'New York Times' Launches All-Out Attack on Christianity

'New York Times' Launches All-Out Attack on Christianity

Apparently, The New York Times is in favor of faith in the public square—if the purpose is to mock it. Editors at theTimes poured gasoline on the fire of Atlanta's latest controversy with an editorial that should shock even their most liberal readers. Just when you thought the media couldn't sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians.

In a stunning column on Jan. 13, the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind. The piece, which shows a remarkable disinterest in the facts, claims that Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran didn't have permission to publish his book on biblical morality. Not only did Cochran have permission from the city's ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church—where a handful of his coworkers attend.

But the shoddy journalism didn't end there. Editors insisted that Cochran's book was full of "virulent anti-gay views"—when in fact, the 162 page book only mentioned homosexuality twice. And both times, the conversation merely echoed the Bible's teachings on the subject. For that—privately espousing a faith that a majority of Americans share—Kelvin was fired.

"It should not matter," The New York Times conveniently suggests, "that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard." And what is that "standard," specifically? That he has no First Amendment rights? If so, that's the height of hypocrisy for these editors, who just days ago championed the press's freedom to ridicule religion in the public square. Apparently, The New York Times believes in the freedom of the press to attack faith, but not the public's right to hold a faith in the first place.

God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department, New York Times.

David Robertson: Using the Charlie Hebdo killings to attack religion is just cowardice. Christianity Today

Many times I have been presented with the mantra of the New Fundamentalist Atheists, "Atheists don't fly planes into buildings". To which the obvious response is "Neither do Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics or charismatics – not even the most extremist wacko charismatics. When did you last hear of Benny Hinn suicide squads?" But those who don't think about the consequences and harm of their prejudices far too often rush into this demonization of all religious people.

Meanwhile the Guardian was 'brave' as it published examples of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Yet they did not publish the cartoons that were the actual cause of the attacks – instead they published ones attacking the Pope. Doubtless they will also be 'brave' and publish numerous articles in the next few weeks on how we need to avoid Islamophobia and how at the same time we need to tar all religions with the same brush and marginalise them all.

I have noticed this tendency among many of the liberal intelligentsia to portray themselves as brave because they attack all religions in general (carefully avoiding any offence to the one that would actually have some consequences for them), or because they create meaningless awards that cost themselves nothing, for those who really are brave. The publishers and staff of Charlie Hebdo were indeed brave, knowing that what they did could endanger their lives. Those who salute their bravery and then refuse to imitate their actions, but instead use their memory to further their own agenda, are cowards.

And it is a cowardice that has consequences. Despite all the boasts about how "we will not be intimidated" the fact is that most of the mainstream media will be intimidated. The BBC and most newspapers in the UK would not dare to publish such cartoons. That is understandable, but it would be better if they did not boast about how brave they are and then take out their frustrations and sick sense of humour on other religions that won't kill them. Today I noticed that one secular society did not publish the cartoons but did publish a grossly sick and offensive sexual cartoon about all the major religious figures in the world – except, of course, Mohammed. Perversity, irrationality and cowardice combined.

I find it disturbing the way it has become standard practice for some people to use others' tragic stories in order to exploit and further their own agenda. Take for example the tragic story of Joshua Ryan Alcorn, the transgender teenager who committed suicide. I have lost count of the number of articles pontificating about this case, demonizing the parents and offering simplistic solutions. The argument is simplistic: if only if it were not for religion there would be no confused and messed up teenagers. If Stonewall and the British Humanists could just be in charge of educating us all then teenage angst, confusion and suicide would just disappear!

Read more here: