Sometimes things aren’t what they appear to be. Such was the case of Salazar v. Buono at the Supreme Court today.

Attorneys from the ACLU, which represented Frank Buono in his challenge to a Christian cross atop a rock in the Mojave desert, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the AHA’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center were concerned that the Court might use this case to further restrict a person’s right to sue based on unwelcome contact with an inherently religious symbol on government property.

The good news is that the Court appears to want to sidestep this issue—thus continuing to permit such establishment clause challenges (for the present).

Instead, the Court appears poised to settle the case on the narrower issue of whether to affirm the 9th Circuit’s affirmation of an injunction ordering removal of the cross and preventing the land underneath the cross to be transferred to the Veterans of Foreign Wars under an Act of Congress.

Based on the vibrations I sensed during oral arguments and familiarity with past decisions of the Supreme Court, the outcome of the case appears to me too close to call with Justice Kennedy a swing vote, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomajor likely to vote to enforce the injunction ordering the cross to be removed, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voting to allow the land transfer to proceed so that the Christian cross may remain on the land.

In my opinion some justices, such as Justice Scalia, just don’t see Christian favoritism as a problem under the First Amendment. Clearly, they don’t enter through the front door, for high above it says: “Equal justice under the law.”

Today the Los Angeles Times contained an opinion piece by Neal Gabler, a biographer of Ted Kennedy, titled “Politics as religion in America.” In the piece Gabler argues that segments of the right have become dogmatic and zealous in their political beliefs.

According to Gabler,

For centuries, American democracy as a process of conflict resolution has been based on give-and-take; negotiation; compromise; the acceptance of the fact that the majority rules, with respect for minority rights; and, above all, on an agreement to abide by the results of a majority vote. It takes compromise, even defeat, in stride because it is a fluid system. As historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once put it, the beauty of a democracy is that the minority always has the possibility of becoming the majority.

Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, rests on immutable truths that cannot be negotiated, compromised or changed. In this, it is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy as we have practiced it in America. Democrats of every political stripe may defend democracy to the death, but very few would defend individual policies to the death. You don’t wage bloody crusades for banking regulation or the minimum wage or even healthcare reform. When politics becomes religion, however, policy too becomes a matter of life and death.

Gabler concludes by opining that “for the political fundamentalists, this isn’t political jousting, this is Armageddon. With stakes like that, they will not lose, and there is nothing democrats — small ‘d’ and capital “D” — can do about it.”

Drivel. Gabler’s argument rests on two assumptions that are simply without merit. First, he assumes that the right is unique in this “political fundamentalism”; he is wrong. Second, he believes that “political fundamentalism” is something new; it’s not.

“Political Fundamentalism” is a vague term. For Gabler it seems to refer to political beliefs that are held with religious fervor. Insofar as one truly holds a religious belief—so let’s exclude many people of faith who are, for lack of a better description, hypocritical—it inherently taints one’s political beliefs. Take Christianity as an example. The Gospels (in the broad sense of the term, the Good News) are political in nature. Jesus walked with lepers, prostitutes, and other outcasts. But most importantly, to me at least, he taught that “the poor would be poor no more” (this is a line I heard Sister Helen Prejean say at a book talk and have never forgotten). These are political messages, challenging the castes of the age and promising a better world for the downtrodden. While this isn’t directly related to health care (although he did heal), taxation (although tithes are still compulsory in countries with state-supported churches), or the place of the state (although the Romans did adopt Christianity and states made war in the name of it), Jesus was reshaping the polity; and it is undeniable that he was successful in that endeavor, even if the results were arguably malign.

While I interpret Christianity, as do many, as requiring certain benevolent political viewpoints, I realize Gabler’s issue is not with the religious, but with those for whom politics becomes like faith. But Gabler never defines how large this group is, names a single member, or anything else; we just know that they are the fringe right. But is there not a fringe left as well? Good luck convincing a Wobblie that capitalism is anything but an evil that must be opposed even at the cost of life. Has the Animal Liberation Front not violently destroyed property and life in the name of animal rights? No matter how reasonable one argues, you will never convince half of Hollywood that the Republican Party is anything but a blight to be fought with all one’s resources.

Furthermore, such virulent political stances are as old as the United States itself. America is born out of the Sons of Liberty, and the Declaration of Independence was signed despite the fact that Britain had shown a willingness to compromise and backed down on many of the taxes. Lincoln was shot over politics, as was Alexander Hamilton. You couldn’t compromise with McCarthy, Malcolm X, or Ross Perot. Martin Luther King held his political beliefs so zealously he even had the gumption to attribute them to God.

No, Mr. Gabler, you have provided no insight into the current political discourse. What we have seen in the last decade was the over-reach stage of conservatism. Liberalism had its stage too, think of the 1968 protests in Chicago. Many of the hardcore and uncompromising members of Congress have lost their seats, Gingrich is gone, and 2006 was a “thumpin’” for republicans.  Relax Neal, it’s just politics.