Why, if not to characterize the "Christian Right" as believing as those of the "Christian Identity Movement" and the "Christian Patriot League" (and thereby to make the face of the "Christian Right" as more scary, more wacko) did Moyers include the description of them in his essay?

Why, when even Ebbie (who agrees with Moyers), agreed with my point that it is exceedingly rare to find an evangelical or a fundamentalist who believes as the small group that Moyers picked out as his example of the "Christian Right", did he choose THAT group as exemplary?   Why does one come away from that essay assuming that those two groups are large and powerful?

And why, if he didn't intend to make them exemplary, did you take them as such?

Do you really think that one would read Moyer's essay and not come away with the notion that his two examples were common examples of fundamentalist Christianity and that they were also empowered? Obviously you did: "The problem is that this "splinter cult group" is now in the position of making foreign policy."


I'm more than willing to admit that we are talking past each other. I'm just not sure that I am soley at fault here.

And I don't think it is I who exhibits the paranoia. I'm not the one seeing some great religious bogeyman (as Moyers has built it up) trying to bring on Armegedon. I'm the one saying that Moyers is the incendiary. And he is.