Column: Assertions cast religion in bad light

Here's the third op-ed piece I've seen labeled "Column," the first writ by a regular contributor. Does this signify that the editors take George Seaman as seriously as Randall Amster, or is it a demotion for Randall?

Randall attempts to call intolerant, absolutist Xtians on their anti-Xtian ways. But he tries so hard to be nice about it and sidle up to it slowly, I imagine most readers will have moved on before he even mentions his real topic. It's like he's taking the role of Aesop, talking slowly under an olive tree on a lazy afternoon, the reader lolling at his feet waiting for the clever twist that gets to the moral of the story.

You have to hit it harder, Randall. You don't lead a column about religious discourse with a reference to Social Security, it just confuses people. Get to what you mean, state your thesis clearly, then back it up.

If your editor was doing his job, he'd be giving you these tips himself and guiding you, because when the paper reads better, it sells better to readers.