If you haven't read the entire Washington Post article cited by Jeffrey and simplexity below, you owe it to yourself to do so. From the bizarre to the comical to the self-serving to the merely offensive, it's chock-full of great quotes.

At first glance, it's tempting to agree with this assessment:

"This is a skirmish over religious pluralism, and the inclination to see it as a war against Christianity strikes me as a spoiled-brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position," said the Rev. Robert M. Franklin, a minister in the Church of God in Christ and professor of social ethics at Emory University.

and use it as a launching pad for some kind of snarky comment. But I'm sure the General will get around to that, and the article deserves some kind of serious consideration. The nub of the problem, it seems to me, is that:

White evangelicals make up about one-quarter of the U.S. population, and 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But three-quarters of evangelicals believe they are a minority under siege and nearly half believe they are looked down upon by most of their fellow citizens, according to a 2004 poll.

So that's 54 million people who think they're threatened by the culture, and 36 million status-conscious folks. The "War on Christians" conference may have only drawn 400 attendees, but there's no doubt they can tap into much wider sentiment.

It's worth repeating a bit of history here: while evangelicalism has roots as old as America itself, it wasn't until the movement shed its fundamentalist image in the 1950's that anything more radical than the genteel evangelical tradition of Methodism became socially acceptable. The rise of conservative evangelicalism largely tracks the rise of the modern Republican party, post-Goldwater. Why? Because in the new Republicans, evangelicals found good representatives for their ideological aspirations, which is to say, the ideas that both represent and constitute a social group. And as evangelicals advanced in socio-economic status, that connection only grew.

Some of the ideology was theological, and some were political. Most people trace the foundations of the Religious Right back to the Christian academies formed in the wake of desegregation: that's certainly how Jerry Falwell came to prominence. But we often forget that before those battles, conservative Christians took part in the Cold War, through identification with evangelists jailed for their beliefs behind the Iron Curtain. For a movement already prone to dualism, that had a lasting effect. If you listen carefully, especially when the topic of the "Clash of Civilizations" comes up, you'll hear Cold-War echoes in conservative Christian rhetoric.

It's fashionable - especially around blogtopia - to argue that "the problem with fundagelicals" is irrational dogma. But this doesn't really hold up to close inspection. Because what is problemmatic is not that conservative evangelicals often come at things from a very different perspective than the majority - we all have ways of reconstituting reality - but that their beliefs are so closely tied to the needs and desires of their community. To put it another way: you can argue against creationism on scientific grounds until you're blue in the face. It won't get you anywhere. Creationism - intelligent design, whatever - is about representing and defending a group of people, not an abstract concept. And until you get at what it is that group of people wants or needs, the controversy will continue. It's interest-group politics, not philosophical discourse.

That poses a political dilemma: how do you accomodate a sizable minority that's demonstrated a profound lack of interest in making a deal?

Look, I honestly believe that we are getting very close to a major political realignment in this country. It might not happen in 2006, but maybe in 2008, we will see the beginnings of a generation-long Democratic majority. And my hunch is that because security hawks have been thoroughly discredited and big business types tarnished with charges of corruption, the real drive of the opposition to that majority will come from these same conservative evangelicals. They're patient, and committed, and they feel like their backs are up against the wall. What do they have to lose?

Somehow or another, progressives are going to have to learn how to deal with ideological Christianity. You can call them "spoiled brats" if you like - it certainly seems apt, at least for the politicized leaders - but there are just too many of them to ignore. That doesn't mean, on the other hand, that progressives should "try to become more like them," or even spend too much time doing outreach to them. It may never be possible to bring them into a Democratic coalition.

But sooner or later, progressives will have to figure out what ideological Christians want - which is not always what they say they want - and deal with it.

Not give it to them.

Not deny it to them.

Deal with it. Without a game plan for addressing this ideology, a progressive majority is not sustainable over the long run, in my opinion. That means we'd better start thinking beyond these people:

Among the conference's speakers were former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) as well as conservative Christian leaders Phyllis Schlafly, Rod Parsley, Gary Bauer, Janet Parshall and Alan Keyes.

and start figuring out how we're going to address the ideology they represent.

Clarification: some people are getting thrown off by the term "deal." I'm not advocating negotiations with radicals. I'm saying that progressives need to have some kind of strategy for addressing this ideological block. And part of developing a strategy is to, you know, understand what your opponents' objectives are?