The “Christianist” Slander
My World column focuses on Time’s willingness to indulge Andrew Sullivan’s hate speech.
Sullivan abandoned serious debate long ago, but Time still purports to be a newsweekly.
UPDATE: James Joyner thinks that I missed Sullivan’s disclaimer. Not at all. I saw it and included it because I thought it patently absurd to try and deny that the explicit linkage to Islamists could be disavowed in the next couple of sentences.
There are zero evangelical Christians with any public profile who practice or endorse violence. There are also no major figures within American evangelical circles who endorse any sort of theocracy. Sullivan objects to the political positions of many evangelicals, but given the widespread support for these positions –opposition to the judicial imposition of same sex marriage for example– Sullivan refuses to engage their positions on a case by case basis, and instead invents a new description in an attempt to deligitimize them.
Sullivan also asserts the preposterous claim that “Ramesh Ponnuru and Hugh Hewitt are two of the most articulate advocates for fusing Republicanism with religious fundamentalism.” What Ponnuru and I share is a disdain for the increasing silliness of Sullivan, who was once a serious writer and now is simply a hysterical clanger of gongs. I don’t bother with Sullivan’s posts anymore, but Time is different, and ought to have editors with standards that demand from Sullivan definitions that are precise enough to be tested, and examples of “Christianists” backed up by links.
Again, send me a list of 25 prominent “Christianists” with their demands for theocracy. How about 20? 10? 5?