Saturday, August 16, 2008

Imitation: The Hightest Form of Flattery

It looks as though our blog has inspired a copycat...literally. Mr. Dan Atkinson, a Ph.D. candidate at Arizona State and self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist, has essentially declared war on American Creation by forming his own group blog entitled, American Creation 2.0. The blog's stated purpose is, "to counter the ridiculous secular nonsense regarding the religious history of America's founding." This virtual carbon copy of American Creation (at least in terms of the blog's appearance and not its content) has essentially fulfilled one of the primary goals we have always had at American Creation: to give a voice to every persuasion and perspective on this important historical topic.

17 comments:

Brad Hart said...

I especially liked the fact that he started his blog's visit counter at like 200,000. I guess he is worried that he might not get the visits any other way.

Nice job "plagiarizing" the hard work that Lindsey put in to making this blog look as good as it does. Can't you be original, Dan?

Jonathan Rowe said...

As an attorney, I can attest that we can sue him for copyright violation -- making an unauthorized "derivative work." Of course "parodies" are highly protected under fair use law. So Dan better keep the jokes comin' over there.

Dan Atkinson said...

Don't "flatter" yourself, Lindsey. It's more a mockery than a copy.

Don't worry, Brad. I'll have plenty of visitors.

As for the lawsuit, you would sue over a blog!!! Lame!

As for the rest of you, come on by my blog any time. It will be a very refreshing take on things.

Dan Atkinson said...

Just so you will relax, I made a few changes at the blog. No sense being exactly the same when our articles are sure to be quite different (I assure you).

Jonathan Rowe said...

Dan,

Heh. While my recitation of the law was accurate. No, I wouldn't sue but was joking myself (I/we really don't care enough about what you do; but I'm sure we'll continue to have fun with you as we do with OFT). But yes, if it is mockery (parody) then you'd probably be within the realm of fair use.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Dan, why you would want to write the same exact stuff for a smaller readership is beyond me. If you want to change minds, this is a fine place to start.

Your link to this blog labels it as "secular," but I for one argue against a "naked public square," and get a fair and respectful hearing, as you have---much fairer than is standard for the internet.

This blog is not "secular" as much as it's an open forum, and you appear to be vacating the marketplace of ideas.

And I'm still waiting for your reply on 1 Samuel 26.

bpabbott said...

Jon: "But yes, if it is mockery (parody) then you'd probably be within the realm of fair use."

Of course its a mockery ;-)

Well except that he is the only contributer there ... I notice his name is no longer listed as a contributer?

What did I miss?

Jonathan Rowe said...

What you missed was Mr. A couldn't take the heat.

bpabbott said...

Jon: "What you missed was Mr. A couldn't take the heat."

So did he not only start his own exclusive blog but also quit as a contributer here?

Pinky said...

.
Some people are unable to stand the light of day and so, they escape into the darkness.
.
And, call it the light.
.
Reclusive spiders.
.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes, that's it. And apparently he is going to recruit some likeminded folks like OFT who is busy writing his "book."

bpabbott said...

Jon: "[...] he is going to recruit some likeminded folks like OFT [...]"

Oh Joy! ;-)

No doubt this is the kind of blasphemy Denver hoped to avoid funding ;-)

Tom Van Dyke said...

I like Scalia's dissent in Locke:

When the State makes a public benefit generally available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline against which burdens on religion are measured; and when the State withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion, it violates the Free Exercise Clause no less than if it had imposed a special tax.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I like that sentiment too. I also liked Scalia's research in McCreary on America's "Civil Religion" until he argued that the Ten Commandments were part of the civil religion.

bpabbott said...

Jon,

Any idea what Scalia means by "civil religion"?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Well he didn't say "civil religion." Perhaps I'll reproduce my reactions to his post on McCreary and explain his thoughts. He did a good job at noting how the first 4 Presidents NEVER mentioned "Jesus Christ" when they publicly did their God talk.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, Jon, the suitability of the first 5 are arguable in the American FEDERAL context, but if we take them as a whole, they're grandfathered in.

The parsers shall be the death of us all.