Well, I asked somebody to prove me wrong….
Ted Olson of Christianity Today has the goods:
The July 24, 2005, issue of the Sunday News Perspective section contained an article by Dan Schultz titled “Where is the conservative outrage.” [Published here as Where’s the Outrage?] It included this comment early in the column:
Christianity Today’s Weblog, which carries news of just about everything happening in the Christian world, linked to a Washington Post story on the church’s recovery, without specifying the nature of the attack.
I would have thought that the term “anti-gay attack” would have been specific enough. Perhaps Mr. Schultz is upset that we did not describe the exact words spraypainted on the walls? The precise color of paint?
I should also note that this was not the first time we linked to an article about the crime. On July 14, we linked to a Washington Times article and promoted it like this: “Fire at vandalized church was arson, federal investigators say | Federal investigators concluded that a fire at a church vandalized with anti-homosexual graffiti was set.” That particular Weblog posting also included information about the arson of a black church in Sparta, Tennessee.
Schultz accuses us of silence. But (unlike all the Lancaster newspapers) we have not been silent, and we do not appreciate the suggestion that we turn a blind eye to bigotry. Since this is a rather easy fact to check (our site is searchable), I’m a bit disappointed in the Sunday News for not vetting Schultz’s column, especially since his accusations are rather severe. It seems to me that a correction is in order.
So here it is: I regret having missed these items. I once told the folks at Weblog that while I disagreed with them on many issues, I thought of them as principled and cogent.
I stand by those words.
However, I also stand by the main contention of the article. The silence from the Religious Right has been deafening on this subject, particularly because so many on the right are so quick to cry “persecution!” And I notice, despite Olson’s correct characterization of the attacks, that Weblog has not seen fit to editorialize on the subject. That’s their right, and mine to disagree with it.
However, it is incorrect to say that the folks at Weblog have not noticed the nature of the attack, and for that they have my sincere apology.
