5 of 5

2. While Mr. Steinberg's readers may be willing to overlook his singular obsession with superiority, it is much more difficult to come to grips with the liberal doses of factual error that seem to have been sprinkled throughout the article. The most interesting of these is his assertion that Mormons are "fundamentalist Christians." Ecumenism is certainly being embraced in today's religious climate more than ever before, but I must humbly admit ignorance of any breakthrough agreements between those two groups on issues of such trivial importance as, say, salvation.

3. Perhaps Mr. Steinberg used to be a professor of comparative religion? He certainly seems to be more informed than I about characteristics that are true of all religious people. Take this statement, for example: "I like religious people. I admire their ability to focus on ritual and order in a chaotic world." How relieved I am to learn that conservative Baptists cherish ritual (bring out the incense!) and that charismatic Christians thrive on order!

4. We can all thank Mr. Steinberg for citing his sources at least. Like his assertion that "lots of things are banned in the Bible." Unfortunately, many journalists and politicians love to tell us what the Bible says even though they've never read it themselves. Thankfully, it appears that the learned Mr. Steinberg has not fallen to this trap. I'm sure he's read Leviticus cover to cover.

5. "At least they care about something." Let's all break into a chorus of "Imagine" because all of us can be right on everything because it's all relative, right? Peace, dude.

6. "[Religion is] all an elaborate sham to keep people from fooling around." That sure explains God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply."

7. "The same prayers, the same songs, year after year, century after century." Catholic traditionalists should be consoled by Brother Steinberg's pronouncement that nothing has changed since Vatican II.

From Clay Anderson

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time determining what you find to be so horribly offensive about his column. Certainly, he doesn't understand Christian morality, but for the most part, his commentary is relatively harmless, and I think he actually asks a few questions that the church should be asking itself. I read things every week that are at least three times as offensive as his little piece.

However, I do find it offensive that [you] are running a contest that puts this guy in his place. It's not a Christian response, and it feels very childish to me. I guess we'll see what your readers think, but I don't believe you're encouraging intelligent dialogue with such a concept.

See our past Weblogs:

July 17 July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 July 7 | 5 | 3 June 30 | 29 | 27 June 23 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 June 15 | 14 | 13 June 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  5 of 5

share this page

July (Web-only) 2000, Vol. 44