[T]he right response to works of literature that reduce themselves to a political agenda, that use fiction as a literary form primarily to reinforce political attitudes, is to point out that this is the debasement of literature, not to further contribute to its debasement by imitation. The notion that there can be either “liberal fiction” or “conservative fiction” is antithetical to the very existence of literature as a form of art, the experience of which should enhance the reader’s appreciation of the complexities of human experience, not undermine it in the name of dogma and ideology.
[W]hile the religious right views religion as a fundamental, and indeed essential, part of the human experience, the secular left views it as something more like a hobby, so for them it’s as if a major administrative rule was struck down because it unduly burdened model-train enthusiasts. That emotional disconnect makes it hard for the two sides to even debate; the emotional tenor quickly spirals into hysteria as one side says “Sacred!” and the other side says, essentially, “Seriously? Model trains?” That shows in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, where it seems to me that she takes a very narrow view of what role religious groups play in the lives of believers and society as a whole.