Considering I had to ask the question numerous times before you "got it", questioning your reading comprehension skills hardly seems silly.

So, you wish to stereotype ALL of Amanda's critics because of the actions of some. Thought you "progressives" were against this sort of thing. For the record, I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. But I'm wise enough to recognize immaturity, racism and bigotry when I see it. And while she's free to spew her hatred, I'm free to respond. Remember, freedom of speech goes both ways.

Please, then, explain the disdain shown by the progressive Catholics toward her opinions. What about the words of Edwards himself? He certainly didn't think her opinions were "satire" now did he?

For the record, I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. But I'm wise enough to recognize immaturity, racism and bigotry when I see it. And while she's free to spew her hatred, I'm free to respond. Remember, freedom of speech goes both ways.

You're as dilusional as Amanda.

Well..

It' where one is going, you see.

Can't at all be helped, I fear.

Inexorable, actually.

This irresistible 'A'-Woman.

Damn!..She's gone again.

Some of the rhetoric on Pandagon (example your comments on the Duke case) is, like its counterpart on the right, appealing to baseness in those who read it. It is bigoted and inflammatory and being so obscures otherwise good points you may have to make. In quality, your approach is not so different from Bush's appeals to "the gut." And we all see the problem in that, don't we? True you are a "little" person, true you rant against the ruling class. But there is a difference between a legitimate rant and a bald expression of prejudice. And there is a difference between being a member of the faith(prejudice)-based reality and the evidence-based.

Unfortunately the expressive style of which you are sometimes a proponent has become a feature of the wider media. If we did not have people in the MSM like O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Coulter expressing themselves much as you do, we could more easily separate the personal blog (which is public too) from the political blog. But we can't and it is odd that you think we can.

It is grotesque and frankly scary how viciousness on all levels is tolerated and encouraged. No one (not even Ann Coulter) should be enduring death threats for their thought-free commentaries. But as a contributor to the demeaning of public discourse and the stoking of public anger, you need to recognize the consequences of that.

The problem with calling out the gods of hatred is that you join those "other" voyagers on an ugly river of bile.

As for Republicans being the party of the religious... what a bunch of hogwash. Fundamentalist Christianity constitutes the single biggest attack on Christianity itself in the past century. People with the Dr. Dobson-style of faith are not true Christians. They focus completely on themselves and their own gain, without looking at serious social issues such as poverty, injustice, racism, and sexism.

Chloe, you go on and on about your "enlightened" faith and reading of Scripture, then commit a basic sin of Christianity: judging others based on your own standards. (“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." --Matthew 7:1-2).

You in reality know nothing about these "Dr. Dobson-style" people and condemn them based on mere caricatures. You say they are not "true Christians" (when were you given the ability to read their hearts) because they don't care about certain issues, but they could easily say you are not a "true Christian" because you don't care about issues such as sexual immorality ("For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander ..." --Matthew 15:19) or our divorce culture (“ 'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel." --Malachi 2:16).

But of course you are one of those oh-so "smart" people who, in your own words, "read the Bible in an enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical fashion," so you don't really need to take these words seriously. Just rationalize them away as some sort of airy-fairy allegory and remain a reliably trendy Leftist.

Re-examine your own prejudices, Chloe. I don't judge your priorities--they're all valid--so why do you judge mine?

And timid old Joan and Salon and her backstabbing editors are dead wrong.

You're a pampleteer. They're the kind of people who sat on their hands when Paine went to jail. I'm sure they grabbed their hankies during the Boston Massacre, and got all scared and accomodationist when Washington retreated from New York.

There's got to be a reason why the typical panel on TV has two right-wing nutjobs versus a mainstream journo, and they call that a truthful debate, but I can't figure out what that is.

There is a difference between pampleteering and journalism. Pampleteering will help us win. Salon? Irrelevant. On the road to becoming Slate.

First of all, I thank you for hearing me out and respecting my opinion, something some other letter writers seem incapable of doing.

To answer your questions....

1. Yes, I understand that people who believe like I do are in the minority. I also understand that the average person, if they are themselves not religious, will probably only have heard of the vicious, self-serving, hate-filled variety of faith propogated largely by political conservatives. But these people represent a grave misreading of Christianity, not Christianity itself. I think it is ignorant of people to make assumptions about Christianity based on the actions of these people. You can make assumptions about "Christians," yes. But it would be ignorant to superimpose the narrow beliefs of today's bigots onto the faith itself, without actually studying it at all. I wish that people would not make generalizations about my faith, or any faith, when they know so little about it. That is my objection to Marcotte's insulting language. Rather than caricaturing or mocking narrow-minded Christians, she has taken it upon herself to attack the entire faith. In the attempt to criticize one particular Catholic policy, she has insulted many people who might have otherwise agreed with what she had to say.

2. Although my take on the Bible is allegorical (after all, Jesus spoke almost exclusively through parables which were never meant to be taken literally), my faith in God is anything but. Whereas many conservative Christians apparently worship the literal words of the Bible, I interpret the Bible as revelation about humanity and our relationship to God, spoken through very human authors and canonized by very human authorities. I believe very strongly in God, and enjoy a sometimes maddeningly enigmatic personal relationship with God. The Bible informs us, particularly about Christ, but I don't think it was ever meant to rule our lives.

However, while my belief in God is real and palpable, my faith in Christ is somewhat different. Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr spoke for me when he wrote in his book, "The Responsible Self," that he confesses and believes Jesus Christ as his savior not because he knows that it is factually true, but because he identifies with the mission of Christ. That mission is merely the reconciliation of man to God and God to man. Even if Christ was not real, I would still consider myself a Christian because the Christian ideal of God's grace and love for us rings true to me, even without the physical manifestation of it. As such, I am very universalistic in my beliefs. I unflinchingly assert that the God worshipped by Jews and Muslims, as well as by people who cry out for an advocate in their suffering and a friend to share their joy, even if they do not know it as God, as well as the enlightenment and moral virtue sought by the Eastern religions, are all limited human perspectives of the same God.

I also believe that people who are truly morally upright serve God even if they do not believe so.