Touche, Jim.

I had not been watching the whole show, and never saw Rev. Wallis. (Perhaps he left early?) I was wondering why there were two ministers representing one "side" and only one on the other.

And you're right, I probably did exaggerate the reaction ~ what I wrote was probably a better description of my reaction.

That whole question is pretty complicated ~ when and whether it is appropriate for religious leaders and religious people to press their values in a political context. For those who believe that preemptive bombing, for example, or legal abortion, is out-and-out murder, opposition to public policy is not even an opiton, it's a duty.

(I continue to wonder why opponents of abortion so readily accept capital punishment and warfare-for-any-reason while the pacifist camp is OK with abortion, and why so many of us have allowed ourselves to be herded into one camp or the other.)

For what it's worth, I would have been disappointed with the choice of Rev. Al as representative of "my" side, but I was pleasantly surprised at his demeanor and performance.

Finally, in defense of Rev. Sharpton's interjection and my endorsement of it, I would strongtly argue that there is a world of difference between non-violent resistence and civil disobedience on the one hand (i.e., the political tactics of such "religious leftists" as Ghandi, Dr. King, the Berrigan brothers, etc.) and the more manipulative and surruptitious party-politics activities of Jerry Falwell and his ilk on the other. (Just my opinion, of course.) I certainly understand why a person of good faith would be disappointed at being "represented" by some of the most visible "Christian Right" personalities.