Last time, in this space, we discussed the folly of atheists who claim to be the Future of the Human Race, who even regard themselves as worthy of the Solomonic power of depriving Christian parents of their children for the “abuse” of teaching them their religion, yet who cannot manage to grasp basic human social skills. As human beings, we recognize that human claims of Olympian authority are not made terribly convincing when the Olympian’s behavior contradicts the claim. So when atheists call themselves Bright and act dim, we laugh.

But if that holds true even for human claims, how much more true is it for divine ones? Paul, for instance, remonstrates with his fellow Jews over their claims of spiritual superiority to Gentiles:

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:17-24)

So if Paul can say that about those who dishonor the Old Covenant, what are we to make of those who claim to serve the Christ who said, “Love your enemies,” yet who react to the presence of an atheist on a talk show with 8,000 death threats against him.  No, really:

Someone possessed of heroic levels of charity might be able to overlook this brutish tribal hatred of enemies and come to discover that Jesus is Lord and God is love. But the actual teaching and tradition of the Church (as distinct from the post-modern reduction of Christianity to a politicized ideology and tribal sect) is that it is the Christian who is supposed to do the heavy lifting in the charity department and the non-believer who is supposed to have his conscience kick against the goads when he sees how he persecutes the innocent and charitable believer.

If the atheist claim of a superior philosophy is belied by the asinine fatuity of Brights, how much worse is it for Christians who purport to be ambassadors of Christ to wish not only the death, but the damnation of someone for whom Christ died?

It would be one thing if this were a few isolated cases. But 8,000 times?