*NOW* the NY Times is interested in candidates' churches

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Back when Barack Obama was a candidate, having spent half a lifetime in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church while that noted worthy was screaming "GOD DAMN AMERICA!", telling the prospective President that Whitey's oppression was the cause of most of black peoples' present problems, blaming the U.S. for Islamic hate and the 9/11 attacks etc., the New York Times could not be bothered to mention any of this influence on a candidate's outlook. Clearly it was news not "fit to print".

But now when a few Republicans are (gasp) devoted to a loving God and conscious of His dictates spelled out in the Bible, Omigawd it's front-page news... and the thrust is "We can't possibly elect a candidate who believes THAT!!!"

You have to wonder about the business plan of a newspaper which relies so heavily on the chance that nobody paid attention to it in the past.

-------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/magazine/asking-candidates-tougher-questions-about-faith.html?_r=1

Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith

By BILL KELLER
Published: August 25, 2011

If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?

Yet when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively. Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible obliged her to “be submissive” to her husband, and there was an audible wave of boos — for the question, not the answer. There is a sense, encouraged by the candidates, that what goes on between a candidate and his or her God is a sensitive, even privileged domain, except when it is useful for mobilizing the religious base and prying open their wallets.

This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are both affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity — and Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism — which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.

I honestly don’t care if Mitt Romney wears Mormon undergarments beneath his Gap skinny jeans, or if he believes that the stories of ancient American prophets were engraved on gold tablets and buried in upstate New York, or that Mormonism’s founding prophet practiced polygamy (which was disavowed by the church in 1890). Every faith has its baggage, and every faith holds beliefs that will seem bizarre to outsiders. I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ.

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.

And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.

So this season I’m paying closer attention to what the candidates say about their faith and what they have said in the past that they may have decided to play down in the quest for mainstream respectability.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
 
Werbung:
This is very typical, now that the media wants to pay attention to churches we should revisit the marxist rev and the obama's new rev who is not as bad but pretty dang bad

I welcome the comparison even to romney's Mormon church, magic panties and all :)
 
This is very typical, now that the media wants to pay attention to churches we should revisit the marxist rev and the obama's new rev who is not as bad but pretty dang bad

I welcome the comparison even to romney's Mormon church, magic panties and all :)
Isn't the real issue about fundamentalism, and not about any particular releigion? We have troubles with fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims, and every other fundamentalist creed.

Moderates of all faiths seem to know how to get along together.
 
In fact, that's exactly what Obama IS doing. And if the media had even half-assedly done their jobs in 2008, as they pretend to be doing now, the people who voted for him would have had a better chance to see exactly who and what we were electing. Now the times is publishing "expose's" on the good Rev. Wright, or one of them anyway... two and a half years AFTER the election, and claiming that makes them "unbiased" and equitable. Oh, spare me.

But quite aside from the staggering hypocrisy shown by bringing up relatively benevolent religions of Republicans while quietly never mentioning the lifetime of poisonous bile absorbed from the pulpit by the candidate they liked, this article is a fascinating expose' of the degree of isolation and intolerance for mainstream America's religions, shown by the liberal elite.

Mr. Keller describes the candidates' religions as "mysterious or suspect to many Americans", as though most Americans hadn't encountered and become familiar with the religions of their friends and acquaintances, as well as their own... as Mr. Keller apparently hasn't. In fact, the only people who find these various religions "mysterious or suspects", are the ones this author runs into at Manhattan cocktail parties where the chief concern is holding your little finger out correctly while sipping... and spreading gossip.

In fact, most people I've talked to (sorry I missed the cocktail parties) don't consider the differences between religions "bizarre" at all, contrary to what Keller tries to claim here. Some of my friends prefer curry, or jalapeno salsa, over steak. That's not bizarre either, though the differences are VERY large... it's just what other people like.

I especially liked the part where Mr. Keller equated the candidates' religions, to a belief in talking to space aliens. Subtle, eh?

But the crowning absurdity is Mr. Keller's newly-found concern over whether a "candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed".

Let's see... can you name a candidate pushing a set of beliefs which have never been proven to work, but whose adherents blindly support them on faith, trying to recruit others with grandiose claims of miraculous cures and happiness? A candidate who was careful to never mention his more core beliefs while campaigning, that he intended to force upon the rest of us after the votes were counted? Never mentioned except for a few probably-inadvertent slips ("spreading the wealth around", "fundamentally transforming the United States", etc.)? And who dared not mention that all Americans would be forced to join them, or pay substantial fines and penalties... even if 80% or more of ALL Americans declared they wanted no part of it? Almost as though they had some release from On High, giving them the authority to make the decision for us and then force us to go along?

The sect is MODERN LIBERALISM, which in fact fits the definition of a religion to a tee. With the exception that most religions have never been DISPROVEN, while Liberalism has failed time and again to deliver what was promised.

Keller is a little late in coming to the party. He would have done well to discover his solicitous(?) concern over religion (whether from the pulpit or from the Bully Pulpit), four years ago.

But then, he might have found that his equating of "separation of church and state" with "separation of fiction and fact", applied far more accurately to his own religion (Liberalism) than to the ones he is suddenly concerned about in others.

Obama practices this religion daily. And intermingles it with government to a degree not exercised by anyone short of the Ayatollahs of Iran. And the country will suffer for years, from its effects.
 
Werbung:
I have more trouble with marxist racist religions

113008%20religiousnut%20RGB20110830101628.jpg
 
Back
Top