Stanley: First, I think you’re conflating two different points I made–let me try to explain myself more clearly. I think that there are times when a conservative Christian should make a public argument that does not incorporate all the things he might believe from an “internal” point of view. One might regard other people as not being “real Christians” without saying so in public. But that’s not my criticism of the FRC. It doesn’t just suggest that the filibusterers are against “real Christians” or “Christians.” It suggests that they’re against “people of faith and moral conviction.” I don’t think it’s defensible for someone to regard, say, pro-choice Jews as not being religious and morally principled even from the “internal” point of view.

Second: I wouldn’t have any problem with an ad campaign saying that the Democrats were trying to keep faithful Catholics or traditional Christians off the bench. I think such an ad campaign could be effective, and would certainly still generate controversy and buzz. But even if I were to concede that such a campaign would be less effective than one saying Democrats were hostile to people of faith–a doubtful proposition, given the “effectiveness” of FRC’s p.r. campaign so far–so what? I don’t think people should be making indefensible claims in order to increase their political effectiveness, and I’m sure you don’t think that either.