I don’t buy this multiple-frames argument, Stanley. First of all, the fact that some “traditional Christians” consider themselves to be the only people who have faith or are religious is part of the problem. The assumption is presumptuous and insulting, and not exactly a great place from which to start engaging the broader culture. I have no objection to a church, or faction within that church, that argues that its understanding of Christianity is the only true Christianity. I don’t think it makes sense to organize politically on that basis, but that position doesn’t strike me as necessarily offensive. (I myself believe that the church to which I belong most fully embodies Christian truth; that’s why I belong to it.) But to suggest that other people who consider themselves Christians–and non-Christian religious believers–are not even people of faith and moral conviction is indefensible. As for the FRC’s “fundamental point”: Maybe we should judge what that fundamental point is by looking at its own headline, which is “Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith.” They make it sound as though the filibuster fight were between the godly and the godless. It seems as though you are saying that we have to understand that these are conservative Christians with their own special dialect, and we can’t judge their words by the rules of standard English. Maybe I am hopelessly trapped in standard English, but that sounds like multicultural special pleading.