I’m recently returned from a short trip to Portland, Oregon. I was fortunate enough to gain an interview at the very impressive Lewis & Clark College. There i met many people, four of whom scared the bejesus out me, but i’m getting ahead of myself.

Lately I’ve been engrossed in “athiest literature.” This is probably the only time i’ve been engaged with something labeled as “in vogue.” However it is true, i’ve been reading the works of “the three athiests” with gusto. The great professor emeritus Stanley Fish has been reading and writing quite a bit of late addressing the claims and statements of “the unholy trinity” too. I’ve been a third-rate follower of Prof. Fish ever since my undergrad years at Allegheny were i read “Is There a Text in This Class” as part of the requirements for a contemporary philosophy class. I confess his blog in the New York Times makes a bit more sense than his textbook. Maybe the fact i’m twice as old now and no longer quite as scared of being outed as an intellectual charlatan helps as well.

Yet i’ve made it a point to read every one of his columns dealing with religious v. secular thought and politics. Imagine my surprise today when, reading the Fish blog, i come across this:

In a similar vein, Tom Krattenmaker, who studies religion in public life, wonders why, given their celebration of open-mindedness and critical thinking, secularists “so frequently leave their critical thinking at the door” when it “comes to matters of religion?” Why are they closed-minded on this one subject?

Following the link in the original text i jumped to Krattenmaker’s piece what was published in USA Today [random quotes reproduced]

Discussing the relationship between science and religion, I had expressed my view that religion should leave scientific research to the scientists and devote itself, along with the fields of ethics and philosophy, to the mighty issues of the human condition: good and evil, the meaning of life, the nature of love and so forth. To which my correspondent replied: Why would something as inherently foolish as religion deserve a place at the table for discussions of that magnitude?

As someone who has studied religion and attended progressive churches, I was aghast. I had expected an articulate and intelligent advocate for the non-religious worldview to display a more nuanced understanding of that which she stood against.

But what really lit me up was this:

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors. He is working on a book about Christianity in professional sports.

As if the memorable name wasn’t enough the author blurb confirmed the author as the person i had just spent time with in interviews. Your reaction could easily be “yeah, and?” and you would be correct, but from where i sit this is about as close as one can come to a vindit.

So, to return to my original story, i interviewed at L&C College and, as we traded information, i eventually opted to remove myself from consideration for the job in question. However finding Tom Krattenmaker now surfacing in a column i’ve been following for years, dealing with a topic of growing importance to me, having met Tom Krattenmaker (as of this writing) three days ago, and then declining further involvement with his institution i cannot help but feel i’ve just passed a pivotal moment, a “beat” in the plot, a “Run Lola Run” incident that will probably haunt me for a while.