1

From John Edwards' Most Memorable Quotations on being asked about Iran:

"I--there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a--it's a--it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have--we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think--I think the--we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

Presidential timber, no doubt. It's not his bloggers that are going to kill his chances.

2

George:

His answer is perfectly acceptable for a Miss America pageant, however. Visualize Whirled Peas.

3

This whole incident points up the difference between the left and right. Their kooks are much worse than ours. We disavow our kooks. They make theirs blogmasters--and party chairmen.

4

I dunno, I think whatever they said pales in comparison to equating dead people with living people...which is the ironically named "pro-life" position of a lot of avowed "Christian conservatives."

5

Joe and jd, are you:

Dishonest?

Lazy?

Stupid?

Dishonest and lazy?

Dishonest and stupid?

Lazy and stupid?

or dishonest, lazy, and stupid?

Because there are plenty of examples of right-wingers using relgious slurs and continuing to be embraced. Here are a couple of examples:

This from the New York Times, in an article describing the "controversy"
************************************************************
Last summer, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, hired Patrick J. Hynes, a conservative blogger and political consultant, to be his campaign’s blog liaison. Mr. Hynes quickly ran afoul of fellow bloggers by initially concealing his relationship to the McCain campaign while he was writing critically about other Republicans.

He then came under fire for declaring that the United States was a “Christian nation” in a book and television appearances that predated his work for Mr. McCain. Last November, while employed by Mr. McCain’s campaign, Mr. Hynes posted on his personal blog a picture of Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and invited readers to submit nicknames, some of which were anti-Semitic.

In an interview, Mr. Hynes said the Internet was a place where overheated language and vicious personal attacks were often tolerated, even encouraged. But, he said, “I would caution against holding candidates responsible for what their bloggers and blog consultants have said in the past.”

“The blogosphere is a conversation; it’s not reportage,” Mr. Hynes said. “We’re all trying to figure out, what does this mean for the convergence of all these media? It’s a Pandora’s box and no one knows where it’s going to end up.”

Mr. Hynes remained on the McCain campaign staff and maintained his personal blog.
************************************************************

And this, from Allahpundit, a close acquaintance of Michelle Malkin, who was instrumental in ginning up the "controversy"

************************************************************
Do Catholics really believe they are eating Christ when they take the host? Allah knows that your priests have a taste for flesh–the younger the better, it seems–but this is ridiculous. And you have the gall to mock Muslims for believing that Satan lives in their nostrils at night? Allah will admit that we have our eccentric beliefs like any other faith, but at least cannibalism is not part of the core curriculum. Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish *****.
************************************************************

6

Joe, I am terribly embarrassed to say that you had me on this one until I got to the St. Mary's clinic!

7

Oh, for Pete's sake. I am so tired and bored with people whining about hate speech. So what if these two bloggers hate Catholics? More power to them. Hate away. One of them even appears to have delusions that somewhere, someone is losing sleep because she's sexually active. Well, maybe so, but it's nobody I know. I'm sure it makes her feel good, though, being so important and all. So she doesn't want kids - who cares? It's surely worth at least a muffled snicker because she's likely a Darwin devotee. If she has the urge to withdraw from the gene pool, Darwin tells us we're all better off.

From a partisan perspective, I can only observe that the Catholic vote was a major bloc for the Democrat Party until the 80's. If Edwards thinks he can get along without them, fine.

In my reading of the news and blather about hate speech, I find that the phrase hate speech as used in the common parlance can generally be rendered as: saying nasty, cruel, ad hominem things about people one tends to like or at least tolerate, but not to include saying similar things about people one doesn't like.

I also find it interesting that hate speech is often used when accusing others of hate speech.

Yawn.

It won't be long until John Edwards pixellates anyway, so why all the fuss?

8

Mary it might be helpful to provide a link or url to the cited posts so that they can be viewed in context. Regarding the Hynes posts, calling America a "Christian nation" is really not all that outrageous considering that a majority of Americans self-identify as Christians. Regarding his Waxman post, holding a blogger responsible for the irresponsible comments he generates can be problematic. I guess he could more heavily censor his comments section, but maybe he wants a more free-wheeling blog. Regarding Allahpundit, I googled the text you quoted and didn't get a match. Are you sure you read it right?

9

ucfengr, I got to the Allahpundit link via Atrios, who linked to Liberal Avenger, who linked to the Allahpundit post. There's plenty of stuff about Hynes at Glenn Greenwald's site and elsewhere.

Greenwald gets to the bottom of this "controversy", which is that it doesn't actually matter what Marcotte said. Hypcrites like Donohue and Malkin simply scour everything a Democrat or liberal said, in order to find something they can take offense at, and gin up a storm of phony outrage, aided by their enablers in the media. The difference is that in this case, Edwards stood up to them.

10

Greenwald gets to the bottom of this "controversy", which is that it doesn't actually matter what Marcotte said. Hypcrites like Donohue and Malkin simply scour everything a Democrat or liberal said, in order to find something they can take offense at, and gin up a storm of phony outrage, aided by their enablers in the media.

The problem with this sentiment is that the stuff Marcotte really is outrageous and offensive, the Hynes stuff you cite is pretty mild. It's even hard to get worked up about the anti-Semetic comments, unless he encouraged his commenters specifically to make anti-Semetic comments. The Allahpundit stuff may be offensive, but I am not going to search through Atrios to find a link to Liberal Avenger to search for a link to Allahpundit to find it. That's why its generally considered good net etiquette to provide a link or url to cited sources.

11

The Catholic League website posted the following information:

Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Assuming the above quotes are accurate, I don't see how somebody could express a more vitriolic animus toward not just Roman Catholicism, but Christianity in general.

Blaming the messengers (i.e., Donahue and Malkin) is just a weak diversionary tactic. There is nothing ambivalent about Marcotte's sentiments, and they extend beyond mere political disagreement to a deep-seated contempt.

If you find conservatives that express similarly heinous viewpoints, they should be condemned as well. But nobody here has really done that yet - and if they did, it doesn't remove the culpability of the individuals in question. Regarding the pathetic attempts at equivalence presented above... "some blogger wrote such-and-such on somebody's website", or "somebody who is a CLOSE ASSOCIATE of so-and-so said such-and-such"... please. People should be accountable for their own statements and actions.

If Edwards is serious, these two have to go. The above referenced statements can not be rationalized away.

12

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Charleston, S.C.

Denigrate any church or anybody's religion? Why would anyone think these ladies would intend to do such a thing? Where do these paranoid right-wingers get such silly ideas?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say it's even money on whether Edwards is disingenuous or merely obtuse.

13

Obtuse: not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

Obtuse definitely wins. Disingenuousness normally requires a bit more cognitive bandwidth than Edwards routinely displays.

14

With all his faults and then some, Edwards would be preferable to the current administration.

15

Mary Rosh Joe and jd, are you:

Um, I think JD is just lazy, though he may be lazy and dishonest. As for me, I'm lazy and stupid. But, like Edwards, we're both devastatingly handsome so it makes up for it.

Because there are plenty of examples of right-wingers using relgious slurs and continuing to be embraced.

If there are plenty of examples why are the two you chose so lame?

You mention Hynes who didn't use a slur at all -- but allowed his commenter to say something nasty. Heaven forbid a blogger doesn't automatically delete rude and nasty comments.

And then, in an even sillier example, you quote Allahpundit. Even if you didn't know anything about his blog you could have looked him up in Wikipedia. Allahpundit was a satirical blogger, as should have been evident by his example you quote which mocks anti-Catholic bias.

The difference is that in this case, Edwards stood up to them.

So if a Republican candidate had hired a blogger who had made nasty, disparaging remarks about homosexuals, you'd be fine with it?

16

I seem to recall that it was not that long ago that when the Family Research Council had it little Liberty Sunday gathering of the faithful that the Bishop Boone referred to gay people as "faggots and sissies".

I don't recall seeing any apologies coming from Tony Perkins, FRC or the Bishop.

And then there was Dobson calling same-sex marriage advocates the "forces of Hell Itself".

And I haven't heard anyone disavow Sheldon from TVC either, and his rhetoric is consistently vile.

Other than using a few old Anglo-Saxon terms there is no difference between the Edward's bloggers and what the gentlemen above do on an almost daily basis.

The only anti-gay Christian preacher thats ever been widely disavowed by social conservatives is the Rev Fred Phelps. And then only after he started picketing the funerals of soldiers that have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan. (When he did picket Shepard's funeral there were a few peeps, but not much.) And I never saw social conservatives come out in force against Phelps when he started picketing the funerals of AIDS victims in the 80's.

17

Patrick I seem to recall that it was not that long ago that when the Family Research Council had it little Liberty Sunday gathering of the faithful that the Bishop Boone referred to gay people as "faggots and sissies".

Your recall is faulty. Here is what Boone said:

Back in the days when I was a kid, and we see guys that don’t stand strong on principle, we call them “faggots.” … [People] that don’t stand up for what’s right, we say, “You’re sissified out!” “You’re a sissy!” That means you don’t stand up for principles.

Boone referred to people who don’t “stand strong on principle” as “sissies and faggots.” He did not use the term in reference to gay people. His language was, in my opinion, inexcusable but his context was not what you claim it to be.

And then there was Dobson calling same-sex marriage advocates the "forces of Hell Itself".And I haven't heard anyone disavow Sheldon from TVC either, and his rhetoric is consistently vile.

I can’t speak about that point. I don’t know anything about it.

Other than using a few old Anglo-Saxon terms there is no difference between the Edward's bloggers and what the gentlemen above do on an almost daily basis.

Since you consider them to be no different, then I suppose that you agree that Edwards should not tolerate such language and have the two fired, right?

And I never saw social conservatives come out in force against Phelps when he started picketing the funerals of AIDS victims in the 80's.

Phelps lives for people to speak out against him. As far as I know, FRC has never commented on him—nor, I suspect, will we ever do so—because we don’t want to give attention to such a despicable man.

18

Joe:

I am lazy--especially when it comes to trying to convince the moonbats here that they are wrong. It's hopeless. I admire your patience with them. If, however, I met any of them, I would exert myself physically and bite their little heads off and nibble on their tiny feet.

Laziness is not the whole picture, though. It's more that the gap between them and me seems too wide. These folks can't even concede media bias. It's all but impossible to discuss anything seriously when there's no common ground.

19

Joe, this post was simply brilliant.

20

Heh. The website linked in this post shows just how anti-Catholic, and overall bigotted the "Family Research Council" [sic] has been.

21

My apologies if someone else has already said this. I haven't read all the comments. It just occurred to me that McEwan's apology sounded almost word for work what Michael Richards said after his comedy club racist rant against blacks.

And I guess rehab covers all sins. Whatever did we need Jesus for?

22

Joe, pretty darn funny. Almost as funny as your first response in the comment section.

I think they atttempted to excuse their slurs as satire. If so, people should come here and read some of your stuff, or some of Allah's stuff to know what satire is.

23

"And I guess rehab covers all sins. Whatever did we need Jesus for?"

Rehab sure did the job for Ted Haggard. Glory!

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5164921?source=email

24

But, like Edwards, we're both devastatingly handsome so it makes up for it.

Most folks really don't understand how tough being devastating handsome can be, especially when combined with a razor sharp intellect (not a cross Edwards has to bear). Maybe we could form a support group or something. I'll start organizing the Southern Maryland chapter; maybe my wife will take the ladies auxiliary.

25

With all his faults and then some, Edwards would be preferable to the current administration.

Heck, Edwards could be a child molesting, cannibal and you would find him preferrable to this administration, but that says more about you than it does about either Bush or Edwards.

26

"Heck, Edwards could be a child molesting, cannibal and you would find him preferrable to this administration, but that says more about you than it does about either Bush or Edwards."

You seem to have a great deal of confidence in your ability to determine my preferences. I suppose it is a waste of time to point out that your statement is not merely insulting, it is incorrect. I doubt I like child molesters or cannibals any more than you do, but if it makes you feel better to misrepresent your ideological opponents, have at it!

27

Rob Ryan wrote:

I doubt I like child molesters or cannibals any more than you do, but if it makes you feel better to misrepresent your ideological opponents, have at it!

You have missed the whole point of Joe's article as well as UCfengr's point. No one accused you of liking child molesters or cannibals. We only accuse you and your fellow travellers of preferring child molesters and cannibals to conservative Republicans. If that isn't true, then certainly the point of Joe's article still stands: that you guys will ignore any behavior as long as it comes from someone who believes in the "correct" things and makes the proper apologies after the "reprehensible" offense. I'd really like to see any example of someone on my side, who still has our respect, who has said or done anything remotely equivalent to those two nutroot bloggers, Marcotte and McEwan. Or how about this challenge? Find me the Republican equivalent of Howard Dean who hasn't been pushed aside by Republican leadership.

28

"The Pope's gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan's maw"

Uh, no . . . factually incorrect. The official line of the Catholic church is that unbaptized babies go to limbo. But there were doctrinal discussions about abolishing limbo, and saying that unbaptized babies go to heaven. Cardinal Ratzinger was among those advocating the latter position before his election as Pope.

The Democratic party is now the party of neo-anti semitism and neo-anti catholicism. A 120 years later and they're back where they started.

29

Actually don't Baptists believe unbatpized babies go to hell? I once had a very intense discussion with a 7th Day Adventist who believed that.

Anyway three cheers for Christinists & the right in general. After spending decades bemoaning victimization politics they now have found that they are Victims too! Welcome to the club, please take your Welcome Kit and t-shirt!

30

"You have missed the whole point of Joe's article as well as UCfengr's point. No one accused you of liking child molesters or cannibals."

I haven't missed either Joe's or ucfengr's point; you have missed mine. I told ucfengr that his statement was incorrect. That means "Heck, Edwards could be a child molesting, cannibal and you would find him preferrable to this administration, but that says more about you than it does about either Bush or Edwards" is incorrect. Could I be any clearer? Not only do I NOT prefer child molesters and cannibals to Bush and his ilk, I don't know anyone who does. You guys must be desperate if you are trying to defend your use of this straw man. Sheesh!

"Find me the Republican equivalent of Howard Dean who hasn't been pushed aside by Republican leadership."

To do this I would have to know what you consider Dean to be guilty of, besides saying "yee-aaahh!" with inappropriate gusto.

31

re:"preferring child molesters and cannibals to conservative Republicans"

Hasn't the regime in power shown that conservative Republicans are at least the moral equivalent of child molesters and cannibals, and in some cases (Mark Foley) are one in the same?

Really, it's time folks on the right stopped being apologists for the unmitigated evil of the Bush/Cheney/McCain axis.

32

Hasn't the regime in power shown that conservative Republicans are at least the moral equivalent of child molesters and cannibals, and in some cases (Mark Foley) are one in the same?

Well, no; and not to waste a lot of time defending Mark Foley, but he has not been accused of either eating anyone or actually having sex with a minor (maybe a miner though).

33

Joe:
Great post and responses. It seems clear to me that in general the radical left is vehemently and fundamentally anti-Christian, and the only apologies they make are utilitarian gestures meant to garner votes with which to enact their political agenda rather than to facilitate genuine healing and thoughtful understanding with people they really don't know very well.

It is revealing that the response of the radical left defenders is simply to say "You do it too!" rather than to reject the obscene comments.

I think it evinces the real underlying, if consciously suppressed, agreement many liberals have with the hateful words and vitriolic bias, a bias which precludes meaningful interaction at any constructive level.

Hate is definitely not exclusive to the left, but very few right-wingers demonstrate such hatred of Christianity and faith.

34

It seems clear to me that in general the radical left is vehemently and fundamentally anti-Christian

I wouldn't co-sign on that statement. In fact, even in the deepest fetid backwaters of liberal associations, you find plenty of Christians. As far as I can tell, atheists are still a minority in virtually every community you can find, except for academia.

Occasionally over at Daily Kos, religious arguments break out and the faithful take extreme umbrage when they feel they've been treated with disrespect. In most cases, they receive apologies and we ensure that the "big tent" remains inclusive of those who chose to abandon reason and believe in invisible supernatural deities.

And that goes for you guys, too. Despite what you may think, I consider most of you to be good Americans. Confused Americans, but good ones.

Oh, and it happens that I know McEwan rather well because she and I began blogging at the same time and ran in similar circles. It's been a pleasure to see her gain some prominence in the field. What was important about all this was the question of whether some right-wing crypto-Catholic loonies on the order of insanity of a James Dobson would be able to dictate marching orders to the Edwards campaign. That is, there was a moment there, where the question was open. Thankfully, Edwards stood up for his choices and set a strong precedent that Democratic campaigns will not kowtow to the loony squad.

Liberals are not anti-Christian. We are, however, generally anti-Christianist; i.e., a secular society in which everyone can believe as they like is preferable to one in which some subset of Americans enact religious laws that enforce Biblical codes on those who are not members of a particular religious cohort.

Where we have conflict is almost always those cases in which you people want to legislate my reproductive choices, my commercial activities, my freedom of expression, my recreational conduct, my access to literature, my behavior in general. As always, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Me and my daughter will decide such things for ourselves. And whatever we decide is most assuredly none of your business.

In that we attempt to defend ourselves from you, we are not fundamentally opposed to your right to believe the things that you do. This is a fine point, but a very important one.

35

Perhaps people should be aware of this. On February 7, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council (FRC), Family Research Council Action, released an email statement promoting accusations by Catholic League president William Donohue against John Edwards' presidential campaign. Family Research Council Action accused Amanda Marcotte, Edwards' new Blogmaster, and Melissa McEwan, the Netroots Coordinator of anti-christian bigotry.

It’s worth noting that Perkins has been associated with racist groups and individuals, including former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens. Perkins paid Duke $82,500 for his phone banking list, then attempted to cover up the transaction, a misdeed that resulted in a $3,000 fine from the Federal Election Council. Also, in 2001, Perkins spoke before the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), formerly the White Citizen's Council, a white racist organization.

Also, some of Family Research Councils’s anti-homosexual rhetoric is quite bigoted.

Perhaps, a christian organization could focus more on caring for widows, orphans, the needy, and the hundreds of families in Iraq who have had their lives disrupted by our republican administration's invasion and occupation of their country. Should a christian organization really be a political action committe for the republic party?

36

Correction to Post #35:

hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families that have been disrupted because loved ones have been needlessly killed, injured, detained and tortured, because of the republican administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq. For some reason the majority of evangelicals still support our country's actions in Iraq. Where the comments by Edwards bloggers reprehensible-yes. Sitting quietly by and not speaking out against the slaughter in Iraq is a thousand times more obscene.

37

This whole incident points up the difference between the left and right. Their kooks are much worse than ours. We disavow our kooks. They make theirs blogmasters--and party chairmen.

Heh, yea 'online outreach' certainly is a pretty powerful position. If Edwards wins I'm sure these will be on the short list for Sec. of State.

38

The Raven:

In fact, even in the deepest fetid backwaters of liberal associations, you find plenty of Christians.

Oh, is that a fact? Plenty of Christians? Name 10 of them, which "fetid backwater liberal association" they belong to, and how you know they are Christian.

In most cases, they receive apologies and we ensure that the "big tent" remains inclusive of those who chose to abandon reason and believe in invisible supernatural deities

What role do people who have abandoned reason have in your organizations?

And whatever we decide is most assuredly none of your business.

Actually, it is my business if the laws affect my society. I don't particularly want to live in a society that legalizes murder.

Would you want to live in a society where 12 year olds are murdered? No, you probably wouldn't, even if people who did said, "Mind your business."

Liberals are not anti-Christian. We are, however, generally anti-Christianist; i.e., a secular society in which everyone can believe as they like is preferable to one in which some subset of Americans enact religious laws that enforce Biblical codes on those who are not members of a particular religious cohort.

Invalid juxtaposition between "believe" and "enact religious laws." Enacting laws, liberal or not, does not force belief.

In that we attempt to defend ourselves from you, we are not fundamentally opposed to your right to believe the things that you do.

Sure, you are not opposed to our right to believe whatever we want to believe, you are just opposed to our taking action on what we believe.

Likewise, your hypothetical "Christianists" aren't opposed to your right to believe whatever you believe about abortion. They just oppose your taking action on those beliefs. Just keep your beliefs private, as you want them to do?

Oh yeah. "Christianists" are religious and you are secular, so Christianists have abandoned reason while you are obviously right. ... Yawn.

Of course, you too are religious and base your policy decisions on your religiosity =P You just deny it.

Again, what place do people who have abandoned reason have in your organizations, The Raven?

39

Oh, is that a fact? Plenty of Christians? Name 10 of them, which "fetid backwater liberal association" they belong to, and how you know they are Christian.

The rule of thumb for political debates should be people are the religion they say they are. Otherwise you get into endless theological debates over who is the real Christian, how unorthodox can one be before one ceases to be a Christian etc. You end up looking like communists of the mid-20th century who spent their time tweaking the definition of communism so they could explain to us that Stalin or Lenin or Mao or whever were not the 'true thing'.

What role do people who have abandoned reason have in your organizations?

Seems like the GOP is in hiring mode. Update your resume!

Likewise, your hypothetical "Christianists" aren't opposed to your right to believe whatever you believe about abortion. They just oppose your taking action on those beliefs. Just keep your beliefs private, as you want them to do?

Fair enough, although I would use a different phrase than 'taking action'. I don't think Raven or anyone serious here opposes Christianists 'taking action' in the form of voting, speaking writing etc. They do oppose the actions Christianists would ask the state to undertake.

40

Giggling,

It's not so much that people oppose "people of faith" using their beliefs in policy discussions, rather it's opposition to the "religious right's" policy positions themselves. Also, people resent the religious right for their way of co-opting christianity for their partisan agendas. And atleast some christians resent the fact that "religious right" is the face of christianity in the larger culture.

41

Joe says:

Phelps lives for people to speak out against him. As far as I know, FRC has never commented on him—nor, I suspect, will we ever do so—because we don’t want to give attention to such a despicable man.

The result being of course, that in the absence of Christians speaking out against Phelps and for Christianity, that Phelps has become the personification of Christianity for many people.

If the only time you ever heard from someone claiming to be a Christian was when they were attacking you in some form or another, what would you think about Christianity in general Joe?

And then you dorks go whining into your Bibles about how you are just so "misunderstood". Pfft.

When you stay silent in the face of someone like Phelps you don't make him go away. Instead you cede the moral authority to him.

You don't have to get into a screaming match with the man. But what Christians could have done in the 80's when he was showing up at the funerals of AIDS victims is what the Freedom Riders are doing today, which is just showing up and standing between him and those he is trying to hurt. Where were you and your brethren Joe?

And BTW, guess who are often found standing with the Freedom Riders today?

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26124.asp

42

The result being of course, that in the absence of Christians speaking out against Phelps and for Christianity, that Phelps has become the personification of Christianity for many people.

If I were to say that for many people Ernst Roehm (head of the SA, the predessor of the SS) is the personification of homosexuality, I would be, at best ridiculed, and rightly so. Anybody who thinks of Phelps as the personification of Christianity does so only because they want to, I suspect out of a pathological hatred of Christians, not because it has any basis in reality.