NYT's Bill Keller Questions Faith of GOP Candidates, Compares Belief in God to Belief in Aliens
Bill Keller’s upcoming column for the New York Times’s Sunday magazine, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” raised familiar liberal paranoia about the conservative religious views of Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. The official headline for the upcoming print edition: “Not Just Between Them and Their God.” Keller had no time for respectful criticism: "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."
Keller, the outgoing executive editor for the Times, got off on the wrong foot by mockingly comparing the candidates’ Christian beliefs to belief in space aliens. Then he made the latest in his impressive string of column factual errors, identifying the Catholic politician Rick Santorum as an evangelical Christian.
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...
...
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.
Actually, Santorum is a Catholic, not an evangelical.
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.
....
From Ryan Lizza’s enlightening profile in The New Yorker, I learned that Michele Bachmann’s influences include spiritual and political mentors who preach the literal “inerrancy” of the Bible, who warn Christians to be suspicious of ideas that come from non-Christians, who believe homosexuality is an “abomination,” who portray the pre-Civil War South as a pretty nice place for slaves and who advocate “Dominionism,” the view that Christians and only Christians should preside over earthly institutions.
Liberal Washington Post religion writer Lisa Miller advised liberals to take a deep breath on the perils of “Dominionism,” a broad term that means different things to different Christians.
Keller even sent the “aforementioned candidates” (presumably Romney, Perry and Bachmann) a list of loaded questions:
To get things rolling, I sent the aforementioned candidates a little questionnaire. Here’s a sample:
– 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?
– Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? What about an atheist?
– What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution, and do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
But does Keller’s call for more rigorous religious questioning apply to Democrats as well?
His newspaper certainly wasn’t at the forefront of dissecting Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs, during the 2008 campaign, especially the then-senator from Illinois’ relationship to his racially inflammatory and conspiracy-minded pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Keller downplayed the Wright controversy in half a sentence, making sure to balance it with a John McCain reference: “In the last presidential campaign, Candidate Obama was pressed to distance himself from his pastor, who carried racial bitterness to extremes, and Candidate McCain was forced to reject the endorsement of a preacher who offended Catholics and Jews.”
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.
At the end, Keller promised to keep the heat on the Republican candidates: “We’ll be posting the campaigns’ answers -- if any -- on nytimes.com. And if they don’t answer, let’s keep on asking. Because these are matters too important to take on faith.”
At least when it comes to the beliefs of Republican candidates.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
If I were running for office and Keller sent me that . . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:11pm.
. . . faith questionnaire, I'd go on TV with it and tell the NY Times that my personal faith is none of their business.
I'd then pose that rhetorical question to the viewers, "Don't the newspapers have real news to cover? Is this more important to you than the latest information on the economy, or Obama's "I'll get back to you" economic plan to be released in September?"
Then I would send it to 'Rev.' Al Sharpton.
they are past the point of
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:37pm.
they are past the point of covering the news and now are into their own version of mind control. we might as well accept their position because they aren't going to change to reality any time soon.
They should get nuttier and nuttier as time goes on...
Not only are they getting nuttier and nuttier
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:29pm.
but also, they are getting more and more frightened at the sheer number of qualified -- highly qualified -- Republicans who are available for consideration as 2012 approaches...
The legacy media cannot debate with or about the policy or patriotism of most GOP prospects... Their only recourse is to attack the personalities or beliefs of these people... Their own little darling is not qualified to carry the briefcase of any Republican prospect... And they do know it... They have no where to go...
We CANNOT allow them to pick our candidate this cycle!!!
Pick our candidates
Submitted by milootoole on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:38pm.
They do not pick, per se, our candidates. What they do in conjunction with the MSM is to demean and belittle any that they feel are a threat and we wind up with second best.
So, overall, you are correct. It is the way they do it that disguises the "pick". You bet they will not throw rocks at anyone they think Obama can beat. I am waiting for rumors that Cain's cancer is back, that Bachmann is going to reduce aid to states in need.
Why, they may even hint that Romney wants obamacare.
MO'T Thank you for your insight...
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:10pm.
My post should have been clearer... Indeed, they do not "pick" our candidates, but they can and will use any available means to demean any GOP candidate with a chance to win... (Why that list doesn't include every last registered Republican is beyond me =8-)
The good news is that in this cycle, the Republican Party has an impressive collection of well qualified people... Let's hope that our own people are moved to focus on their own credentials and not destroy their opponents in the primary season...
Again, thanks so very much...
My advice to candidates:
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:18pm.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 7:5-7
Perfect!
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:27pm.
Now....I wonder who said that?
meet me at the mission at midnight
The blind, offering color palate critiques
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:27pm.
If it's all such a farce as this less-than-nano-wit professes to (ahem!) believe, then what's the big deal?
While he's in the process of greasing up his own set of cattle prods for the Inquisition, I'm sure he would be more than willing to submit to a similar theological, philosophical, moral, personal-life proctologic exam himself, yes???
Hmmm????
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Anybody know
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:34pm.
What planet is Keller from?
What branch of Communism is Rev Wright's BLT? Or is it Muslim?
Are you a Muslim?
Black Liberation Theology...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:25pm.
is based in Marxism.
I would hope the liberals
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:34pm.
I would hope the liberals keep persisting in an Anti-God attack.. by doing so they will hasten their own departure from the aspects of life they consider so dear...Their control over others.
Now....this is the same Times
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:38pm.
Now....this is the same Times that refused to investigate Obama's radical "church" he went to?
A Sample Questionare to Democrats:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:44pm.
Do you agree with Marxist class warfare and redistribution of wealth?
Do you agree with Marx's theory of destroying the middle class with high taxes and inflation?
Do you agree with big government reducing the Liberty of citizens?
Did the Times actually
Submitted by beerboy on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:06pm.
Did the Times actually question Dennis Kucinich about his belief in aliens?
No. Dennis the Kook
Submitted by misterbee241 on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:39am.
is a liberal democrat so he's allowed to believe in anything except a living God.
Aliens must be real....
Submitted by packman on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:18pm.
because there's...well, the New York Times.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Let's just sum it up
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:20pm.
This is a sick, religion hating man trying to be "Clever" while writing for his fellow circle of religion haters - except, of course, Islam.
It is amazing the depths to which a once great newspaper can sink.
well of course
Submitted by spepper on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:27pm.
Well of course the "outgoing executive editor for the New York Times" gets a string of facts wrong, because he isn't INTERESTED in factual correctness when it comes to accomplishing his AGENDA, which is to attack anyone who opposes his political or religious views-- since his "religion" does not call for any sort of adherence to morality (such as, avoid lying), anything goes.......
And with the current gaggle
Submitted by celator on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:12pm.
And with the current gaggle of fellow radical secularists Obama has dragged into the White House the MSM attacks will continue, and become more intense as the 2012 election gets closer.
You'd think that the NYT, which was saved only by the cash input of $250 million a while back (since repaid) by Mexican tycoon Carso Slim, and his more recent $8 .8 million purchase of NYT shares, that the NYT would be doing ok
Not so. NYT shares are down 36 percent for the year. So far. This is Keller's legacy, and it will only get worse. You can't keep running a paper full of lies, misstatements of facts, and radical liberal spin, and expect people to keep buying it.
Ya know.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:38pm.
I'm getting tired of this so-and-so never vetted Obama as much line of argument. I mean, it's true, with little doubt. But it just seems like these night-and-day differences seem to be convincing no one but fellow conservatives, who already know this as well as they know that they are breathing.
It's also seems the case that anything more than a nod at faith is advanced as a reason we shouldn't trust politicians in office.
Equal treatment ...
Submitted by drydino on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:42pm.
Of course, we all remember all those hard pressing, insightful questions Keller posed to Obama regarding his Black Liberation Theology. Along with the rest of Keller and the NYT's thorough vetting of BHO.
A few questions...just to be clear.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:51pm.
1. Do you believe in transubstantiation?
2. Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?
3. Do you believe in Trinitarianism?
4. Do you believe in being "Born Again"?
There are plenty of non-hating questions for every candidate.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
~Syrius is still obsessing over religion, I see
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:10pm.
.
???
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:04pm.
Who are you if I may ask?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Two years and five months on board, Ernst,and you ask,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:12pm.
in all apparent earnestness, the "who are you" question of Bru.
You forgot to add "whimsical comedian" to your list of derring-do activities in your profile.
MD
md,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:22pm.
LOL - His response to Bru was a dead giveaway.
Funny how they always say that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Okay.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:25pm.
I still don't know.
I was hoping for a statement like "Bru, Wrathful Bru."
LOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Keep pickin' at Bru, Ernst,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:30pm.
and you will likely find a re-write necessary; something along the lines of "Rue Wrathful Bru".
MD
Not picking at anyone.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:35pm.
It's along the lines of "Bond, James Bond." Of course, the humor is lost at this point.
I guess I'm not a "whimsical comedian."
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
"To pick or not to pick"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:33pm.
Whut wuz da question?
MD
~Who am I...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:15pm.
Well, I've only kicked about nine of his ID's around; I can see why his memory would be a little fuzzy. Repeated trauma to the head has that effect, I've heard.
LOL
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 7:04pm.
Thx for being a fan. I still don't know you.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Fools, folly and wisdom
Submitted by surfcitysocal on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:57pm.
The Bible has a lot to say about people who think they're all that, that faith is the "opiate of the people", and that God is just a big joke and not for intellectuals...or, at least, for those who think they're intellectual. Here are just a couple.
Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
It must be time to question
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:00pm.
It must be time to question Obama's muslim-nicity again. These damn libs will never learn will they.
Obama, Clinton and the "Alien"
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:32pm.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have expressed belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Obama has referred to Him as our "Redeemer" and "Saviour" and Clinton has said she has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Okay, that's a good start.
What does Keller have to say about that?
And Obama
Submitted by misterbee241 on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:44am.
has on at least two occasions called Jesus a liar. And Hillary like any good democrat worships at the alter of abortion. I wonder what the Holy Spirit told her about that?
Just my point, misterbee241
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 1:43pm.
As long as you worship at the altar of abortion and stick to the "social gospel" narrative (a la Pelosi, et al) all you get from the likes of Keller and other supporters on the left is a wink and a nod.
What is up with democrats and religion?
Submitted by g00se99 on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:35pm.
So they want to ask a bunch of questions about religious belief? If they want to make this election about religious belief, bring it on I would say. Obama has not demonstrated to me any genuine faith at all. GOP has lots of candidates that seem to believe in Christ and try to follow his teachings.
Nothing to fear with that line of questioning. America is still a Christian nation and people need to stand up for what they believe. Put up or shut up.
living in a bubble
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:43pm.
Nothing shows the isolation and minority status of the media elites as in their arrogant and condescending attacks on religious people and Christians in particular. What do they hope to accomplish? Do they have a need to be more hated and ignored than they are presently?
I suspect that part of their problem is that the Liberals finally got the reins of government in 2008, then failed, and now are just striking out at everything and every person who opposes them. They can't save themselves because they are out of ideas. All they can do is spit and bite like angry children.
Spitting & Biting
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:51pm.
And don't forget name-calling!
Let me answer Mr Keller
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:02pm.
– 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?
It means what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean, the United States is a REPUBLIC whose values, institutions and beliefs are grounded and founded upon the principles of Christianity. My question to you Mr Keller is, based upon the OVERWHELMING evidence that our Founders were indeed DEEPLY Christian men, what form of government did THEY institute? A theocracy or a Republic?
– Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? What about an atheist?
Yes on both counts. Invoking the term "hesitation" implies a situation which requires a sense of caution. Caution is a fair and necessary response in light of the current global conditions surrounding islam and terrorism. Though each person's loyalty should be considered individually, caution and hesitation can be signs of wisdom rather than the typical liberal response -- Political Correctness.
As for atheism, I would question loyalty as well. Secularists have tried their best to diminish our Christian Heritage. But removing God from America is like removing marxism from the former Soviet Union -- it just won't work. Sure they can serve in government, but what does an atheist bring to the table in a nation that believes that "all men are endowed by their Creator?" How does an atheist settle that? An atheist would NEVER consider adopting such a belief! It seems they want liberty but debate the belief system upon which that liberty has emerged!
– What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution, and do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
I think the theory of evolution is ONE explanation of origins, but IMO not the best explanation. Both evolutionists AND creationists BOTH have the SAME evidence, but come to two completely DIFFERENT conclusions as to how that evidence is interpreted.
Since the EVIDENCE exists ONLY in the present we can only assume to make conclusions about the past since we weren't there. Origins science (the study of events in the past that are not readily testable, repeatable or verifiable according to the scientific method) is far different than OPERATIONAL SCIENCE -- which IS testable, repeatable and verifiable and is responsible for bringing us computers, radar and Early Warning Systems.
YES! IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! -- along side OTHER scientific theories! Science is about finding truth wherever it may lead and more and more (outside of the propaganda arm of the MSM) scientists are losing hope in evolution as an explanation of origins.
Reason suggests that the universe both within our bodies and beyond the earth are too complex and ordered to have come about by random chance processes.
Furthermore, Science is not even POSSIBLE without God in the paradigm. Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.
How does one arrive at order in a random-chance universe? disorder does not create order...if so then someone needs to explain why my closets don't organize themselves no matter how much I avoid them.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
stage9
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:37pm.
Science isn't just about "finding truth". It's about developing models which incorporate only natural entities and agents which can be tested against empirical observations. Although Creationism and science might attempt to describe the same thing, they do it in two very different ways. Creationism has, at its core, a supernatural agent and so isn't a scientific theory.
I have no issue with the teaching of religious ideas in school. But a non-scientific theory shouldn't be taught in a science class because, well, it isn't a scientific theory.
As for your notion of random chance - maybe you aren't aware of this but there are these things called fundamental forces which dictate the behavior and time evolution of mass and energy in our universe. They account for the formation of stars, planetary system and galaxies. They account for the formation and structure of atoms and molecules. Would you consider those things ordered or random?
The existence of these forces doesn't necessitate the existence of God. But given the fact that we don't currently have a complete understanding of these forces - particularly near the time of the Big Bang, they also don't preclude the existence of God (though science, of course, has nothing to say about such an entity).
If by random, you are talking about the origin of the universe itself - well it isn't the current view of science that the universe came into existence in some random, spontaneous act. The fact is that we don't yet have an understanding of the moment of the Big Bang, let alone what happened before it (if that can even be asked since time is thought to have started with the big bang). There are speculations and yes, some of them basically involve a random beginning but others don't. And either way, like I said, their just speculation. And also, either way, the existence of fundamental forces in that universe allow for the creation of ordered systems.
Finally, if by random you are talking about the observation that disordered systems do not tend to spontaneously order themselves, then you are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law doesn't say that systems can't become spontaneously ordered - they can - but at the expense of an increase in disorder in the surroundings. In the winter time, when a puddle of water freezes, guess what? The water molecules go from liquid to solid which means they enter a more ordered state. Science can explain that without invoking God.
The current thinking is that the universe started in a highly ordered state at the time of the Big Bang and has become more disordered - as a whole - since then. However, collection of objects within the universe can become ordered as a result of the interaction of mass and energy by way of the fundamental forces. The catch is that some other part of the universe becomes more disordered to make up the difference. This can only be sustained for so long and it is thought that far enough into the future all order will disappear from the universe as it enters what is called "heat death".
You are obviously mixing different ideas when you use the word "random". I get the impression that you use it as a catch all phrase for "not dictated by God".
Wow, that was a wonderful comment.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:20pm.
Are you a scientist? Your comment was articulate and well done.
IMO- science and religion cannot prove each other. They exist to explain things which are not connected to one or the other.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
E.S.Blofeld
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:29pm.
Thanks for the compliment.
I teach physics but it's been a couple years since I've done any research mostly because I'm just lazy - so I don't know if that makes me a "scientist" or not.
Wait a minute.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:09pm.
1. "...DEEPLY Christian men..."? The Founding Fathers were deists.
2. Hesitation or caution should always be part of the process in vetting a judicial appointee, no matter what they may or may not "believe". As for our current global situation with extreme Islamic fundamentalism, they have been weakened and continue to be weakened as we take the fight to them.
3. Secularists do not diminish one's faith or belief. I would argue they strengthen your ability to believe in what you want to believe or not believe. It is purely up to you to believe and have faith.
4. Atheists don't believe in a God. What does religion have to do with being fair and judicious in their conclusions?
5. The theory of evolution vs creationism in the classroom? Which creation story? DNA, RNA, fruit flies, bacteria, viruses explained by creationism? "Scientists are losing hope on the explanation of origins."? Really? Tell the scientists working on new cancer drugs to stop trying.
6. "Reason suggests that the universe both within our bodies and beyond the earth are too complex and ordered to have come about by random chance processes." Maybe to you they are too complex. That is not the reason to give up questioning the unknown. The first successful powered flight by man occurred in 1903. 66 years later a man walked on the moon. The Saturn V rocket would have been seen as a divine creation in 1903. Machines do not have the ability to reproduce. Organisms do.
This comment is way too long! LOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
"...DEEPLY Christian men..."?
Submitted by rance on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 1:52am.
Only Benjamin Franklin ever claimed to be a deist. Even Thomas Jefferson never made that assertion in spite of the liberal clap trap you may have read. Jefferson owned his own pew in the local protestan church, as was the custom of Christians at the time. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!
Funny that Keller wasn't concerned about Obama's commie church
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:12pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
What about Barry's Aliens
Submitted by Aubrey on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:02pm.
Did Keller happen to mention that his Precious, Barry, also believes in "Aliens"? Or at least so he professes.
This NYT guy should try
Submitted by Slyrr on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:09pm.
This NYT guy should try reading the Book of Mormon - specifically 1 Nephi, in which the ancient prophet Lehi describes part of his vision of the tree of life. In addition to the tree and its fruit, which was a symbol of the love of God, he also saw 'a great and spacious building... filled with all manner of people both old and young, and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine... and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers at those who had partaken of the fruit of the tree...'
Later on it was shown that the great and spacious building was 'the world and the wisdom thereof', and that many who had partaken of the fruit were ashamed because of the mockery, and fled to the great and spacious building.
In their desperation to protect their failed black president, the liberal media has eagerly stampeded into that building to point the finger of scorn at those who believe in God. They would do well to heed the warning - because in the vision, the building fell, 'and great was the fall of it'.
Isn't NASA busily trying to
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:28pm.
Isn't NASA busily trying to prove the existence of aliens? They keep looking for water on Mars, etc. I thought NASA was a science based organization?
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonEts vs Earth
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:05pm.
NASA was busy being concerned about aliens destroying earth because of global warming.
That tells me three things:
1) it'll never happen since global warming is a fraud anyway
2) aliens would never be liberals because traveling across space requires common sense and intelligence and none of that mamby-pamby-wimpy science based on lies or they'd never get off the ground. They would laugh at the ones pushing the green agenda and think that the "friends for change" on the Disney Channel is for low IQ people because the ideas are pretty stupid and wonder why some earthlings want to use food for fueling a vehicle instead of fueling earthlings.(for those of you in Rio Linda, humans eat food as fuel....it's called energy)
3) that idea was used in Keanu Reeve's The Day The Earth Stood Still. NASA's practicing plagiarism it seems.
-Jon
Scientifically speaking,
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 3:25am.
Scientifically speaking, planet earth has an unhappy ending when the sun finally burns out. Our only hope is to figure out space travel and colonize other planets. But liberalism would never get us there, scientifically, because we would run out of money before it could be accomplished. NASA can't even get a manned spacecraft into orbit anymore....why? BECAUSE WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonWell Then...
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:32pm.
God just might be an alien. As in: not of this earth.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
As If!
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:03pm.
Strange how Keller claims "I honestly don't care if Mitt Romney" does or believes A, B, or C, but then goes on to describe them in detail. It almost seems as if he wants OTHER people to know and care about these things, even though HE "honestly" doesn't care!
As if!
ALIENS VS GOD
Submitted by Mad-j on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:45pm.
This is rediculous because aleins don't exist!
But seriously, if aliens do exist, God created THEM, too. I can't wait to aske Him about them.
Once again, the
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:27pm.
Once again, the anti-religious bigotry of the left is personafied - Bill Keller.
Hey Keller while your being intolerant of other people's beliefs tell the voters how ignorant you believe them to be for believing in God. That will get them to vote Democrat. /sarcasm/
It's called a Republic for a reason, voters elect people who "represent" their value system so they can be assured the decisions being made in "their" name is consistent. It's called self governance.
Well, you can see why the
Submitted by jdhawk on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:37pm.
Well, you can see why the NYT's share price hit a 52-week low a couple of days ago of $6.48. With "reporting" of this paper and opinion pieces like that of Keller, you can see why this paper among other socialists rags will need a major bailout from likes of "Grandpa" Buffett a la B of A.
Meanwhile, Keller proposes that we compare and constrast the contenders of the Republican nomination for president. Instead, let's compare any of them to who we have in the WH today. Here is a man that sat with ear plugs in his ears for 20+ years while the racist bigotry of black theology spewed forth from the lips of a so-called Reverand Wright. A man that believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that we got what we deserved.
If that's what Keller wants to compare and contrast, I say bring it. Meanwhile, he can STFU.
I think he is a "dick," too!
Statists and libertarians
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:38am.
Statists and libertarians are in the same corner. Keller is a Statist. While most libertarians would vehemently disagree with Keller, on the subject of religion, they have much in common.
They both hate Christians.
There's a lot more to it than that, but I'll stop here.
Bill Keller Questions Faith of G.O.P. Candidates, Compares
Submitted by WilliamW on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:48am.
NYT's Bill Keller Questions Faith of G.O.P. Candidates, Compares Belief in God to Belief in Aliens
Is it supposed to be a bad thing for a GOP Candidate to believe in aliens?
What is wrong with belief in aliens?
What is SETI for?
Why is there a NASA?
Why were space vehicles, like Voyager sent out into space, if not to seek out new life forms, or "aliens?"
If Bill Keller were asked if he believes that there are intelligent life forms in other parts of the universe, what would he say? Many scientists of different disciplines DO believe in aliens, as do many people around the world.
Richard Dawkins, one of the more popular atheists, Evolution-Darwinists, and attacker of people of faith as fools who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does not believe that life "Evolved" here on earth, but that a super intelligent, super advanced civilization of aliens from somewhere else placed living organisms, etc., here on earth, as a kind of farming or ecological project, and that is how life forms came to appear here.
He is not alone in his belief. Panspermia is the belief that life forms came to earth from outer space, whether by hitch hiking on a meteorite, asteroid, space dust, or that life was brought here via a space ship by aliens.
People who are ignorant of what Evolutionism-Darwinism really is, and there are many, including so-called scientists, politicians, celebrities, "professors," authors, "Political Pundits," Media hosts, and media persons, including print media, television, and radio, don't even know what they are talking about regarding "Evolution" and create straw man arguments and ad homimen attacks claiming that a person who has questions or doubts about the reliability of "Evolutionism" are "anti-science," or "against science."
Well, folks, Panspermia IS a subset, or belief system, which falls under the blanket, or umbrella, of contradictory beliefs held by Evolutionists.
So, Bill Keller, you are no so clever, or so smart. Your fellow Evolutionists DO believe in ET. They believe it, even though they have NEVER seen ET, yet they call people who believe in "God" idiots for believing in something they take on faith.
Who is the weirder? The person who believes that a higher intelligence was, and is involved in Creation and life itself, or a person who, without ever seeing one or without ever meeting one, still assumes that the existence of aliens are a fact, but then turn around and try to mock a person who believes in God or has faith, as being similar to believing in aliens?
Richard Dawkins
Submitted by rance on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:40am.
You're right, William. Dawkins apparently believes (has faith) that "Little Green Men from Mars" created life on planet earth.
Consititution
Submitted by LaVallette on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 7:19am.
I am a foreigner but even I know the Constitution of the USA specifically forbids any religious test for any public office. But this does not concern the NYSlimes since they believe they are the Constitution and according to them if you are not for Abortion, the Gay Mafia Agenda, Evolution and Human Caused Climate Change and not a Free Spending Entitlement Demoncrat then you are not fit to hold office
our Creator endowed unalienable rights
Submitted by Mary De Voe on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 7:54am.
Keller repudiates CREATOR endowed "unalienable rights" for the common good and uses his God-given unalienable rights to deny God and ridicule and intimidate citizens. HYPOCRITE.
The constitution tells us that there is to be no religious test for candidates and those running for political office. As Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey said when asked: "It is none of your business."
Get government out of our homes and get The New York Times out of our lives.
If there are aliens, Keller is one of them. HYPOCRITE
The double standard is
Submitted by buddyc on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:40am.
The double standard is frustrating but the good news that the competence and intelligence level of liberals/progressives like Keller in the media now days does not measure up to what it was in the past. In the old days they would be much smarter in how they dealt with it and made it more difficult to spot overt bias. Keller doesn't really mesuare up with those people. That means to me that smart people are now either neutral or on our side.
Lordy, this guys a hoot.
Submitted by telecaster on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 3:24pm.
Liberal's scream about separation of church and state, demand the elimination of anything that might acknowledge God in public and denigrate anyone whose opinion may be informed spiritually....yet they seem so interested in faith when it comes to conservative candidates. I'd tell them my spiritual convictions are none of their business and besides, I wouldn't want to put them into a conniption because I proclaimed them in public. The Keller's of the world sure believed the phedinkus of one Barack Obama now didn't they? On another note I still don't know why Bill Keller is still drawing breath.....he should have been shot by a firing squad for the treason he committed with his newspaper. Not certain I'd attach much credibility to the traitorous bastard that is Bill 'Sell out my country" Keller.
Keller - Propagandist
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 4:13pm.
History is not going to be nice to the propagandists that are running the NYt. These propagandists, like Keller, have done a grave disservice to their country while destroying the NYt as a news organization.
Atheists and God
Submitted by Mary De Voe on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 9:09pm.
Militant atheists, who haven't got a prayer, abuse science saying: "If you cannot prove the existence of God through science, then God does not exist." If I cannot prove the existence of God through science, then the atheist does not exist" If there were no God, there would be no atheists" GKChesteron. The atheist conveniently removes himself from the equation. The atheist has not explained his existence, and until the atheist explains his own existence he needs not be listened to or given a platform. In fact, in repudiating our Creator endowed unalienable rights, the atheist repudiates his own Creator endowed unalienable rights and forfeits his own legal standing in a court of law. Having forfeit his citizenship, the atheist cannot press for his "rights" any more than a Devil's Island inhabitant can pursue an American citizen in a court of law in America. How does our Creator endow unalienable rights but through the infused immortal soul of each man, when two become one, and are created (not born) equal. The government gives us citizenship. The sovereign personhood of the individual, newly begotten person constitutes the nation from the first moment of his life. He is morally and legally innocent. He is a virgin. His rights are held in trust for him until the age of informed consent at eighteen years by God, by his parents and by his government. The rest is crimes against humanity.
Wellllllllllllllllllll
Submitted by Mister Orange on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 3:45pm.
Rationally speaking, the odds of proving life exists outside of our planet, solar system, galaxy, etc, are a little better than proving the existence of deities. So no, the comparison does not work.