"Strick, did you read the two Sojourner Magazine articles I linked to?"

Yes, when it first came out. I was amused that it considers what Bush says too secular (though with religious overtones) and mistaken in the message of the Gospel while the article leading this considers Bush too religious and inaccurately a fundamentalist. Then it does essentially the same thing and misrepresents the intent of Matthew's plank-in-your-eye passage by applying it to nations and makes a lot of assumptions about what the administration's motivations that are at best conjecture. The only thing I could see they have in common is that they both have religious themes and don't like Bush. They're quite the opposite otherwise.

On the whole the Sojourner article was more rational, of course, and not given to offensive labels. What were you thinking?

IMHO (doing pdc one better, no doubt out of pride)