PDA

View Full Version : Now the NY Times Is Interested In Candidates Churches



red states rule
08-28-2011, 04:14 AM
Anazing how in 2008 the NY Times, the rest of the liberal meida, and libs screamed how Obama's pastor Rev Wright was a non-issue

They did not care about the racism Wright screamed from the pulpit, or if Obama sat in pew and listened. They did not care if Obama agreeded with his "spiritual mentor" as Obama described Wright

Now in 2011, the NY Times is wanting to know about the religion of REPUBLICAN candidates. The liberal media is in full attack mode when it comes to the R's and in full protect mode when it comes to Obama

Just as they were in 2008





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 (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34758) 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 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/ames-debate-romney-bachmann-paul-huntsman-santorum-gingrich-pawlenty-cain.html) 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.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html) 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.


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

Little-Acorn
08-28-2011, 12:53 PM
Aside from the staggering hypocrisy shown by bringing up 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.

The author 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 this author 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.

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 the author 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 the author equated the candidates' religions, to a belief in talking to space aliens. Subtle, eh?

But the crowning absurdity is the author'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 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?

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.

This author is a little late in coming to the party. As RSR points out, 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.

red states rule
08-28-2011, 01:06 PM
Here is one bit of "coverage" The NY Times gave the "GD America" preacher





The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. served as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, from 1972 to February of 2008.

Among his congregation was a young man who went on to become a Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama credits a sermon of Mr. Wright’s, “The Audacity of Hope,” with drawing him to Christianity, and the influence was powerful enough that the senator made the phrase the title of his second book. But just before he announced his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama started to distance himself from Mr. Wright, cancelling plans for him to deliver the convocation prayer at the campaign's formal announcement.

Mr. Wright was described by Jodi Kantor of the Times in 2007 as "a dynamic pastor who preached Afrocentric theology, dabbled in radical politics and delivered music-and-profanity-spiked sermons.'' The article also noted that his "assertions of widespread white racism and his scorching remarks about American government have drawn criticism.''


http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/w/jeremiah_a_wright_jr/index.html

Little-Acorn
08-29-2011, 01:31 PM
Here is one bit of "coverage" The NY Times gave the "GD America" preacher

They printed that 2-1/2 years AFTER the election.

Thanks for the "warning", Times. You are serving your audience well. (Not....)

red states rule
08-29-2011, 01:36 PM
They printed that 2-1/2 years AFTER the election.

Thanks for the "warning", Times. You are serving your audience well. (Not....)

You really did not expect the NY Times is report on Wright BEFORE the election did you?

Little-Acorn
08-31-2011, 08:03 PM
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/113008%20religiousnut%20RGB20110830101628.jpg