Thanks Eric.

You're certainly right that moral authority doesn't necessarily have to be religious. Philosopher made the same point in the comments to my post. Moral authority can come from many sources, such as life experience (I think the labor movement is a good example). I think the reason both Whelan and I picked the church is that we're both insiders and think the church HAS a role to play as a balance against the more corrupt powers of this age in this world, though, as you point out, he thinks we're much further down the road to totalitarianism than you or I do. In reading his blog, you can tell he dallies with liberation theology on occasion.

Still, I can't help but feel that the church's desire for insider political power has drained it of moral gravitas. Non-partisanship is important to being a moral force. One way to dismiss some one out-of-hand is to smear someone as a "lefty" or a "fascist" (or Communist as in the case of MLK). Do that, and you don't even have to bother answering their criticisms! Are we too in league with Caesar?

Public intellectuals with mainstream or middle-of-the-road political views are a rarity these days, but they might have done the job in an earlier time, including someone like Will Durant or Albert Einstein.

Yah. I remember the British thought the same thing-- no moral authority here in the colonies, just a bunch of farmers with pitchforks. Then they came over for some tea.

"Public intellectuals with mainstream or middle-of-the-road political views are a rarity these days..." I don't really know what's meant by "mainstream" here, such that this claim is true. The issue isn't really the _views_ they hold but the _partisan identity_ that they operate under. (I take this to be similar to what Eric means in his third paragraph.)