Among other things your argument takes a reductivist approach that equates the rules in Leviticus with taboos related to death. All cultures have a taboo against mixing the living and dead. But what’s particularly interesting about Leviticus is how specific it gets over bizarre and seemingly trivial things like never eating “animals that neither walk nor fly but hop and crawl…,” etc. I remember reading a ‘structuralist’ analysis of Leviticus which argued that its various prohibitions are targeted at anything that threatens the clear demarcations in early-man’s categories in nature…(which really has nothing to do with materialism per se) My point is that multiple interpretations of Leviticus exist; indeed anthropologists love this text precisely because it defies the sort of oversimplification you exhibit above.

Also, your equation of liberalism and materialism reveals your narrow view of political philosophy (based on one Medved lecture apparently). Certain strands of liberalism became materialist (such as national socialism--especially Marxism) but the dominant strand, obsessed with ‘inherent’ human and individual rights, comes from varied thinkers like John Lock, Kant, etc. They were usually obsessed with ‘reason’ but on the whole their ideas were no more “materialist” than most post-Enlightenment movements…Besides, determinism and free-will are obviously in conflict but free-will and materialism are not mutually exclusive, let alone materialism and “the moral life.”

I find your examples unconvincing. According to liberals, homosexuality, promiscuity, violence and global warming are all miasmic “natural” forces, right? Well what about addiction? Why is selling drugs illegal? What about “temptation” to pornography on the internet? Sound like just a few of the many conservative “tumah” issues to me: “Goodbye unique position of freedom.” By the way, affirmative action is not about “people trapped by naturally-determined limitations associated with their skin color,” it’s about the social legacy of slavery, i.e. poor historical decision-making…. Anyway, in this section you start with a few selective examples meant to highlight the “materialist” thinking behind liberal issues, but then just resort to dull, undefended Libertarian tripe.