I wish you'd reconsider your terminology. In your latest column, you say that the "Democratic Party has turned liberalism from a philosophy into a secular religion," and that liberals have instituted a "inquisition" against Joe Lieberman.

I find this line of reasoning offensive. First of all, the good members of the Church of Liberalism are too busy contradicting Genesis and using victim representatives to sanctify sex and death. That's quite a workload, and it doesn't even include our ongoing efforts to tear school children away from their prayers at the flagpole for forced same-sex marriages! Sometimes, I think if it weren't for brie and cheese, we just wouldn't be able to finish everything we start in a day.

As for inquisitions, well. As a progressive Christian, I have been accused many times of participating in the same institution that created the Inquisition. Never mind that that the last Inquisition was established over 500 years ago. I'm a Christian, which apparently means that I am liable for every wrong ever done in the name of Christ in the past 2,000 years. This makes cocktail parties very difficult. I'm sure you understand.

But here's my point: I need the Inquisition for intimidation purposes. Without it, the Church of Liberalism is likely to explode in chaos and anarchy: spontaneous peace songs, wife-swapping, contested primaries, and other episodes of civil disorder. Why, the only thing that holds back the rabid lambs is the threat of a good inquisition!

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. Boy, I'd really like to get Connecticut to legalize wacky tobaccy, deny the divinity of Christ, and put all citizens to work in the bit-mines of the Overlord Kos. Oh, and legalize man-on-dog sex too, just to get back at Rick Santorum. But I don't think we're going to get there if you give the rabble the idea that they can start an inquisition against Joe Lieberman. They'll toss him out too soon, and settle for halfway measures like demanding accountability from the Bush administration on Iraq and setting pharmaceutical policy for the benefit of the consumer, rather than well-connected drug companies. We can't have that. It hardly helps me work up a good froth around the mouth.

I'm going to need a good cudgel to keep these people in line. Please, Mr. Brooks, I'm begging you. I have the entire blogosphere arrayed against me. Let me keep the only weapon tool I have.

I know that it's terribly difficult for a highly-paid New York Times columnist such as yourself to keep all of this stuff straight, so I've included some photo illustrations:

This is an inquisition:

Whoops! This is an inquisition:

This is voters exercising their democratic rights:

The confusion is understandable.

Well, anyway, I hope this has been helpful.

Smoochies, Pastor Dan