Continuing The Debate
However, more exposition means that more people will pay attention, so I think it's better to clarify some aspects of what I wrote before being subjected to strawman arguments.
I am not part of the "religious right", and I don't even have a lot of sympathy for them. They believe in a god that cares about the universe and often meddles with it, while I do not. In actual fact, Christian and Jewish (and Hinduist, if you like) extremists do not belong to my side - which is Empiricism.
Yes, the "progressive left" definition is generalistic and imprecise. p-Idealists would be better, though even that one is far from perfect - and it has the other drawback of being known only to a small number of people. Moreover, there is a great deal of overlap between the two sets of persons.
No, I don't think that the p-Idealists want the Islamists to rule - though I am convinced that some of them loathe Empiricism to the point they'd accept even Islamism in its place. What I fear is that their behaviour will unintentionally give advantage to Islamists - because p-Idealists are actively working to reduce both the memetic and physical power of the Empiricist side. On the other side, the Islamists are memetically strong and trying to increase their physical power... so you see where this leads.
There are, finally, some points on which p-Idealists and Islamists agree quite strongly - even if they may formulate their theses in different terms, but those are subtle and at philosophical level. And I'll leave them for another day.