I expect people who have proven themselves to be intelligent people, as Cole has over and over again, to use that intelligence to be discerning. Why on earth do I need to stand here and repudiate Bauder's remarks when common decency and the most elementary principles of the Bible repudiate them already? I don't need to condemn them. They condemn themselves. The people I condemn are those smart people who wax dumb for the sake of hyperbole.

Guav – I tell you what. You show me the masses of leftists who criticized Ward Churchill. Go ahead. I'll show you where he was feted by leftists who work in the mainstream of Democratic politics. My job will be much, much easier.

For the record, and I'll type slowly so you can understand it. I'm no condemning John Cole for his condemnation of Bauder's remarks. I'm condemning him for the stupid and disingenuous use of a single quote to throw up his hands and say "I guess that 'Taliban" description was right after all". His surrender was far too easy. I say that he really wasn't all that interesting in fighting the comparison all that much.

You want to condemn the guy. GOOD. He deserves to be dismissed as a crackpot lunny every chance we get. He deserves to be scorned and shunned by all Christians. The guy is a wacko that should never be in any kind of position of authority in any Christian capacity.

But conservatives can't complain about horrid hyperbole such as Bush=Hitler because of the Patriot Act when we engage in it ourselves with cries of American Taliban.

The real Taliban wouldn't have said firebombing the guys house was "probably to far". They would have said firebomging the guys house, his work, beheading his family and the families of all the cast and crew would have been "a good start".

Your equivocation regarding Bouder's statement is what I think gives people pause. The proper reaction, IMHO, to a "Christian" making this kind of absolutely immoral supposition (even with the wink-wink nudge-nudge qualifier "probably" thrown in there to provide a way to say that he didn't actually mean what he said) is outright condemnation. Period

The fact of the matter is that Bouder, by means of his credentials, purports to speak for some subset of Christians. I believe this is a very small subset, but one that nevertheless tends to be on the vocal side and thus gets significantly more press than the millions of quiet Christians who go about their daily business while striving to be Christ-like in action and deed (not unlike the strident portion of the left getting more press than the centrists).

It is the exact same thing I believe vis-a-vis Muslims and protestations such as "But Islam is a religion of peace!". Letting radical elements hijack other's perceptions of one's religion requires a lot of inaction by those of a moderate bent. I mean, how I long for the day that the majority of imams loudly and unequivocally condemn those who advocate or carry out violence against innocents. Until that time Muslims will have to face the inevitable consequences of this silence – a equivalance in the minds of many of that religion and suicide murderers, for instance. Unfortunately, I think I'll be waiting a while…

Don't want folks to tar mainstream Christians with the same brush as Bouder? Then be loudly vocal in your uncategorical rejection of what people like him say.

You say that Churchill "held a position of some influence as a college professor, influencing the minds of thousands of students, as opposed to the one lone crazy quoted in the article."

Lone crazy? Perhaps you missed the part where it was clearly stated that Bauder is "president of Central Baptist Seminary." You realize that's a SCHOOL, right? In addition to being the president, he's also editor of the seminary's paper and a moderator of their radio show. According to the website, "Central graduates serve in ministry in nearly every state of the United States, as well as in mission works on many foreign fields."

I don't know precisely how many students are enrolled, but it opened in 1956, and had to expand in 1965 & 1998. I'm guessing between his professional role in the school and his private blog, he influences the minds of more than just "hundreds." But you just keep right on trying to downplay it as you excoriate those who rightfully take exception to such comments.

I hate to break it to you, but concern over the rise of fundamentalism is not equal to feeding Christians to the lions. And unless the extreme fundamentalists are the mainstream of Christianity, then criticism of them is NOT criticism of Christianity in general.

It's very specific.

srv – Ward Churchill held a position of some influence as a college professor, influencing the minds of thousands of students, as opposed to the one lone crazy quoted in the article who influences the minds of…what…hundreds? At most?

Churchill was a hell of a lot closer to the liberal mainstream than Kevin T. Bouder is to the conservative mainstream. It's not a fair comparison.

No, he's just agreeing with the folks who do. And they don't make any such crawdadding distinctions.