The issue with 'my wording' being what she has to use is that it's... well, audience. And this gets into a general longstanding issue I sometimes have with the feminist community, but essentially, when you're writing to a specific audience, such as 1) the people who read your blog 2) where you have a purpose and establishment statement stating the context in which it is written (as many specific feminist blogs do, although not all of the ones I've had the crap kicked out of me on at the time), then some things are understood. In a sense, it is a 'professional' audience. The fields of study it involves have their own jargon, generally held beliefs, etc. As an example, a scientist might say that Evolution/Global Warming would have the same problem in phrasing. They are generally accepted among people that actually, uh, think about this stuff, but a lot of people think there's a debate. Similarly, the dominant feminist interpretation of the bible? Patriarchy everywhere. 'Generally interpreted' indeed.

Taking issue with 'generally interpreted', the only particularly well arguable part, which requires ignoring the audience, as meaning she hates Christians is ultimately nonsensical. But because you can attack 'generally interpreted' by acting like she said it to a general audience, they're trying to sneak in hatred by the side door (she's wrong about that => SHE HATES CHRISTIANS), and it's just not _there_. It's an attempt to further poison the well... but I covered that in the framing stuff. Anyway.

This isn't an isolated incident, and the organization has been pulling quotes out of context for this particular blogger for a week and change. It's a hack job, pure and simple. ^_^; Take someone's actions, twist them into beliefs you don't think people will like, and spread the word.

-Mecha