On Faith, the Washington Post microsite dedicated to discussions of religion and, apparently, promoting a wide array of bigots, has a new discussion topic: “Obama's Muslim dilemma.” The Post's introduction to that topic notes:

The more Obama reaches out to Muslims, the more his critics are likely to slander him, implying that he is not a Christian.

Those links go to 2008 articles at WorldNetDaily and something called ChristianWebsite.com. It's nice of the Post to drive traffic to the birther lunatics at WND, but it could have provided more recent examples of someone slandering Obama by implying that he is not a Christian -- and it could have done so without sending readers away from the Post's own website. On Faith contributor Danielle Bean has repeatedly used the platform granted her by the Post to imply that Obama is not a Christian.

On September 2, Bean wrote that she is “uneasy about” Obama's religion, that when she listens to him she doesn't “hear a Christian speaking” and that “every American citizen can and should ask the legitimate question: President Obama, where do your loyalties lie?” (Bean didn't mean patriotic loyalties, she meant religious loyalties.)

On October 20, Bean wrote “I don't care what politicians say their religion is. I care what they actually believe. Our current president has made clear the fact that a man can publicly call himself Christian, but then speak and act in a way that leave a growing number of Americans uncertain about what his actual religious beliefs might be.”

And just this morning, in response to the new On Faith discussion topic, Bean writes:

Those who are confused or suspicious about Obama's religious beliefs, despite the fact that he claims to be a Christian, will not be mollified by the fact that he did not happen to appear in public with a kerchief tied to his head last week.

The president's dilemma of how to handle his public religious identity could be easily solved if he were to behave in an unabashedly, unmistakably, and unapologetically Christian manner.

Instead of hemming and hawing about the “correct” religious moves to make, he should embrace the fullness of the Christian faith he claims to profess and show the world he is a Christian instead of telling us all the time.

…

Obama has chosen to call himself Christian and his faith continues to be an issue for the American people only because, for fear of offending, he attempts to walk a line among religions of all kinds. [Emphasis added]

At the end, Bean finally instructs Obama to “Be the Christian you are.” But that comes only after several paragraphs implying Obama isn't really a Christian -- that he merely “claims to be” one.

The Post describes the act of implying -- not saying outright, just implying -- that Obama is not a Christian as “slander.” So why does it continue to allow Danielle Bean to do just that?