NASHVILLE — Editors at a leading Christian satire website confirmed Tuesday that it is entirely fair to judge a religion by the actions of its worst members, provided the religion in question belongs to somebody else.

"The standard is simple, and it applies to everyone," said managing editor Brent Colley, reading from a laminated style guide. "Except us. There's a footnote."

Under the outlet's internal guidelines, a faith of nearly 2 billion people may be summarized by its most violent fraction, while the editors' own tradition is to be judged solely by its best potluck. Staff called the rule timeless and said it had held up well against every century they had chosen to look at.

Asked whether the same logic might apply to televangelists, prosperity preachers, or a few centuries of European history, the editorial board said those people "were never really part of us" and asked reporters to stop reading ahead in the textbook.

Media ethicists praised the approach for its efficiency. "Judging a group by its best members is slow. You have to actually meet people," said journalism professor Dana Whitcomb. "Judging by the worst only requires a headline."

Readers applauded the clarification, and the top comment read, "Finally, someone saying what we already say."

At press time, the site had published a follow-up clarifying that all criticism of the piece would be judged by the worst person who shared it.