And as a neoconservative sounding board, it is increasingly being used to further the factious technique of alleging religious hostility in order to break down the wall that separates church and state. Remember: religious sects are often undemocratic and are only accountable--if at all--to their memberships.

Once theocratic governance emerges, accountabiity to an electorate of an aggregate majority goes out the window.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:43:19 PM EST

Frederick complained in January http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/1/11/202318/102 that a recent Cooperman article seemed to lack an appreciation for the fact that groups like the IRD ought not to be reported in terms of equivalency with the NCC.

I am pretty sure Mr. Cooperman is... well, not a Christian of any denomination.  He has no existential appreciation for anything Christian, in my opinion, and that is why he relies  uncritically upon any and every source of  information (including the IRD).  I wouldn't go as far as calling him a neocon, but his previous "beat" was political, centered in Moscow and Jerusalem, if I am not mistaken.  My guess is he's doing religion now because it's - well, politically charged.

A question I would ask is - How shall religion be covered by newspapers and magazines?  Editors know that they would hear complaints of "unfair" if they were to give the work to practicing Catholics or to persons of a particular Protestant denomination.  But are ex-religionists and non-Christians any better suited to the job?

I say - as in the issue of Bible in the schools - it might be better if we kept religion "personal" and didn't have public guidelines and "religious opinion pages" in our major media.  It cannot be done in an adequate manner, in my opinion.


God bless the whole world - - No Exceptions
by John Anngeister on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:39:14 PM EST