Tag: New York Times

03May

Deniers!

I recall the term “denier” originally being applied pejoratively to those who minimize or outright disbelieve the horrors of the Holocaust—the genocide of Jews in Europe under the Nazi regime during World War II. Holocaust denial is associated with racist ideologies, and expressing such denial generally pushes one to the fringes of society. Deniers face (and rightly so) anger, public shame, and ostracism, and depending on the locale, may also find themselves in violation of law. French historian Robert Faurisson was prosecuted, and fined under the Gayssot Act in 1991, and subsequently was removed from his academic post. (He is not totally devoid of public support—In 2012 he was awarded for his “courage” by Iranian president Ahmedinejad, himself a “denier”).

The “denier” label, with emotional power borrowed from Holocaust denial, has been used more recently against skeptics of the current scientific consensus on “global warming” (or “climate change”). The top few “hits” from a search engine will pull such titles as “The Depravity of Climate-change Denial” (The New York Times), “What Deniers of Climate Change and Racism Share” (The Atlantic). As this is a political issue of much controversy, I’ll merely note this as a phenomenon and move on.

(As an aside, I think that there exists a lot of denial about the atrocities of global Communism, and that would be a worthy target of activism. Unfortunately, those controlling the organs of culture right now are more often ideologically aligned with Communism than opposed to it).

Every Easter, another kind of denial rears its ugly head among those who claim to be followers of Christ. A recent New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof has me thinking about this issue again with respect to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, celebrated by Christians around the globe during Easter. No less a personage than the president of New York’s famed Union Theological Seminary, Dr. Serene Jones, was pressed about her views on the subject. She made it clear that she is in fact on the correct side of climate change, but about the physical resurrection of Jesus, she is a “denier”:

When you look in the Gospels, the stories are all over the place. There’s no resurrection story in Mark, just an empty tomb. Those who claim to know whether or not it happened are kidding themselves. But that empty tomb symbolizes that the ultimate love in our lives cannot be crucified and killed.

She expressed doubt regarding other miracles, called the virgin birth “bizarre”, and questioned whether there is an afterlife (“I don’t know! There may be something; there may be nothing.”). Regarding the God of the Bible, she opines,

God is beyond our knowing, not a being or an essence or an object. But I don’t worship an all-powerful, all-controlling omnipotent, omniscient being. That is a fabrication of Roman juridical theory and Greek mythology. That’s not the God of Easter. The God of Easter is vulnerable and is connected to the world in profound ways that don’t involve manipulating the world but constantly inviting us into love, justice, mercy.

In a critique, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of another famous Protestant seminary, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, takes Dr. Jones to task. “Let’s be clear. She is teaching a religion here – but that religion is not Christianity.”

Many of our leaders and academics are quite squeamish about the idea of an actual resurrection. They are somehow able to affirm the words of the old creeds in their churches on Sunday, “I believe in the resurrection of the dead,” with two fingers crossed behind their backs.

Perhaps Christianity could borrow the secular world’s approach, and address its own problem with progressives and skeptics, who have ravaged churches and seminaries from within. One significant fracture point would be the resurrection of Jesus. We could name names, and create lists of “Resurrection deniers.”

Applying the term “denial” would even be biblical. The apostle Paul warned Timothy in his second letter that the “last days” will bring to ascendance all manner of wicked and unsavory people, “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” (2 Timothy 3:5)

I don’t foresee an organized effort by traditionalists to recapture the faith from tepid nonbelieving leaders. They may not even need to bother. As vibrant orthodox Christianity grows ever stronger, this other milquetoast and eviscerated version of religion is simply evaporating. Once glorious Protestant churches are in a demographic death spiral, as they somehow fail to be energized by the progressive theologians’ message that “love in our lives can’t be crucified” (but of course death is the end of you).

Still, I think many in the pews would welcome the return of orthodox Christianity back into the historic houses of worship. I would.

Sources:

Kristof, Nicholas, April 20, 2019. “Opinion: Reverend, You Say the Virgin Birth Is ‘a Bizarre Claim’?”, New York Times, available online at https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/christian-easter-serene-jones.amp.html

Albert Mohler, April 22, 2019, “A Tale of Two Religions: Liberal Theology Without Illusions”. Online at https://albertmohler.com/2019/04/22/a-tale-of-two-religions-liberal-theology-without-illusions

30Nov

Leaks Call Media Impartiality Into Question

(Note: We wish to emphasize, and perhaps to reassure, that we are non-political, and therefore we do not endorse a particular party or candidate in a given election).

The major news outlets, from CNN to the New York Times, have been shown to be in close and unfair collusion with the Democratic Party and with the campaign of Hillary Clinton. In a way, this and the effort by progressives to subvert the Catholic Church from within are the two most troubling revelations from Wikileaks this year.

Other leaks have gotten much more attention in the media and blogosphere, as they have shown us inside information about Clinton’s campaign, touching on how her aides felt about the ill-advised email server, and bringing to light some questionable activities related to her private foundation. But these are merely the private machinations and moral defects of one person. The machinations and moral defects of the Press are another matter altogether.

In the case of the Press, alleged misdeeds are far more sinister and devastating because they have a wider effect. By “The Press” here I am referring to the so-called “mainstream media”, namely the nation’s most prominent newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal), and TV news outlets (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox), and maybe NPR radio. Note that I am not including blogs (like mine, nice as it may be). Nor do I include progressive or socialist news outlets, or the “alt-right”.  (Regarding “balance” I suppose that one could argue persuasively that if you set the Daily Kos on one end of a teeter-totter with Breitbart on the other end, and put all the other news sources in between, then it all balances out; Although I personally digest information from both ends of the spectrum, I do bemoan this kind of fragmentation–like trying to see through a kaleidoscope). My concern for purposes of this article is about the “mainstream media”.  We are talking about a kind of social institution which has claimed to be our window to truth.

A good bit of the credibility of the Press has been tied to the idea of impartiality.  Despite the fact that media types donate to Democrats over Republicans 10 to 1, and that Gallup polls show most Americans believe the media to be biased towards liberals, those who have publicly questioned this impartiality of the media have generally been dismissed, and besmirched as activists or deceivers. For a recent example, Poynter.com asked University of Connecticut Associate Professor of Communications Dave D’Alessio the question, “Is media bias really rampant?” He replies in the negative; Apparently bias, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder:

“You want to rally the troops. Both of the sides know that the way to get anything done is to get everyone on the same page, so anything they can do to create an opposition is good, because they can point at the media and say “The media are out to get me. The media are out to get us. So we can fight against this. And the way to do that is to vote for me.”

Well, now there is fairly incontrovertible proof that those who suspected unfairness were right. Evidence from released emails suggests that the problem might even be worse than anyone thought.

In one glaring example of collusion CNN contributor and new interim DNC chair Donna Brazile gave to Hillary Clinton some Town Hall debate questions in advance. She was subsequently fired from CNN but remained as interim DNC chair. (See this Fox News report, for example). When confronted about the email, she showed no remorse or sensitivity: “I will not stand here and be persecuted because your information is totally false,” Brazile said. “Podesta’s emails were stolen. You’re so interested in talking about stolen material, you’re like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that you found that was in the gutter. (Read more at Politico).

Here are a few more examples:

The Democratic National Committee apparently suggested questions to CNN to hammer at Trump and Cruz.

A Washington Post reporter asked for DNC research / dirt on Trump to put into an article.

CNBC asked the Clinton campaign what questions to ask Trump in advance of an interview.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has been famously quoted as saying that the New York Times is “our press”.  In support of this idea, leaked emails have shown that he apparently received rough drafts of Politico and New York Times stories to read over prior to publication. In one email he gloated about having placed pro-Hillary articles in Politico.  Furthermore, Clinton staffers were given the option of vetoing parts of NYT stories.

To its credit, the New York Times has issued a statement that, while not containing an actual apology, nonetheless pledges to its readers to do better:

…we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.

We will hope that the New York Times lives up to this pledge. In the meantime, we are filing this under the category of “Reflections of the Fall”.

01Oct

“Where Did All The Christians Go?”

Christian evangelicals in Iowa are suffering malaise, as reported in an interesting New York Times article. Deeply troubled about the direction taken in recent years, they suddenly feel isolated, and abandoned by the mainstream culture:

The change in America seemed to happen so quickly that it felt like whiplash, the Odgaards said. One day, they felt comfortably situated in the American majority, as Christians with shared beliefs in God, family and the Bible. They had never even imagined that two people of the same sex could marry.

Overnight, it seemed, they discovered that even in small-town Iowa they were outnumbered, isolated and unpopular.

…“It all flipped, so fast,” said Mr. Odgaard, a patrician 70-year-old who favors khakis and boat shoes. “Suddenly, we were in the minority. That was kind of a scary feeling. It makes you wonder where the Christians went.”

The election coming up is another source of frustration. They feel that neither of the presidential candidates reflects and represents their values:


So, in a year when many voters see nothing but bad choices, many evangelicals feel deeply torn. Long part of a reliable Republican voting bloc, many are appalled to find Donald J. Trump their only alternative to Hillary Clinton. They say he has taken positions all over the map on same-sex couples and abortion and does not have the character to be president. Others are still bewildered that Mr. Trump defeated not only Mr. Cruz — a pastor’s son who made “religious liberty” a signature issue — but also half a dozen other conservative Christian contenders they would have gladly supported.

You may read more at New York Times.