Of Course: NYT Editor Suddenly Very Interested in Candidates' Churches

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 08-25-2011, 04:04 PM

This reminds me of a couple of past elections where the Democrats proclaimed how, during the Bush/Gore competition, military service wasn't that big of a deal, then when it was Bush/Kerry, they screamed "Just look at all of that military service Kerry has!!!!", and then went back to "Military service doesn't count during "McCain/Obama"...

2008 was the year that blogs were full of Obama's associations with VERY radical people in both the political and religious realms, yet the New York Times didn't bother because it was SOOO unimportant...

But Obama has competition for 2012?...Well let's do a 180 and investigate EVERYBODY on the Republican side!!!!!...

Of Course: NYT Editor Suddenly Very Interested in Candidates' Churches

Quote:

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller is a curious cat. His renowned curiosity has most recently been piqued by the religious views and affiliations of the various Republicans running for president. As he implies in his column today, the current field may be crowded with a distressing combination of religious zealots, people associated with religious zealots, and adherents to strange, unfamiliar faiths. Be very afraid, America:

Quote:

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, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.

...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.

For purposes of clarity and full disclosure, Rick Santorum's creepy, virtually-unheard-of "fervid subset of evangelical Christianity" is called "Catholicism." Run for the hills! Keller goes on to present a number of questions, and urges each candidate to respond to him directly. Inexplicably, "are you a secret Trojan Horse Christianist nutbag?" isn't among them, although it's fairly obvious what he's driving at. Here's an example of an important query Keller crafted for Rick Perry:

Quote:

I wanted Governor Perry to explain his relationship with David Barton, the founder of the WallBuilders evangelical movement, who preaches that America should have a government “firmly rooted in biblical principles” and that the Bible offers explicit guidance on public policy — for example, tax policy. Since Barton endorsed Perry in the past, it would be interesting to know whether the governor disagrees with him.

Ah, now endorsements are on the table? Fair enough. As a point of reference, a top Hamas official publicly endorsed candidate Barack Obama on a New York radio show in April of 2008. Obama's campaign pronounced itself "flattered" by Ahmed Yousef's kind words. I'm sure you recall the memorable column Keller penned shortly thereafter, pointedly inquiring if Barack Obama shared the religious/political worldview of Hamas -- an official terrorist organization, according to the US government? You don't? As it happens, neither do I.

Keller also seems interested in the GOP candidates' personal associations, books they've read, and potentially controversial past statements. Indeed, who can quibble with this exhibition of journalistic fair play, given the extensive coverage* his newspaper devoted to Stanley Kurtz's thorough, contemporary investigative reporting about Barack Obama's seemingly endless roster of radical, extreme, and anti-American associates and mentors (Ayers, Davis, Khalidi, Wright, etc.) in 2008? *Correction: I wrote "extensive coverage" instead of "total blackout." Townhall regrets the error.

I'll readily concede that not all of Keller's questions are illegitimate, and some surely will be posed to the candidates at some point. It's just remarkable to witness a prominent leftist's newfound conviction that a candidate's background, church, friends, and even endorsers are totally fair game for a political campaign -- rather than vindictive, irrelevant, "distracting" (and quite possibly racist) "smears." Byron York reminds us that the most infamous sentence ever uttered by Barack Obama's self-described spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years ("God damn America!") didn't appear in the news pages of Mr. Keller's "paper of record" for nearly six months after the comments became public.

AZRWinger · #2 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 08:06 AM

You have to keep in mind the David Barton was a frequent guest on Glenn Beck's FNC show

as an expert on American history. Therefore it is guilt by association for Perry but it would be racist to impute the same thing to Obama for his relationship to Wright, Ayers, Davis, etc.

crazyflamingos · #3 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

For purposes of clarity and full disclosure, Rick Santorum's creepy, virtually-unheard-of "fervid subset of evangelical Christianity" is called "Catholicism."

Or perhaps he was referring to Santorums's "Knighthood" in The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.

Quote:

Santorum and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York.[16]
Rick Santorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (Italian: Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta), also known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), Order of Malta or Knights of Malta, is a Roman Catholic lay religious order, traditionally of military, chivalrous, noble nature.[4] It is the world's oldest surviving order of chivalry.[5] The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is headquartered in Rome, Italy, and is widely considered a sovereign subject of international law.[6]

With its unique history and unusual present circumstances, the exact status of the Order in international law has been the subject of debate: it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state. Its two headquarters in Rome — the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68, where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet, and the Villa Malta on the Aventine, which hosts the Grand Priory of Rome — Fort Saint Angelo on the island of Malta, the Embassy of the Order to Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to Italy have all been granted extraterritoriality.

Sovereign Military Order of Malta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bfd · #4 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 02:46 PM

Who is the NYT again?

cnredd · #5 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

Or perhaps he was referring to Santorums's "Knighthood" in The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.

You highlighted the wrong part...

This is ALL one needs to know...

Quote:

It is the world's oldest surviving order of chivalry

Second, just look at all of those dastardly "fervid evangelical" stuff they do...

Quote:

Today the order has about 13,000 members; 80,000 permanent volunteers; and 20,000 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and paramedics. The goal is to assist the elderly, handicapped, refugeed, children, homeless, those with terminal illness and leprosy in five continents of the world, without distinction of race or religion. In several countries—including France, Germany and Ireland—the local associations of the Order are important providers of first aid training, first aid services and emergency medical services. Through its worldwide relief corps—Malteser International—the Order is also engaged to aid victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts.

Wow...The author has SUCH a point...

Third, the original contention still stands...

The New York Times...all of a sudden...is interested in the religious backgrounds of the candidates when they held their nose at the thought during the last election even when it was wisely known that one of the candidates was actively involved (for two decades mind you) with an anti-American, Black Liberation, anti-middle class, admittedly Marxist church and admitted anti-government organizations...

Oh yeah...Santorum's one-day celebration at St. Patrick cathedral is SOOO much more scary and important than that....

alan · #6 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 03:57 PM

Mitt Romney is morman.
Rick Perry held a prayer breakfast.
Michelle Bachman cites her religious beliefs.
Barack Obama is (half) black.

Hey, guess what, none of that f*****g matters to anybody but the press and stupid people.

cnredd · #7 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan

Mitt Romney is morman.
Rick Perry held a prayer breakfast.
Michelle Bachman cites her religious beliefs.
Barack Obama is (half) black.

Hey, guess what, none of that f*****g matters to anybody but the press and stupid people.

I disagree...

It matters in SOME cases...If a candidate is known to have PUSHED their beliefs of their religion or religious identity in their previous invocations or as a lesser elected official, then it matters GREATLY...

Romney being a Mormon is irrelevant because he has NEVER shown that his "Mormanism" was the leading factor in his legislation or policies...

But if there was evidence that it DID, then it would be HUGE matter...

alan · #8 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I disagree...

It matters in SOME cases...If a candidate is known to have PUSHED their beliefs of their religion or religious identity in their previous invocations or as a lesser elected official, then it matters GREATLY...

Romney being a Mormon is irrelevant because he has NEVER shown that his "Mormanism" was the leading factor in his legislation or policies...

But if there was evidence that it DID, then it would be HUGE matter...

Have any of them shown religion "was the leading factor in his legislation or policies"? If not, then it matters not, but (as you pointed out in the OP) the NYT finds it to be important in certain circumstances (letter behind the name).

crazyflamingos · #9 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

You highlighted the wrong part...

This is ALL one needs to know...

Second, just look at all of those dastardly "fervid evangelical" stuff they do...

Wow...The author has SUCH a point...

Third, the original contention still stands...

The New York Times...all of a sudden...is interested in the religious backgrounds of the candidates when they held their nose at the thought during the last election even when it was wisely known that one of the candidates was actively involved (for two decades mind you) with an anti-American, Black Liberation, anti-middle class, admittedly Marxist church and admitted anti-government organizations...

Oh yeah...Santorum's one-day celebration at St. Patrick cathedral is SOOO much more scary and important than that....

I find it hard to believe that you so easily dismiss the importance of Santorum becoming a member of an organization that considers itself to be a sovereign nation.

Can U.S. Presidents hold dual citizenships?

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 08-28-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

I find it hard to believe that you so easily dismiss the importance of Santorum becoming a member of an organization that considers itself to be a sovereign nation.

Can U.S. Presidents hold dual citizenships?

"Sovereign subject of international law" is NOT the same as "sovereign NATION"...

And let's not stop looking for the forest because of that damn tree in the way...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode