Continuing its practice of hosting some of the ugliest rhetoric around, the Washington Post's On Faith microsite currently features an angry rant in which Danielle Bean suggests Barack Obama isn't really a Christian and questions his “loyalties”:

I am not uneasy about President Obama's religion because I suspect he is a practicing Muslim. I am uneasy about his religion because I see a disconnect between the Christian faith he professes and his own words and actions.

There is nothing remotely Christian about supporting the legalized slaughter of unborn human beings for all nine months of pregnancy and even opposing legislation that would require basic medical care be given to those helpless infants accidentally “born alive” after botched abortions.

When a man who claims to be Christian mocks those who “cling to their guns and religion,” his words give me pause. When a man who claims to be Christian embraces such messianic titles as “the One” and has the audacity to claim that “we are the ones we've been waiting for,” I don't hear a Christian speaking. I hear a proponent of the “Religion of Me.”

To me, the president's faith matters most when I begin to suspect he's putting it on for show. When a man's own words and actions fail to match up with his professed beliefs, I think every American citizen can and should ask the legitimate question:

President Obama, where do your loyalties lie? [Emphasis added]

That professed concern about “a disconnect between the Christian faith he professes and his own words and actions” could, of course, be applied to every Christian politician -- those who favor the death penalty, or unjust wars, or policies that benefit it the wealthy at the expense of the poor come to mind -- but Bean applies it only to President Obama. That, coupled with Bean's disingenuous claim that Obama has “embrace[d] such messianic titles as 'the One'” -- that's a term of derision political conservatives use for Obama, not a title he claims for himself -- call her sincerity into question.

But that probably shouldn't be surprising given Bean's track record. In a previous On Faith entry denouncing Jennifer Aniston, Bean wrote: “Who needs a dad? Every child does. Even unbiased studies and statistics say so." That link for “unbiased studies” takes you to a column by Heritage Foundation fellow Rebecca Hagelin, which cites another Heritage Foundation “expert,” and which includes a note indicating that the column “First appeared on WorldNetDaily.”

Yep, nothing says “unbiased” like a column by a Heritage Foundation fellow which relies on the work of the Heritage Foundation and which was first published by the looney Birthers at WorldNetDaily!

And that's what passes for a “distinguished” panelist at the Washington Post's site dedicated to “intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation”: Someone who questions the President's religion and “loyalties” and who considers WorldNetDaily and the Heritage Foundation “unbiased.” No wonder On Faith treats Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck as the nation's leading religious thinkers.