Interesting. To paraphrase, "I haven't read it, but he's obviously a raving lunatic bigot." Sounds like another well informed opinion. Most people at least read the book before offering a book review. Guess that isn't necessary with material that questions the religious right.
M. Widrick should apologize not for having read only the NY Times' review of Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy, but for not having read it well. Far from being "another secular liberal bigot, like most of the liberal baby boomers," the review makes it clear that Mr. Phillips was a committed conservative who worked in Richard Nixon's administration. Mr. Phillips' first book The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) predicted a shift in American voting patterns that would establish a Republican majority among officeholders whose lawmaking would then reverse the "secular liberalism," if you chose to call it that, of the hippie generation. So, as the review makes clear, there is nothing in Mr. Phillips' background that identifies him as a secular liberal. Instead, American Theocracy may well show him to be a conservative apostate - a man who has seen the conservative victory he predicted 35 years ago come to pass and is now horrified by what he sees. He is hardly the first conservative to make the argument that conservatives in government have abandoned the conservative vision, viz. David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics (1976), any number of speeches by Pete Peterson over the last three years, William Crystal on Republican/conservative fiscal irresponsibility under our current president, etc. While it's a fact that true-believers hate apostates most of all, at least hate Mr. Phillips for the right reason.
I agree with the comment 'Man in the Middle' made. Perhaps it would be better Mr. Widrick if you would actually read the book before condemning it. Instead of countering the author's comments about Southern Baptists with hyperbole of your own, perhaps it would be more productive to evaluate how the author comes to that conclusion and make your arguements there.
And on the subject of critical evaluation of arguements, where is the support to back up your claim that the desire for a religious act, potentially exclusively Christian in action, mandated within a federally funded institution such as our public schools, is in any way held by the majority. And being so, how does it not violate the separation between religion and goverment that is a part of the founding ideals of this nation. You see 'Taliban' as an insult, yet you support a Christian version of such in America? Now who has the double standard.