This week, goes to Hope for Peace and Justice:

Religious dialogue is so dominated by conservative churches, denominations and para-church organizations that the average American is left believing that radical conservative views are the only ones held by spiritual people.

A sentence like this tells us quite a lot about the psychology of the one writing.

The word "radical", when used in a political (not chemical) sense, refers to extremes; originally used to describe those who wanted to "dig up the root" of society and replace it.

The word "conservative" refers to the preservation of the existing order. And the admission that such views "so dominate" is a similar admission of the obvious: that most religious organizations believe what they have always believed. Which is radical and extreme, apparently. Despite being typical and historical.

A look at "Hope for Peace and Justice's" "issues" sheds even more light on the situation. They seek the "creation of a culture of peace" (implying a change), to change our country's spending priorities, to "redress" existing "economic inequalities", to change the definition of marriage (though again stated as though others were doing the changing), they seek "healthcare as a civil right for all" (healthcare is not currently a civil right), and the abolition of the death penalty.

Whether you agree with these things or not, some of these goals certainly would be radical changes. Never in history have we viewed marriage as a "right", much less called two men "married" and backed that representation with all the force of law. Never in history have we viewed "healthcare" as a "civil right", such that failure to compel others to provide a drug or operation would be the legal equivalent of the government tossing someone in jail for unpopular speech.

But it says something that this contingent both seeks to promote change, yet also displays a fundamental unwillingness to simply admit what they are doing, instead deploying incoherent labels like "radical conservative" to project their own radicalism onto mainstream groups who fail to fall into line behind them.