Let me see if I get this right: in smarmy, liberal America-ville, it’s cool to celebrate a painting of the virgin Mary covered in dung, a picture of Jesus marinating in urine, a play in which Jesus is depicted as gay and TV shows and movies that mock Christ and Christianity; but it is uncool to run a Danish cartoon slamming Islam’s irrational rage, because that would be a “gratuitous assault” on the Muslim religion? Well, cock-a-doodle-do.
Case in point: the quickly-approaching-cheap-toilet-paper status New York Times has decided to refrain from running anything that might be offensive to Muslims, while it bends over backwards to backhand Christians. How conveeeeeenient. Dennis Rodman sitting with 2nd graders in a Japanese girls’ school with his hair on fire is less obvious than the anti-Christian bent within this completely secularized, so-called “progressive” rag—I mean newspaper.
Now, having said that, I want to also say that I believe it is the right and privilege of the The Times, in this great American experiment, to say and do whatever the heck they want to—even if it is at the expense of Christians. As a matter of fact, I kind of like it when they mock that which 80+ percent of America believes. I derive the same kind of joy from their deriding God and biblical ethics that I did from Howard Dean’s uttering his now infamous primal “Argh!” during the 2004 primary. By having the secularized Sally’s going after God and that which is good, they effectively distance themselves from the GP and commit PR suicide. So, I kind of celebrate the anti-Christian, anti-morality vibe these mooks sell; and I’m really getting comfortable with their ridiculing Christ, because they’re losing more and more readers who cannot stand their manifest anti-Christian yarbling.
Sen. Hagan: Actually, We Should Have A Travel Ban On Citizens From Ebola-Stricken Countries | Matt Vespa
Greg Orman: Talking About Abortion "Prevents Us From Talking About Other Important Issues" | Kevin Glass