have shown in adapting for their own use the paraphernalia of identity politics: the cultivation of a sense of being besieged and persecuted, the hair-trigger sensitivity to disrespect, the litigious legal defense groups, and so forth. Under it all, of course, may lurk genuine grievances, just as the identity blocs cultivated by the left also proffer some legitimate complaints worthy of redress. But it’s very different from the frame of mind associated until fairly recently with the conservative movement.
I get you, Mr. Olson, particularly when I consider the atheists who have recently been forced to resign from leadership positions in arts organizations.
I’m not certain the comparison is wholly fair, though it is likely accurate to a degree. In my experience, the recent (and it *is* quite recent) victim strategy of the religious right is an overdue attempt to re-gift some of what it’s been pandered for the last four decades. It doesn’t take a revolutionary to realise that reverse discrimination is, in fact, discrimination, and that falling to the ground with a cry of pain whilst grabbing your ankle is an effective strategy for either team in a heated match.
While idealists will scoff, and cry about “condescending to the enemy’s level”, a good pragmatist will admit that fire is best fought with fire.
Mr Shuller, your statement is appallingly misleading on many levels. The implication is that atheists are routinely barred from arts organisations because they are atheists, which of course is ludicrous (your un-provided anecdotal evidence notwithstanding).
Ironically, you’ve resorted to the very brand of turn-about accusation Mr Olson was lamenting.
Mr. Olson…
Religious freedom is the first right protected under the Bill of Rights? Surely even secularists don’t deny the pushing out of God from the public square. Yes President’s invoke “The Creator” etc. as civic religiosity, but religious expression is limited by the government all the time. Last time I checked — that’s number 1 no-no in our Bill of Rights. Some of the lawsuits are bogus no doubt, but where I can make a pretty convincing case race-based affirmative action is not Constitutional — lumping religious folks who are defending their rights with “identity politics” is pretty thin gruel. I love Overlawyered… I’ve not noticed a lot of litigious Christians on that site. In fact you’d be hard pressed to find Christians suing more than being sued I’d wager. I’d put a Ruth Chris steak on it.