I've been getting some blog comments which suggest that calling people "Satanic" is waaaay nicer than calling people "crappy."
Well, I dunno about that.
Apparently, according to this reader, calling Buddhists "Satanic" is somehow much more polite than, say, suggesting that, due to the results of their actions in their current lives, some misguided Christians may find themselves reborn as single-celled intestinal inhabitants. Or worse. Which I, personally, rarely do. (See posts below, where poster Honest Observer make reference to this behavior).
The argument appears to be that calling people "Satanic" is a theological statement, while calling people "crappy" is, well, not nice. Or something.
I, as one Buddhist among many on the receiving end of the "Satanic" Mohler-esque namecall thing, strongly disagree. The S-word is the religious equivalent of the N-word.
If you want to call my religion "misguided" or something, that's fine.
Name-calling that implies devil-worship, on the other hand, is REALLY not nice. In the N-word sense. It's beyond the pale.
On the other hand, "Crappy-Christian" is accurate. I'm using this nomenclature in a theological way, pointing out that those Christians who behave in ways inimical to Christ's teachings are doing a crappy job of being Christians.