Good post. I often wonder what the Christian Right would do if, say, an Islamic presidential candidate in the U.S. would use the same religious language Huckabee uses as part of his campaign, with nuggets such as "Allah's army" and "soldiers for Mohammad".

Nevertheless, I would like for you to explain to me this phrase that you use to describe Huckabee's ilk: "This is not a primarily religious movement". I mean, they're motivated by a particular interpretation of a specific religion and they identify their opponents as being of a secular nature, so how can they not be religious? I know that most liberals (including myself) would like to think that religious activity differs from political activity, but for groups like this they are clearly both the same thing. Ergo, how are they not a religious movement?

It appears to me from the comments I'm reading here in response to my question is that it appears that the Religious Left claims that the Religious Right is too political to be religious, while the Religious Right feels that the Religious Left is not religious because it is not political enough.

Clearly, whatever language they use in their arguments, such as in the "Wedge Document", the Christian Right is motivated by religious belief. While their means my be political at times, their ends are clearly religious in nature. To call them political and not religious is to completely miss the point and only confuses the issue. In fact, you could say that the Christian Right enjoys blurring religious and political discourse when it suits them: think back to the court cases where the Christian Right has tried to preserve things such as Ten Commandments displays and "under God" in the pledge by arguing that they are NOT religious artifacts. But no matter what arguments and terminology they use, their end game is the same: preferential government treatment of their RELIGION and their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Furthermore, if churches aren't political entities, then why do they still qualify for tax-exemption?

BTW, if you believe that the Vatican is not political and is mostly religious, then ask yourself this: why HASN'T the Vatican reliquished its status as a nation in the United Nations? This status was originally given to the Vatican by facist leader Mussolini; you'd think that such an association would encourage the Vatican to distance itself from this kind of history by giving up its nation status, but it hasn't. It still has diplomatic immunity and still maintains embassies, just like a political body would. I'd wager, though, if you asked them why they won't give up the status of nation and its privileges, they'd probably tell you that this privileged status (one that no other religion's headquarters enjoys, BTW) is necessary to better serve Jesus--the same answer you'd probably get from Huckabee and his ilk when asked about their activities.