Question of the Day

From Today's New York Times, on Ted Haggard:

When Mr. Haggard was elected three years ago as the National Association of Evangelicals’ president, the magazine Christianity Today hailed him as a new kind of evangelical who could revive a flagging organization.

He was younger, less formal and more moderate than many of the bigger names in conservative Christianity. He was soon pushing to add issues like global warming, poverty and genocide in Darfur to the movement’s traditional agenda of opposition to homosexuality and abortion.

My question: Since when does being against mass murder and being against the destruction of the planet qualify a person as being a "moderate"? Shouldn't global warming, genocide and poverty be some of those "we all agree on" issues that trascend labels?

The fact that it is not, and would take a "moderate" to push it on the conservative evangelical agenda, is shameful.