NYT Religion Writer Throws a Hissy Fit



So I just got around to reading a tweet from Mark Oppenheimer, religion columnist for The New York Times. 

He was offended by my February 3 post taking issue with a cover story he wrote for Sports Illustrated, “In the Fields of the Lord,” which appeared in the magazine’s Super Bowl issue.

Oppenheimer’s article dissed NFL players who “point to heaven after the big sack, cross themselves after a touchdown and give thanks to Jesus in the post-game interviews.” His hit piece  – which, at one point, jokes about pro footballers attempting to “Christianize the strip club” – suggests that the faith of Christian athletes is unworthy of being taken seriously.

Had a Christ follower authored such an article, I would have disagreed, but I wouldn’t have wondered what secret animus he might bear toward Christianity.

But Oppenheimer is Jewish, as I noted in my post. And I couldn’t shake the suspicion that the cynical tone of his SI essay was attributable, at least in part, to a conceit that his faith is superior to the Christian faith.

Oppenheimer is skeptical of Christianity.

He doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah foretold by the book of Isaiah. That He was born of a virgin. That He performed the miraculous. That He was crucified and rose from the dead three days thereafter. That he was seen by men after His resurrection. And that He sits now at the right hand of God.

In my view, a writer that rejects the divinity of Jesus – be he (or she) Jewish, like Oppenheimer, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Scientologist or whatever – simply cannot write a fair and balanced article on the Christian faith.

Even when that article explores the seemingly innocuous subject of pro football and Christian athletes.

Oppenheimer didn’t see it this way. The guy who spent nearly 3,500 words mocking gridiron Christians threw a hissy fit because I had the temerity to report that he is Jewish.

“cheers, Christian Diarist,” Oppenheimer tweeted, “to anti-Semitism in attack on my Sports Ill piece abt Christianity + NFL.”

And The New York Times/Sports Illustrated religion writer got a tweet of support from Rebecca Ruquist, one of his twitter sycophants.

 “oy veyyyy,” she sympathized. “The ‘yes,’ (confirming your suspicion) is esp unsavory.”

Well oy veyyyy, indeed, Miss Ruquist. My post anticipated that readers would want to know the religious faith of the author of the Sports Ill piece (for the very germaine reasons I mentioned above). So, I answered in advance: “yes, he’s Jewish.”

Maybe, in Ruquist’s mind, that made my post “unsavory.” Maybe, to Oppenheimer’s way of thinking, that somehow made my post anti-Semitic.

But Oppenheimer protests too much, me thinks. By playing the anti-Semitic card, he clearly is attempting to deflect attention from his SI article, which is artfully written and deviously anti-Christian.

Darwinists Wrong Again on Human Evolution


Paging Nicholas Wade. He’s the New York Times science writer who worships at the altar of Darwinism.

Two years ago, he reported that biologists, led by Svante Paabo of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, had determined that Neanderthals mated with modern humans.

That “scientific” finding provided a convenient explanation for what happened to humanity’s supposed ancestor: We interbred with them until they disappeared.

Now comes a new study, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the finding reported by Wade were wrong. There was no mating, no “hybridization,” between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (us).

The study’s authors, Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, scientists with the Evolutionary Ecology Group at Britain’s Cambridge University, say that modern humans have no Neanderthal DNA.

Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?).

That  is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution. Yet Wade has yet to weigh in on what it all means.

Are we never to know what happened to Neanderthals? Shall we never discover the “missing link,” proving that man evolved from monkey?

Could the proponents of “intelligent design” actually be right, that man did not begin existence as a simple, one-cell organism in this planet’s primordial ooze, but as the fully-formed creation of Almighty God?

Of course, Wade is not going to concede anything to those of us who dare to question his god, Darwin.

He sneers, “To many biologists and others” – meaning enlightened journalists like Wade himself – “it is a source of amazement and embarrassment that many Americans repudiate Darwin’s theory and that some even espouse counter-theories like creationism or intelligent design.”

“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”             

Wade’s attack on evolution doubters, like yours truly, is nothing new for the New York Times.

All the way back in 1906, the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is affectionately known in some quarters, published an editorial supporting a decision by the Bronx Zoo to put an African pygmy named Ota Benga on display in its Monkey House – a putative live exhibit of human evolution..

“We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter,” the Times harrumphed. “It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”

The Times was wrong on human evolution then. And its pro-Darwin reporting is no less wrong today.

Missouri Prayer Amendment Nears Passage


Missouri voters decide the fate today of a ballot measure, Amendment 2, which would affirm the right of residents of the Show Me State to pray “individually or corporately in a private or public setting.”

The proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution has, of course, provoked much sound and fury from the godless element, as well as those who profess to believe in God, but who want to ban their Creator from the public square.

“Help protect our children from indoctrination and a lifetime of ignorance,” exhorts the nascent Missouri chapter of the atheist Secular Coalition of America.

“Missouri Amendment 2 is completely unnecessary,” claims Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“If Missourians amend their Constitution, they will erode rather than enhance their religious freedom,” opines the New York Times.

These and other foes of Amendment 2 just don’t get it.

The reason the measure almost certainly will be approved today is because Missouri’s Christian majority has decided it will no longer do nothing as the godless, the secularist, the non-sectarian wage unholy war against those who share the faith of this nation’s founders.

Indeed, James Madison, author of the First Amendment, who said the “whole future of American civilization” depended upon the “capacity of each and every one of us” to “sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God,” could never have imagined how hostile this nation would become to the Almighty, and to His only begotten Son.

Would Madison have had a problem with display of a nativity scene in a public library? Would he have objected to crosses marking the graves of Christian war dead at national cemeteries? Would he have considered student prayer at a public school an unconstitutional establishment or religion?

I don’t think so. And neither does Missouri state Rep. Mike McGhee, who sponsored Amendment 2.

McGee consulted for many years with Rev. Terry Hodges, his pastor at First Baptist Church in Odessa, Missouri, before crafting the measure that appears today on the state ballot.

For much of the nation’s first 150 years or so, said Pastor Hodges, those who shared Madison’s Christian faith “enjoyed home field advantage,” However, he added, “That’s changed, and there’s now there’s a hostility to Christians.”

Passage of Amendment 2 will not diminish the freedom from religion the godless, the secularist, the non-sectarian currently enjoy. It simply will “level the playing field,” as Pastor Hodges puts it, for Missouri residents who desire to freely exercise their religion.

%d bloggers like this: