Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
President Biden is a Devout Believer! Or Something…
Scott Wilmot has a great post up about Joe Biden’s endless promotion of abortion rights; not surprising for a Democrat, of course. But Joe Biden describes himself as a devout Catholic, which appears to stick in Scott’s craw, just a bit. Now, my first thought is that perhaps when Mr. Biden describes himself as a devout Catholic, perhaps he is lying. Such behavior would not be completely new for Mr. Biden. But no! No less reputable a source than The New York Times ran an article yesterday (cited by Scott himself in the comment section of the thread I linked to above) with the following lead on Twitter: “President Biden is perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century. A different, more liberal Christianity grounds his life and his policies.”
Has The New York Times forgotten Bill Clinton? Every time another woman accused him of sexual assault, one could find him in the front pew of a church somewhere, with his glasses on the end of his nose in a nice, grandfatherly way, reading his Bible. The New York Times itself often used such photo-ops irrefutable demonstrations of his Christian beliefs as evidence that Mr. Clinton was an ethical man. Does The New York Times now think that was all a bunch of hooey?
Has The New York Times forgotten Barack Obama? When there were enough American voters getting concerned about his background, and his self-described formative years in the Muslim faith, The New York Times started running stories about Mr. Obama’s having spent years of his life in the pews of the church of Jeremiah Wright, developing his Christian faith. And this was not some short-term, cynical political ploy. They continued to run these stories, for an extended period of time. Until enough American voters began getting concerned about Obama’s background, and self-described devotion to a vicious racist like Mr. Wright. Then, such stories mysteriously disappeared, for some reason.
But regardless, Mr. Obama was a deeply religious man, right? Or does The New York Times now think that was all a bunch of hooey?
Has The New York Times forgotten Jimmy Carter? Of course not. But no liberal dares mention the Christian faith of Mr. Carter, because it appears that he actually believes in God. So the less said about that, the better.
Has The New York Times forgotten George W. Bush? He prayed several times per day. He prayed at the beginning of tax policy meetings (Heavenly Father, we beg that you guide us, as we consider these important decisions…). You can say what you want about Mr. Bush, but no one can question his devotion to his Christian faith.
So The New York Times honestly thinks that “President Biden is perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century”?
Of course they don’t.
So why do they publish such news stories propaganda pieces? Propaganda works better if it’s not an obvious lie. Why do they do this? Choose a lie that’s less obvious, right?
The most obvious answer is that they’re trying to make modern, trendy leftism appear to be inspired by the wisdom of the ages. What would Jesus do? Well, he’d make abortion on demand for teenagers a Constitutional right! Yep! That’s exactly what he’d do! You conservatives can’t criticize anything in the Bible, right? So all this post-modern leftist silliness is actually Biblical teaching, you provincial rubes! Ha! There you go!
And I suppose that may be their reasoning. Providing cover for Mr. Biden from the right by falsely cloaking his policies in Christian theology is a reasonable approach, I suppose. If you have no ethics whatsoever. Which The New York Times, obviously, does not.
But I really don’t think that’s it.
Read the lead from The New York Times article again:
“President Biden is perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century. A different, more liberal Christianity grounds his life and his policies.”
Why would they include that second sentence if they were trying to equate Mr. Biden’s policies with traditional Christian theology? And what the heck is “different Christianity” anyway? Is that the type of Christianity in which you don’t believe in God and you do whatever you want? Ok, fine, but what is the virtue in believing in not believing in anything? Or something?
Joe Biden’s head glowing in church. It is sometimes difficult for him to suppress his halo.
This is all so confusing.
Maybe they wanted to suggest that Mr. Biden was a Christian, but they just couldn’t do it, and they chickened out? Maybe this article was written by a committee, so it can’t even agree with itself? Maybe they’re afraid that some Democrats might think that Mr. Biden actually believes in God?
I don’t think any of those explanations are right. This just doesn’t make any sense.
Unless The New York Times actually believes that all of its readers are profoundly stupid and uninterested in the world around them. Except for that one reader (There’s always one, right?) named Bob:
NYT: “Joe Biden is a devout Catholic.”
Bob: “Yeah but…”
NYT: “Shut up.”
And honestly, who cares what Bob thinks? After all, The New York Times is a reputable news source, right?
Right?
I was hoping that, as I wrote this out to clarify my thoughts, I would reach an understanding of all this. But I really don’t understand. Why is The New York Times doing this?
“Our guy is a devout believer in Christianity! Well, a different Christianity! You know! Not the yucky kind! He believes in the belief of not believing in any actual beliefs! Well, nothing specific! It’s different and liberal! So what we really mean is, he’s liberal. But in a Christian way! But not regular Christianity! A different Christianity! Or something!”
It would appear that the authors of this New York Times piece are as confused as I am. So why are they publishing it?
I have no idea why they’re doing this. It’s just surreal.
This is going to be a strange four years…
Published in General
Dims don’t want to think: they want to feel. Thinking is too much like work.
Glad you like it. I’m trying to figure out what to add. I think I need to tell a small story rather than focus on all the heavily abstract stuff. But I’m just not sure.
I’m not suggesting additions, just mentioning two thoughts your comment triggered. First, was hearing RBG say that if she were writing a constitution today, she would not use the existing US Constitution as the starting point. Second, was hearing that fool Obama talk about “positive rights”. Rand Paul did a pretty good job of refuting that nonsense.
I don’t think it’s laziness. I think it’s just that most people are more about feelings than thinking. Even people with very high I.Q.
No. They don’t want to think because it may deny them the feels. If they never make the effort, they get that warm glow of righteousness.
One favorite sport of progressives is to claim a superior understanding on other people’s beliefs, of which they’ve never taken seriously. If “Science Based” Joe gives ‘em an in, they couldn’t possibly help themselves.
This situation with Joey and his devout faith is like the joke about why a dog licks his you know whats – because he can. The progressive Left promotes Joey as a devout Catholic of their liking because they can – they get no real pushback from the hierarchy – and some of us believe that they actually get encouragement from the hierarchy to do this.
“High IQ” isn’t the same as common sense. Communism has always been accepted in academia, where it entered the country and spread, most notably by the “Frankfurt School.” It is a tool whereby those who consider themselves our betters can decide for the unwashed how to best be molded and live their lives.
I inherited much from my great grandfather’s reading library. Maybe I need to put this one in my reading queue. It was written in 1926. The library covers early 1800s to about 1940 or so. Many are still boxed or stored because there isn’t another wall in my house where I can put another bookcase.