Don,

The article that you posted makes my point.

What I keep trying to point out is that Wallis' accusation that the "religious right" does not believe in caring for the poor is false from the very beginning...

1. It is based on his perception of the "right's" lack of support for governmental programs -- assuming, a priori, that...

A)that is the only means by which one would express their care for the poor, and accepting, a priori, that...

B)that governmental means is the best means, and...

C)assuming no possibility that one could be, in good faith, percieving good in both public and private aid -- but determining a different balance of the two as more effective.

2. It is proven false by the very fact that Falwell, Land, and Colson ( the four "reps" for the "religious right" ) are ACTIVELY involved in very large programs that are specifically aimed at caring for the poor.

Wallis even goes so far as to say that the "religious right" doesn't offer support of pregnant women so as to give another option. That's just patently false. I can give you the names of any number of organizations that will give full support to women who cannot support themselves through the pregnacy, and will, further, provide adoption services.

Wallis' appeal is the appearance of even-handedness. A cool head in a hot situation. But his premises are false. And he is JUKING his condemnation of the left (he doesn't expect them to change -- that's obvious by his own acceptance of their ideology), while ACTUALLY condemning the right.