August 25, 2011

As if we needed proof ...

... that the New York Times is liberally biased, outgoing executive editor Bill Keller recently compared belief in God to ... belief in space aliens:

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...

Hmm, considering that over 90% of Americans believe in God (or a god), isn't it just a bit insulting to compare that to extraterrestrials? (Not to mention, isn't there a distinct difference between believing that aliens "walk among us" and believing that they merely exist?)

Keller even mailed the following questions to some GOP candidates (because, after all, their beliefs are inherently dangerous, dont'cha know?):

– Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or a “Judeo-Christian nation?” and what does that mean in practice?

My answer: Yes. However, I would clarify the point by saying it is a predominately Christian nation. Anyone who disputes this most salient fact is simply delusional. And many of the country's political and cultural belief systems have their basis in Judeo-Christian principles.

– Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? What about an atheist?

My answer: Not at all. As long as they shared my political and legal philosophies/beliefs, I'd have no qualms about appointing them.

– What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution, and do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer: Certainly, it is a legitimate scientific theory and yes, it should be taught in our public schools.

Of course, as Clay Waters points out, Keller and his paper didn't really have too much of a hassle with candidate Barack Obama's religion or choice of pastor:

The Times didn’t do much pressing of Obama on his toleration of Wright’s radicalism. It took the paper months to accurately quote one of Wright’s most inflammatory sermons: "Not God bless America, God damn America!" The Times also glossed over Wright’s despicable ranting “sermon” five days after the 9-11 attacks. In Wright’s rant, September 11 was a sign that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for supporting “state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans.” After Obama was obliged to address the issue in a speech on March 18, 2008, the Times fell over itself to praise the politically necessary address as Lincolnesque.

Surprise that, eh? But the truth is, Keller and the Times probably agreed with Wright. "Progressives" always side with the underdog no matter how ludicrous it is: The Palestinians want to obliterate all Jews, yet it is Israel who's the bad guy; the Japanese began WWII (for us) by bombing Pearl Harbor and four years later refused to surrender after the first A-bomb, but it's the US who's the bad guy ...


Posted by Hube at August 25, 2011 08:45 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Post a comment

Remember personal info?