In debating socially responsible investing with Lucy Bernholz, she has me at an unfair disadvantage; she knows what she is talking about, whereas I am just learning. What concerns me, all over America today, is our increasing retreat, each of us, into ideologically airtight communities. I have a friend here in Dallas who watches FOX news closely, in order to learn the talking points. He then writes strongly worded emails to colleagues and letters to the editors of what he calls "the liberal press," to set them straight. Recently he refused to visit Canada because he said, "I will not support a socialist economy with my money." As for his personal budget, he tries to spend it only Christian businesses. He has a dentist, doctor, roofer, yard guy, pool guy, all vetted for their Fundamentalist beliefs and practices. Business can make us more urbane, more cosmopolitan. It can help us overcome our doctrinal or tribal narrowness. It concerns me to see Lucy on a Jihad about social investing, when her conception of it is drawn from Jed Emerson and Calvert, rather than from, say, The Christian Coalition, or The Capital Research Center, who might very well develop their own "screens." Soon we will have doctrinal purity, cut along who knows how many tribal lines, with investment managers having to cater to the ideologues of who knows how many sects, each with their own sense of which companies are pure, and which impure. Purity and Danger is a good book too, as is Leviticus, with its many prohibitions. When intellectuals set themselves up as priestesses, or priests, who will separate for us the clean from the unclean, I get nervous, because such conversations generally end with sacrifice, and I am often proposed (as in Lucy's recent post) as a good enough victim.