As someone who actually does watch the Daily Show pretty much every day, I can tell you for a fact that the entire beginning of Rosin's article is completely fabricated. John Stewart definitely does NOT focus on Christians or have an anti-christian theme. 90% of the show is about politics in general and the other 10% about pop culture. In fact, he tends to make FAR more self-depricating jewish references than any references to Christianity. Which leads me to ask: Why would Rosin start her article out with such a complete and utter lie? I figure its one of 2 scenarios: 1. She is just plain ignorant of the Daily Show, but she figured, "hey he's jewish, he probably makes alot of Christian jokes, and I want to write a Christian-bashing article so I'll start with him." This is the more innocuous lie or 2. She knows she was lying and did it on purpose to make a more inflammatory point. So which type of liar are you Rosin? And by the way, Hitchens already occupies the anti-Christian space. if you attempt to go there, you are just making yourself an also-ran.

I have no idea who Rosin is, but one of the most popular Big Lies being spouted by liberals is hating and attacking Christians , and to a lesser extent, Jews, as stupid, intolerant, selfish, and worse.

When liberals aren't pretending to be Christians themselves, as Hillary and John Edwards and Barack Obama and John Kerry and countless other liberals have done, they're attacking Christians and promoting the Big Lie of "Separation of church and state."

Sorry. "In God We Trust."

nuh uh.

Maybe Rosin happened upon Stewart talking about hypocritical gay-bashing christian (b.t.w. those words are not all synonymous) Ted Haggard. Of maybe she was thinking of Bill "All Christians are stupid" Maher. Anyway, I think she was more likely mistaken than lying. I'm a Christian, and i think Stewart is hilarious. Do I agree with everything he says? No. Do I love him? Yes.

And I didn't read it as a Christian-bashing article. Try reading it again. She's talking about the difficulty Christian artists have finding balance in today's "pop-world." A valid point, in my opinion.

I did read it, maybe you didn't. Look, I'm not even a christian so it doesn't offend me personally. But if you don't think entire paragraphs belittling christian college students because they watch the Daily Show and don't know it mocks them (which it doesn't) is christian-bashing, then I can't really talk with you because we are on very different planes of understanding.

I mean, she clearly said that there are NO funny christian commedians. You don't think that's anti-christian? That's about the most blatantly religious-bigotry I've heard from any slate author besides Hitchens. Not to mention its more than a little tacky for a non-christian like Rosin to write an article about how lame christians are.

"...one of the most popular Big Lies being spouted by liberals is hating and attacking Christians , and to a lesser extent, Jews, as stupid, intolerant, selfish, and worse."

When the shoe fits, CD, then one must wear it. But I daresay that you just might look a wee bit more dignified if you weren't wearing your well-fitting shoe on the foot in your mouth. Because when the shoe does not fit, it just does not fit, and we liberals need not wear it for your ill-considered and undeserved ideological comfort.

I have read many criticisms of the religiously-motivated, and however bad some may be, I have found quite a few to be on-target, based on my personal experiences with such individuals, who acted as if their faith excused all manner of misconduct. Like someone on this forum I could identify...

"When liberals aren't pretending to be Christians themselves..."

CD, by what standard of comparison do you presume to assert that some Christians are "pretending" to be believers? If ideology is the issue, as you have presumptively asserted without presenting any justification, then there still needs to be an objective basis presented. And you have not done so: all you have done is assert, without presenting grounds for doing so, that ideology defines whether faith is geniuine or not. Your lack of due diligence, your unwillingness to go the distance, is not at all likely to give honor to the Father and the Son.

As for "In God We Trust" (which may be on shaky theological ground, in that it takes the name of the Lord in vain, and converts coinage into an instrument of idolatry) vs "Separation of Church and State" (a necessary development in the history of civilization, given the horrors that occurred when churches were given the power of the state to wage war on whoever looked like a convenient target), I am truly amazed at the tortured and mutilated ethics of religious reactionaries:

Consider an individual, who has gone to great lengths to persuade you to donate some cash to him; after you have done so, he turns around and says that because you gave him some of your possessions, you are obliged to turn over to him everything of yours, as your giving some obviously means that you intend for him to have all. Who would consider such an individual to be anything other than a fraudster or con artist?

This is how CD, Falwell, LaHayes, Bakker, Dobson, Robertson, et al operate: a small concession is used to fraudulently leverage a wholesale takeover. That it has not yet succeeded is truly something to get down on one's knees and give profuse thanks to God.

Miscreant Mutt *

(* - a sinner who is honest in admitting he is one, and who, for all his concerns for other, does not pretend to be otherwise)

To Miscreant,

I love how you turned the words of one into the underhanded-secret-propaganda-­conspiracy theory plot for Christian world dominance. I feel somehow I must apologize for the way you've been treated by some who claim to be of the faith. I am a Christian and want or need nothing from you, as should any other Christian. It is sad to admit, but I agree with you that the proclaiming church has strayed. Corrupted by power and greed, they make efforts to posses those qualities all the more so. They care not for others and by their very deeds they deny Jesus Christ, as sadly he will do to them. And as for this religiously-motivated individual, my only two criticsms are that you shouldn't read too much into simple statments, you and CD may have everything in common but political views. Secondly, if you admit to being a sinner, are you doing anything about it or do you stop at words?

Faust things first:

Do try to be careful, because you are close to exhibiting one of the other dysfunctions that I have seen amongst the "proclaiming church" set: the temptation, all too easily and too often embraced, to appropriate other people's dealings with God as something to meddle in or worse, take charge of. My relationship with the Lord, however it may be, is entirely my own business and his; if you feel that you have to have role in it, then apply to the Almighty, and get his approval (make sure you ask Him to copy me in His reply) before doing so. If I had a "yuppie food stamp" (i.e., a $20 bill) for every yutz I encountered who demanded that my practices had to be in line with his preferences, I would never have to work for a living.

As for the "underhanded...plot" thing that you rather lightly spoke of, that is precisely what I have been seeing since 1979: nearly three decades worth of this continuous offending against intelligence, ethics, and civility. Dominance? Falwell himself had said, with no rebuke from any of his colleagues who are now seeking to don his mantle, that the Separaton of Church and State was a "lie of the left, to keep Christians from controlling their own country". For a church whose kingdom is not of this world, that sounds very much like a bid for dominaiton. I would recommend the book titled "Roads to Dominion" by Sara Diamond, as well as "What Johnny Shouldn't Read" by Joan Delfattore.

I could mention one of those other oft-used fallacies of fact & logic ("this country was founded as a Christian nation...), but I think you get the gist of it.

And I hope that you understand, as well.

Miscreant Mutt

.

To Miscreant again,

I understand that your walk with the Lord is your own, just as you can not tell me that mine is any less real. My response was because yours did not sound like you had one at all. You tell me I should not approach you on the methods of your walk and that I can't repromand you for the actions you take, but that was exactly what you were doing. If you say you walk with Christ; or maybe you don't, I don't know which god you are referering to your Lord; it should probably show more evident. And if you don't want people calling you out, than don't bring protest against others. We're all sinners in need of a savior. And as for the letter sent to congress back in it's forming years, the author was referering to government not having control over religion, I've read the letter.