WaPo's “On Faith” continues to provide forum for religious intolerance

Is the Washington Post's “On Faith” microsite (billed as “A Conversation on Religion and Politics with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn” ) trying to be a one-stop shopping source for all your religious intolerance needs? Or is it just happening that way by chance?

We've previously noted the tendency of Quinn Meacham & Co. to grant a platform to enthusiastic bigots like Bill Donohue and Tony Perkins and James Dobson and … well, you get the point.

The site's current lead story is a splashy “Discussion” titled “Should religions intermarry?” (Sample response: “Is this a trend we should encourage? Not if you are committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” )

Then there's a "discussion" about a community center & mosque planned for construction near Ground Zero in Manhattan -- the introduction to which cites exactly one person: noted religious scholar Sarah Palin. Perhaps that's appropriate, given that many of the On Faith contributors took a Palin-esque approach to the question.

This one took the improbable position that there is some sort of pro-Islam bias in America, as a result of which “fundamentalists are given a pass.”

The virulently anti-gay Richard Land, who apparently thinks Mormonism is a “cult,” insisted that “putting a mosque at Ground Zero, or very close to Ground Zero, is unacceptable.”

And Cal Thomas took the rather odd position that America's religious tolerance should be no greater than Saudi Arabia's:

A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths. Recall those who danced in the streets in Muslim lands on 9/11. That is reality. Refusing to speak the truth about their goals is self-delusion. If tolerance and understanding are the objectives of this and other mosques that have been built, or are under construction, or planned, ask yourself why Muslim nations do not allow the construction of synagogues and churches in their countries. Shouldn't tolerance and understanding cut both ways?

Thomas concludes that the real purpose of the Cordoba House is to establish a “beachhead” from which to “launch new terror attacks” :

Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?

Accusing those who want to build a cultural center of wanting to “launch new terror attacks” isn't exactly my idea of "a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation" -- but it seems to be Sally Quinn's, Jon Meacham's, and, worst of all, The Washington Post's.