The newest column tries to make the case that the Huffington Post is creating a religion blog whose aim is to bash Christians. The writer of the piece, Carolyn Plocher, gives a few examples of writings on the Huffington Post as proof.
And one of the examples is a recent piece I wrote:
Other articles attempted to paint Christians as intolerant radicals by hyping abstract stories about individuals, such as Janet Porter, the president and founder of Faith2Action, praying for the "Christian takeover" of the media. Alvin McEwen wrote he'd be "remiss" if he didn't point out that Porter said this prayer "in front of a huge multitude during one of those dreary we have to save American values from the forces of secular evil conferences which religious right organizations seem to hold more often than World Wrestling Entertainment hosts wrestling pay-per-views."
For the record, I was not aware that the Huffington Post was considering creating a religious blog and regardless, my piece was not a part of that. Furthermore, I don't think I need to paint Porter or anyone who supports her as an "intolerant radicals." Seems to me when someone prays to God to take something away from someone else and give it to them, I don't necessarily think that person can be described as following the Golden Rule.
But for the sake of conversation, you be the judge on whether or not Porter and those who support her (and coached her loudly during this prayer) come across as "intolerant radicals:"
What galls me is the fact that someone actually thinks this sort of madness needs to be defended and that somehow calling attention to what Porter did during a huge event attended by other noted religious right dignitaries - hardly "abstract" - is somehow bashing Christianity.
If Porter's arrogance is considered a form of Christianity which needs protection from criticism, then we have serious problems with the concept of Christianity in America.
And that was not rhetorical statement because I do believe in fact that we have a serious problem with some who consider themselves Christians in this country.
Through my piece on Porter, I was pointing this out. I was not bashing Christianity but the bastardization of Christianity by Porter and the rest of the religious right, i.e. the ugly way in which they pervert God's message of love for the sake of cliques and grubby human concepts of conquest. Generally, when people go about the business of conquest, they don't do it in honest ways. This is definitely seen in how the religious right has demonized the gay and lesbian community through the use of stereotypes, junk science, and anecdotes taken out of context.
Whenever I hear Porter or anyone on the evangelical right go on about "winning the nation for Christ," I always cringe. Seems to me that if God had enough power to create Heaven and Earth, he can win America all by himself. He certainly doesn't need help from me, the Huffington Post, and certainly not Janet Porter or Newsbusters. And he definitely doesn't need help from conference halls full of people motivated through phony fear stories of prison camps, their children being "homosexualized," or visions of "their right to pray being taken away."
But the thing is that some on the evangelical right can't seem to grasp that fact. They also can't seem to grasp the concept of humility and respect for a higher power. They have replaced the image of God with one of themselves. In their world, not forcing others to pray publicly the way they want is "persecution" and having to acknowledge the simple fact that America is a diverse (not Christian) nation ranks with being fed to lions or being crucified.
To hear them talk, Jesus apparently said "pick up your cross and follow me and I will give you a nice car, a nice house, 2.5 children, and a Republican president and Legislature every four years."
Strangest thing though, that passage doesn't appear in any Bible I have read.
But if that implication is how some people want to define Christianity, then more power to them. However, they shouldn't whine or infer persecution when someone else calls attention to the fallacies in that definition.
