"One of the reasons liberals believe evangelicals lack moral gravitas is because we don't attach our beliefs to our purchases like an overpriced service plan," you write. Quite the contrary. You and many others lack moral gravitas because your beliefs don't extend beyond the church walls. What good are your beliefs if you so willingly abandon them in the name of mindless consumerism or, in your words, "the sheer accumulation of stuff"? Yes, Wal-Mart offers aisle after aisle of inexpensive merchandise. And yes, millions of Americans - myself included - shop or have shopped there. More often than not, economics or geography play a large role in determining where one's next purchase will take place. That said, I fault those, like you, whose consumer behavior exhibits a spiteful neglect of reality, and whose attitudes prove that it's far easier to be against something than for anything.

Your column is less a criticism of so-called liberal smugness than an ode to purposeful negligence. You write that Wal-Mart increases the standard of living "for millions of working class Americans," yet you neglect the inconvenient truth that your retail paradise does far more harm than good. Consider that far too many Wal-Mart associates live below the poverty line, earning nowhere near enough to support a family. Nearly 800,000 of Wal-Mart's approximately 1.39 million American employees aren't covered by the company's restrictive, costly health care plan. A report found that in counties where Wal-Mart has had a retail presence for at least 30 years, the average store reduced per-person earnings by 5 percent. Wal-Mart's workers in China, a nation from which the consumer giant purchased $18 billion in goods in 2004, filed a lawsuit last year "claiming that they were not paid the legal minimum wage, not permitted to take holidays off and were forced to work overtime. They said their employer had withheld the first three months of all workers' pay, almost making them indentured servants because the company refused to pay the money if they quit." Wal-Mart faced the largest-ever class action lawsuit for gender discrimination, was hit with the largest-ever immigration-related fine for its use of undocumented workers and has been forced to settle child labor charges. "[I]nadequate health care and low wages" are not the liberal perception. They are the reality.

It saddens me that yours is the counter-argument most frequently essayed against progressives. It exemplifies lazy thinking, but more importantly it mocks the gravity of real issues. Real, serious issues like consumer behavior and its effects, the declining standard of living and the abuse of the environment require serious discussion, not a discussion shrouded in dishonest stereotypes. If the last six years have taught us anything, it's that divisive rhetoric and tilting at straw men are no way to solve our problems. What does shopping at Urban Outfitters, Williams-Sonoma and IKEA have to do with being a liberal? Were those the first three stores that came to mind when you were trying to broad-brush progressives as elitist, latte-drinking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging limousine liberals? Your ad hominems, like your examples of our typical purchases - African tribal art, high-energy protein bars and scented candles - are ridiculous and trite.

You criticize liberals for seeking "to feed the desire for significance," for feeling smug, for viewing "consumer goods as a method of showcasing benevolence." But what you're saying points to a confusion between conscious consumerism and personal style. Sure, you can find certain products at both Wal-Mart and places like Urban Outfitters, Williams-Sonoma and IKEA. Many people, however, make the choice to buy those products at the latter outlets. Why? Personal style. This is not to be confused with purposely choosing to make moral choices while shopping. These - buying compact fluorescent bulbs to limit the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for instance - can be made everywhere. Even Wal-Mart. But let's assume for the purposes of argument that you're right, and those smug liberals do indeed shop to, as you say, "Save the Planet". What's worse? Being smug while trying to make the world a better place, or being smug while despoiling the world around you in the name of cheap goods?

Also, can we please put to rest the concept of "Blue Staters" and "Red Staters"? Besides, how would you characterize me, a lifelong Ohioan? Was I a Red Stater when Ohio trended Republican? Am I only now a Blue Stater because Buckeye State voters put Democrats back in power? It's not that I don't know why you use these terms; I do. It's that these terms are, for you, mere shorthand for two opposite belief systems. One is a philosophy that champions crass consumerism, that brands those mindful of the consequences of their behavior as smug elitists and that considers "I gave at the church" the totality of one's obligation to others, a notion Jesus scoffed at when he told a wealthy man that, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." The other is a philosophy that realizes that everything we do (including what we buy and where we buy it) has an effect on the world at large, that doing good - no matter the reason - is a welcome prospect and that the responsibility to leave the world a better place than you found it has no restrictions. The latter doesn't make one a Blue Stater any more than the former makes one a Red Stater. It's about caring. Either you do or you don't.

It doesn't surprise me, either, to find a disconnect in your thinking between faith-based concern for others and a concern for others showcased in the check-out line. If you do, indeed, donate to causes like the "African AIDS victims" and "children enslaved by the global sex trade" you mention, how does it make you feel - as a self-confessed conservative and someone who must, in some way, support the current administration - to see your giving repeatedly undercut by the very candidates, initiatives and philosophies you support at the ballot box? Your money may go to "African AIDS victims", but the administration you support is counterbalancing your generosity in some very tangible, very tragic ways. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Bush-supported "ABC" programs - for "Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms" - are hurting Uganda's once-successful battle against HIV/AIDS. According to the report, "The Less They Know, the Better: Abstinence-Only HIV/AIDS Programs in Uganda", vital information regarding condoms, safe sex and marriage and HIV have been removed from primary school curricula. At both the secondary-school level and at U.S.-sponsored rallies, falsehoods persist about condom use and premarital intercourse. "These abstinence-only programs leave Uganda's children at risk of HIV," said researcher Jonathan Cohen, one of the report's authors. "Abstinence messages should complement other HIV-prevention strategies, not undermine them."

Your money may go to "children enslaved by the global sex trade", but the administration you support owns a shameful track record in this regard. A 2005 Associated Press story cites the president as deciding to "waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia ... for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers." One year later, in nearby Iraq, an IRIN-reported story noted that "Thousands of Iraqi women are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous sex worker traffickers seeking to exploit young girls' desperate socio-economic situation for profit". These two stories don't even delve into the most blatant example of related conservative wrongdoing. Tom DeLay, on behalf of Jack Abramoff, helped keep in place special labor laws for Saipan (the largest island in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) that led female sweatshop workers to face forced abortion and forced prostitution. Said DeLay, after touring several garment factories (where the clothes earn the "Made in USA" designation), "You represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America." Despite Wal-Mart's claim that it "does not conduct business with factories in Saipan", a 1999 complaint filed in California Superior Court would suggest otherwise. "During the last four years," it read, "defendant Wal-Mart has shipped into the U.S.A. through ports located in California an estimated 7.3 million pounds of garments worth an estimated wholesale value of $43.8 million, manufactured in sweatshops located in the CNMI."

So, you may showcase your benevolence by donating to these very worthy causes, but you give even more freely to repulsive perversions of all that is just, in exchange for "the sheer accumulation of stuff - the cheaper the better." Sure, you appreciate the inexpensive goods you're able to buy at the local Wal-Mart, but your spend first, ask questions later philosophy conveniently ignores the damage your behavior does. Your article, written in an effort to simultaneously pat yourself on the back while ridiculing progressives, inadvertently accomplishes the opposite, because neither ignorance nor negligence are virtues. Here's the bottom line: It's about being an informed consumer and, by extension, an informed citizen. You, sadly, have purposely chosen not to be an informed consumer, believing instead that your faith-based generosity is enough. It's not. Not only because whatever good works you can claim are betrayed by actions of those you support, but also because we can no longer afford not to take a universal approach to making the world a better place.  You tell us you're "raising little capitalists". You're not. You're raising poor citizens.

Most unfortunate is that they - not you - will pay for your disgraceful attitude. For they will inherit a society and an earth ridden with the cancer that you allowed to spread. They will face unthinkable shortages and restrictions because you were too busy with the "sheer accumulation of stuff" to notice what you were doing and who you were hurting. They will look back at you and wonder why you failed to make even the most minute decisions that would have resulted in a much different outcome. Doing the right thing isn't hard. Nor is it expensive. You don't have to buy a Prius or completely retrofit your house to make a difference. It can be as simple as teaching your children to unplug their PlayStation 2 when it's not in use or making sure your car's tires are properly inflated. Even bringing reusable shopping bags the next time you visit Wal-Mart helps. But what's not helping is an unprincipled, immoral ideology like yours.

They have a whole different word for that. Evil.