A reader writes:
"Christianist" is a strictly neutral term – it describes a specific political position about the relationship between Christian faith and the state. If I actually believed that Christianity is the one true religion, and that the US government should be based on my understanding of the dictates of Christianity, I’d think that Christianist would correctly describe me, and I wouldn’t take offense. If you had said something like "evil Christianists," then I’d take offense.
The real reason that the current political leaders who can be rightly called Christianists take offense is not, as you suggest, because you are equating Christianity with Islam, but because, for political purposes, they wish to deny the truth about the radical nature of their claim on the state. They wish to keep claiming that their agenda is not radically at odds with the Constitution. It is the way Communists often took power by claiming that they are merely agrarian reformers. Christianists are mad because the term tears off their mask. Or, to be more charitable, they don’t want to admit to themselves the radical unconstitutional nature of their claim. Agreeing to be called Christianists will force them to be as honest as Islamists are about their political claim. They can’t do that and stay in business.
The Dish 