Waldman[n]'s on the Web

Recently I was accutely irritated to find that I am not one of the top two bloggers named Waldman[n]. I had almost reconciled myself to being overshadowed by a fly who also looks about 10 years younger than I am, when I discovered someone named Steve Waldman at political animal.

To add injury to insult, Steve Waldman is a major idiot as can be demonstrated by quoting this post in full violating fair use restrictions.

Guest: Steve Waldman

I was thinking about the readers who suggested that I had been unfair in claiming a liberal hostility to evangelical Christianity. Fair point, I thought. I probably should have said "many liberals" rather than caricaturing liberalism per se.

But as I was crafting the words for a correction, I came across this passage from "The Left Hand of God," the new book by Rabbi Michael Lerner, a liberal-in-good-standing if ever there was one:

"Overwhelmingly, the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality. [snip]."

[snip] Is he being unfair? I think a distinction should be made between the elites and the rank and file on this. The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

I think a little editing will show how appalling this post is. I replace "religion and spirituality" with "Christianity", "secular" with "Jewish" and rabbi with Rev.

[I was thinking about the readers who suggested that I had been unfair in claiming a liberal hostility to evangelical Christianity. Fair point, I thought. I probably should have said "many liberals" rather than caricaturing liberalism per se.

But as I was crafting the words for a correction, I came across this passage from "The Left Hand of God," the new book by Rev. Michael Lerner, a liberal-in-good-standing if ever there was one:

"Overwhelmingly, the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward Crhistianity. [snip]."

[snip] Is he being unfair? I think a distinction should be made between the elites and the rank and file on this. The fact is that most Democrats are Christian. But Jewish liberals, who made up about x% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.]

The edited statement would earn Waldman an invitation to never again post on Political Animal, as it would be correctly interpreted as displaying monstrous anti semitism. Why is the actual post any more acceptable ?


Waldman divides people into two groups people who are "mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality" and people who "are religious". Thus he asserts by implication that it is impossible to be reasonable without being religious, that there are no tollerant atheists, and that respect for the religious beliefs of others requires us to be religious. He declare himself to be intollerant by equating beliefs with which he does not agree with hostility towards his beliefs.