Thanks for your thought out comment. I will respond as best as I can with limited time.
"Was it an argument that America's Catholic Christian colleges are corrupted with faculty and administrations that teach, advocate, and play host to those who publicly profess hostility to Catholic Christian values?"
YES (But not a blanket statement as I don’t have experiences with other Catholic Christian colleges)
"Was it that many RCIA programs have strayed from their purpose of teaching the Catholic Christian faith and into political indoctrination?"
YES (I don’t generalize that “many,” programs have this problem, but I suspect it.)
"Was it a complaint about the prevalence of moral relativism in American culture?"
YES
"Was it an anti-abortion tract?"
TANGENTIALLY YES
"Or was the post simply spread too thin by trying to make a book-length set of related arguments and squeeze it all into a blog-post length format?"
SOMEWHAT
"I'm inclined to believe the difficulty I have in grasping the argument is due to the latter."
Probably, although I think you did grasp most of the points very well. The post as you can see did not start as a post, but as an actual interaction with a friend of mine. It was edited very little from that original format. The correspondence occurred months before I created a blog, I added it for two reasons:
1) I created a blog and wanted stuff on my blog.
2) The Democratic candidates are doing exactly what the article says they will do. What they really started doing in small ways 5 minutes after the 2004 election ended. They are pretending to be religious, and then telling religious people what their values should and shouldn’t be. See how Time magazine is helping them out this week:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1642649-2,00.html# It is evil to try to convince others that good is evil and evil is good. That is what the Democrats are doing now and it is what some churches and religious schools are also doing.
Their arguments are all about societal social responsibility. This is not a bad argument in itself. The problem is that their purpose is not to increase social responsibility, but to increase elect-ability. Therefore to reflect their (& the base’s) positions on issues, they must also argue (either outright or by implication) against the existence of personal sin, and against the natural moral law. Hey, they are saying, I am pro-abortion and religious too! They invite their audience to mimic these twisted values.
So, probably not being any clearer than I was originally: The overarching point of the blog is that we need to vigorously oppose the “social justice” movement.
A secular religion is being created by the left wing sounding board and it is based on the DNC platform. Anyone defining the significant religious/moral issues of the day in terms of the environment, and ending the war, and helping the poor – while downplaying or justifying legal abortion, sexual immorality, stem cells, and other traditional moral issues, needs to be called out as playing God.