The leftists get a lot of credit that they don't deserve:

One thing I find a bit more reassuring about the left is that it tends to be more secular, and more willing to take on the great religious murderers, if not the great secular murderers like communism. The great enemy today is not communism, though, it is fanatic Islamofascist savagery, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I am at a loss as to who these "great religious murderers" are. Considering the fact that arguably with the exception of the Armenian genocide, every genocide of the twentieth century was launched by secular governments or militias, it would seem that there is a dirth of religious murderers on par with any secular government. Now, granted, one can leap head first into the sophistic argument that since most of these societies were christianized, that the secular trappings and ideologies of their governments can be cheerfully ignored.
But, you know what? As bad as the genocides in Sudan were/are, last I heard a total of around 2M-2.1M between Darfur and the pagan and Christian south, the slaughters in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were worse. Those are only the tip of the iceberg of what secularists have done. If anything, the sheer fact that secular institutions massacred over 150,000,000 by some counts in the 20^th century makes it pointless to talk about the "great religious murderers."

"Born-again" religious Christian George W. Bush seems singularly ill-equipped to wage war on a fellow religion, and even stumbles along, in the face of every single bit of evidence, proclaiming Islam a religion of "peace," and its deep-pockets enablers, the Saudis, our "best friends." And we don't even need to delve too deeply into Bush and his family's long, murky, and ongoing financial involvement with the Saudis to feel strong misgivings about his committment to defend the US against these religious fanatics.

This has nothing to do with George W. Bush's proclaimed faith, and everything to do with his political correctness. Yes, Bush is politically correct about a lot of things. The very fact that he cannot take on border security as a major component of his so-called "War on Terror" alone should serve as ample evidence that his professed faith has nothing to do with his lack of a spine.

I doubt that Bill Quick is trying to imply that religious people in general, Christians in particular, are hamstrung in going after other religions, but it cannot be said enough that Bush's public exercises of his faith has been... lacking. Bush's actions on security issues prove that he has a tenuous faith in the Judao-Christian teaching that human nature is corrupt and must be checked by law. The whole "wink and 'trust me'" style of the Bush Administration has been remarkably non-Christian in its view on what can--and will--happen when authority figures are not subject to oversight in their use of legal powers.

The real problem that we have is that most Americans don't want to hear the ugly truth that simply barring immigration or visits from predominantly Islamic countries would do more to protect us than all of the NSA surveillance and USA PATRIOT Act crap combined. We can't tell what's inside a Muslim's heart, and Muslims seem to be the only group that wants to wage unlimited war against our people enough to fly over here to do it. It logically follows that deporting all foreign nationals who are adherents of Islam, and ending all immigration from Islamic countries would not only keep out most potential terrorists, but serve as the most effective way to respect the rights of American citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.