Bill Keller’s modest proposal

August 26, 2011 By

When I read Bill Keller’s bizarre piece in the New York Times yesterday morning, where he proposes a loaded religious quiz for potential candidates, I actually gasped. Considering I’ve been reading dozens of religion stories a day for years, it’s hard to surprise me. I’m not saying I haven’t heard these types of comments uttered against religious believers, be they Pagan or Mormon or Catholic. And there’s even a counter-Jihad movement that says similar things to what Keller has said, only about Muslims.

But it’s not like Pamela Geller is given space in the New York Times to share her views about creeping Sharia. Far from it. She’s attacked for her views — in the news pages. I couldn’t quite process this piece. It just seemed too hard to believe that Bill Keller, whatever his well-known bias against Catholics, would do this.

So here’s my theory: I think that Keller didn’t do this. I mean, he did, but only to make a point. I’m not entirely sure what that point is, but he’s clearly pulling everyone’s leg. Hear me out.

The whole piece is about the need to ask more questions of presidential candidates. He has general questions and then specific questions. But he doesn’t have any for President Barack Obama. As in, no questions (one writer offers 20, should Keller be having trouble developing them for some odd reason). Certainly the case can’t be made that questions for Obama aren’t newsworthy. I mean, “people” may have “questions” about the religious views of Michele Bachmann. Sure. But are you really going to pretend that “people” don’t have “questions” about the religious views of President Obama? Are you joking? So why the disparity?

Is it because his paper, under his direction, thoroughly vetted the religious views of President Obama? Heh. Um, no. One data point: Back in 2008, it took six months for readers of the paper to even learn of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s infamous “God Damn America!” words by seeing them in a news story. The news broke in March and first appeared in the paper literally six months later.

If the piece isn’t satire, why would Keller say that Rick Santorum is part of a “fervid subset of evangelical Christianity”? He’s Roman Catholic.

If the piece isn’t satire, why would the lede mention space aliens, much less compare belief in an alien invasion to Christianity?

If the piece isn’t satire, why would he claim that “many Americans” view Catholicism, Protestant Christianity and Mormonism as “mysterious or suspect”? Does he have any concept of what percentage of Americans fall into one of those three categories? Of course he does. It’s clearly satire.

Why would he traffic in the type of crude stereotypes about Mormons that result in condemnation from liberals?

If this weren’t satire, why would he mis-state what Catholics believe about Communion? What’s more, would he really call that sacrament “baggage” and “bizarre” unless he was trying to make a point about bigotry? I can’t imagine he would.

If this weren’t satire, would he really say that the Christian relationship to the Bible is one of lord and servant? Would he really pretend that in order to be a good candidate for office you have to believe that the Constitution is a higher authority than the Bible? Would he really pretend that the laws of this country are inerrant?

Would he come up with laugh lines such as this?:

I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.

If this weren’t satire, would he really confuse inerrancy with literalism?

If this weren’t satire, would a respected news man really be pushing the threat of Dominionism? Would he call someone a Dominionist who explained just two weeks ago that she had to literally Google the term to learn what it meant? Someone who explained quite clearly why the slur is inaccurate when used against her? I mean, I know he’s biased, but he’s not a hack.

If this weren’t satire, would he pretend that his loaded gotcha questions were “respectful”? He knows readers aren’t stupid.

If this weren’t satire, would he believe no one notices that there sure seems to be a lot of emphasis on religion for a race that’s largely about an unemployment rate of 9.1%?

If this weren’t satire, would he really raise a question about whether the candidates have fealty to something above the Constitution, but then criticize squeamishness about appointing Muslim judges because of questions raised about some Muslims placing Islamic law above the constitution?

If this weren’t satire, would he really suggest that it’s only problematic if Republicans are endorsed by people Keller doesn’t like — and not mention, I don’t know, that Hamas officials endorsed President Obama? No!

There’s got to be more to this. There’s just no way that Keller would be blowing up his paper’s relationship with religious people on his way out from leading the paper. There’s no way. Not the man who wrote that famous call for improved, accurate, fair coverage of religious believers.

New York Times religion reporters have enough trouble of their own building up rapport and relationships with religious adherents. I can’t help but imagine they’ve been working hard to restore trust with some of the leaders who have given up even talking to them. That’s what reporters do. Something like this would make it so easy for religious people to dismiss the Times in perpetuity. There’s no way that an executive editor would do something like that to the pros in his newsroom.

Now, I did fall for the Krugman hoax earlier this week, to my shame, so perhaps I’m overreacting. But I am not going to be had twice.

There must be some deeper meaning here. There’s no way that the Times would openly display such bigotry or destroy its credibility so thoroughly. Is this a point about how campaign coverage should focus on the economy or role of government? Is this a point about counter-jihadists? Is this a point about how we should handle bigotry in the public square? What’s the point of it? I know it’s been done to prove a point, but I’m just not sure what.

And before you say, “Come on, Mollie! Keller’s anti-Catholic writing has such a long history from his questioning the Pope’s Catholicity to his more recent ‘collapsed Catholic‘ ax-grinding phase,” I’ll remind you — yet again — that he also wrote this.

Perhaps that’s our answer. Maybe he’s trying to show his reporters the difference between just giving lip service to diversity and actually living it. And maybe even the anti-Catholic stuff was one long piece of performance art. It would certainly make much more sense than the idea that Keller actually believes these things about Protestants, Catholics and Mormons, right? Like all good satire, it works because it’s almost believable that the New York Times would promote such thinking in its pages. But it was over-the-top in a way that reveals it’s really a brilliant piece of satire by outgoing executive editor Bill Keller. Good work, sir. Good work.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Creeping Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Godbeat, Islam, Journalism, Mormons, People, Politics
  • R.S.Newark

    Hey, tell me this; what kind of underwear does Bill Keller wear?

  • Bob Smietana

    And there’s even a counter-Jihad movement that says similar things to what Keller has said, only about Muslims.
    But it’s not like Pamela Geller is given space in the New York Times to share her views about creeping Sharia.

    Mollie:

    You’re spot on about the anti-jihad comparison. It was almost like Keller had been reading Pamela Geller’s play book.

    The piece seemed more hyperbole than satire – especially the space alien bit.

    Seems like it revealed, once again, the split between Red and Blue parts of America when it comes to religion.

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat/ Nicole Neroulias

    Bill Keller’s column was obviously responding to the Republican primary season, where you see a lot more campaigning/pandering to Christian voters than will be likely in the general election. (Understandably, given that Republican voters are more Christian/religious than the American population.) If a candidate is going to repeatedly invoke his/her strong personal faith as a major aspect of his/her campaign (the reason for running, proof of higher moral values, etc.), it’s fair for journalists and voters to ask some more specific questions about what that faith entails — and what this might mean for domestic and foreign policy.

    Just like the candidates’ families, which theoretically are personal, become public once they start trotting out their kids and touting their family values as evidence of what good presidents they could be.

    Plus, President Obama has been asked lots of questions about his faith during his election campaign and during the past few years in office. Pastor Jeremiah Wright, being a secret Muslim, attending this church or that, etc. At this point, it’s out there, and what the American public believes has nothing to do with what Obama actually says or does.

    But sure, during the general election, it will also be fair to ask both candidates some questions about their faith.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Would he really pretend that in order to be a good candidate for office you have to believe that the Constitution is a higher authority than the Bible? Would he really pretend that the laws of this country are inerrant?

    ***

    Would he say that as DC prepares to celebrate the life and ministry of MLK Jr., who would say that, for believers, the Bible must prophetically judge all human institutions?

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Nicole, I don’t think anyone at GetReligion suggested that we should stop asking candidates (Republican or Democrat) questions, but the way Keller goes about it is…kind of laughable.

  • Dale

    Either Keller is a satirist, or Mollie is (to use a Keller favorite adjective) a fervid practitioner of sarcasm. I choose the latter.

  • Jeffrey

    What is it with NYT editors turning into “crazy uncle” columnists? Did they learn nothing after the Rosenthal experience?

  • Martha

    “I honestly don’t care if Mitt Romney wears Mormon undergarments beneath his Gap skinny jeans”

    If we’re going to talk about weird or unconventional clothing beliefs, may I remind Mr. Keller that it’s not just religious cultists that ascribe particular virtues to particular items of clothing or material?

    For example, Jaeger clothing as worn by George Bernard Shaw, noted non-believer; to quote from a “Daily Telegraph” article on the company’s 125th anniversary:

    “Jaeger’s antecedents go back to the late 19th century when, in 1880, the German hypochondriac Dr Gustav Jaeger published a book promoting perfect health by wearing wool next to the skin. This cranky philosophy gave birth to a craze for wool-jersey long johns, which was taken up by British intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw. In 1884 Dr Jaeger licensed an Englishman, LRS Tomlin, to open a British firm called Dr Jaeger’s Sanitary Woollen System Co Ltd, which gave Tomlin sole rights to trade with the British Empire. The Jaeger archive is full of glowing testimonials from explorers, including Ernest Shackleton, who wore Jaeger on his Antarctic expedition. It failed, however, to persuade its customers that wool next to the skin was the ideal textile for extreme heat. Jaeger moved on to wool suiting and Shaw was photographed in an all-in-one tunic and trousers, which did away with the need for a tie and starched collar.”

    Or as Wikipedia puts it more restrainedly:

    “The brand is named after the German zoologist and physiologist Dr Gustav Jaeger who advocated the benefits of clothing made of animal fibres rather than vegetable fibres.

    Tomalin translated and published Jaeger’s teachings in English. In 1884, Tomalin opened a clothing store in London, named Dr Jaeger’s Sanitary Woollen System.”

    Or the much-derided “bloomers”, an attempt to modernise women’s clothing by women:

    “The costume was called the “American Dress” or “Reform Costume” by the women’s activists that wore it. Most of the women who wore the costume were deeply involved in dress reform, abolition, temperance and the women’s rights movement. Although practical, the “bloomers” were also an attempt to reform fashion since the majority of “bloomers” were also in upper to middle class and also in the public eye.”

    Has Mr. Keller ever heard of the Rational Dress society and movement?

    “During the middle and late Victorian period, various reformers proposed, designed, and wore clothing supposedly more rational and comfortable than the fashions of the time. This was known as the dress reform or rational dress movement. The movement had its greatest success in the reform of women’s undergarments, which could be modified without exposing the wearer to social ridicule. Dress reformers were also influential in persuading women to adopt simplified garments for athletic activities such as bicycling or swimming. The dress reform movement was much less concerned with men’s clothing. It did have some effects on men’s undergarments, such as the widespread adoption of knitted wool union suits or long johns.”

    If we’re going to make snide remarks about underwear, it’s salutary to remember that it’s not just ‘the Right’ or ‘relgious nuts’ who have worn ‘crazy’ undergarments.

  • Dale

    Martha posted:

    During the middle and late Victorian period, various reformers proposed, designed, and wore clothing supposedly more rational and comfortable than the fashions of the time.

    “Darling, that dress makes you look absolutely rational.”

    Somehow, I don’t think this is what Plato had in mind when he equated Reason with Beauty.

  • R9

    How much influence does Creeping Shariah have on wider american society, have compared to Evangelicals in America?

    And what does a Hamas endorsement actually mean, beyond being embarrassing? I imagine they just cheered for whoever was opposing the Party of Bush.

    “If the piece isn’t satire, why would he claim that “many Americans” view Catholicism, Protestant Christianity and Mormonism as “mysterious or suspect”? Does he have any concept of what percentage of Americans fall into one of those three categories”

    He didn’t say “Catholicism, Protestant Christianity”, he said “fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity” and “the most conservative wing of Catholicism”.

  • Jerry

    But are you really going to pretend that “people” don’t have “questions” about the religious views of President Obama? Are you joking? So why the disparity?

    I’m not commenting on the majority of what you said, but I think you went too far with this comment. President Obama was asked many, many questions four years ago and nothing has changed with him. Other candidates have not yet been vetted on a national stage. So for those new to the national stage, it’s appropriate to ask good questions about how their beliefs would influence their policies if elected.

  • http://realclearreligion.org Jeffrey Weiss

    As a matter of journalism (which is what we’re about here, yes?):
    1) Obama’s religious background was vetted to a fare-thee-well four years ago by lost more than the NYT. Heck, I was part of that. And since then, he’s given several significant speeches about how his understanding of his faith informs his ideas about governance. (Lots of Social Gospel stuff. Ask Mr. Google.) The GOP-ers are (mostly) new figures on the national stage and have not faced the scrutiny. The list of question for Obama on Verum Serum are mostly theological specifics that should not be posed in a vacuum to any candidate — unless the candidate has already offered answers that could affect governance.
    (And btw, Wright’s “God damn America” line was not nearly the nuance-free bumper sticker most attackers would lead you believe. Had more in common with quotes from Jeremiah or Isaiah than a simple epithet. Whether you believe it is bizarre to think that that the Almighty will or should condemn a nation that countenances immorality depends on your theology… )

    2) Keller’s flat-out statement that beliefs based totally on faith (ie. Transubstantiation) are bizarre to nonbelievers is not an attack on religion or any particular religion. It’s a fact, Jack. Get over it. I suspect that Mollie would find particulars of LDS or Muslim or Jewish theology to be bizarre. As well she should, given her beliefs. That does not make her a bigot.

    3) Faith-related questions are particularly relevant for candidates who have made their faith a topline part of their public and political persona. The GOP candidate list has several for whom that is particularly true. Back when and Orthodox Jew was running for the Dems, such questions were particularly appropriate for Lieberman (who generally failed to provide good answers, IMNSHO).

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    I’m on a bus headed to NYC (don’t ask) with spotty wifi. But wanted to pass on this hilarious response to Keller’s questions. Pure media crit: http://strangeherring.com/2011/08/26/the-ny-timesbill-keller-religious-litmus-test/

  • John Purcell

    …why would Keller say that Rick Santorum is part of a “fervid subset of evangelical Christianity”? He’s Roman Catholic.

    Since when did those become mutually exclusive?

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Of course Keller’s column is satire (or some of the most bigoted garbage yet from the Times). In fact, The NY Times seems all satire these days–or should I say a parody of what the NYT used to be when it at least pretended to be a great newspaper.

  • http://realclearreligion.org Jeffrey Weiss

    Bram, I know enough not to toss around ad hominem attacks and to present my arguments in a way that someone serious about a discussion could offer a reasoned disagreement. Perhaps you could try to do likewise?

    And Mollie, I am truly sorry you are outside good WiFi range. A lot of this chatter has nothing to do with journalism. The reality or lack about the nature of the Host is an argument for another blog.

  • Dave

    Besides having had his religion vigrously vetted during the campaign that put him in the White House, Obama is not at present appealing to voters to choose him over named others as the best representative of his party. Romney, Perry, Palin et al are, and are owed a thorough ventilation — and the press is the instrument of that in our electoral system. I’d even like to see questions of belief addressed to Ron Paul.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com bob smietana

    As usually, Jeff Weiss is spot on.

    1) Obama’s religious background was vetted to a fare-thee-well four years ago by lost more than the NYT. Heck, I was part of that. And since then, he’s given several significant speeches about how his understanding of his faith informs his ideas about governance. (Lots of Social Gospel stuff. Ask Mr. Google.) The GOP-ers are (mostly) new figures on the national stage and have not faced the scrutiny

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com bob smietana

    The Keller column reveals something important for journalists to remembers.

    Religious beliefs seem perfectly normal to insiders and almost incomprehensible to outsiders.

    Evangelicals say “God told me to do this me” and their fellow believer nod their heads in understanding. Outsiders see this as a sign of delusions.

    Catholics believe the host is the body of Christ – and outsiders think that’s a bit nuts.

    The list goes on and on.

  • http://getreligion.org Bobby

    As Mollie mentioned, she’s out of range with slow wifi.

    So at her request, I’ve spiked a number of comments that seem to veer off the path of, um, journalism into the realm of theological debates. My apologies if I unapproved a comment that I shouldn’t have. I’ll let Mollie deal with that when she’s back in range.

    This is a journalism site, so let’s stick to journalism. Also, this is a site that values thoughtful and respectful comments, so if you want to attack another commenter, please choose a different blog.

    Thanks for reading.

  • http://!)! Passing By

    Religious beliefs seem perfectly normal to insiders and almost incomprehensible to outsiders.

    This is not a shock. What surprises me is that secularists seem to not understand that when they dismiss Christian doctrine, we see that as an essentially religious statement, subject to the same critique they give us. They don’t seem to realize that when they present themselves as intellectually superior to religious people, they aren’t making a case for their views. The overall effect of Keller’s article is smugly superior and arrogant.

    On #12, I agree with Weiss’ that Obama’s religion was, and continues to be, vetted, though by conservative voices. I also agree with him that the Republican candidates bring this on themselves by their appeals to specific religious views and constituencies.

    I don’t agree that:

    2) Keller’s flat-out statement that beliefs based totally on faith (ie. Transubstantiation) are bizarre to nonbelievers is not an attack on religion or any particular religion. It’s a fact, Jack.

    Actually, I do agree with the statement, but Weiss grossly understates Keller’s message, which is basically: my views are enlightened, rational, and intelligent; yours are bigoted superstition. Any mainstream news article on religion will be followed by hundreds of comments from atheists and secularists who make the same point as Keller, if more succinctly and crudely. Do these people understand that religious people view the proposition that “there is no god”, or “Christianity is bunk” as essentially religious and therefore subject to the same critical methods applied to faith?

    Do these people, including Keller, not understand that smug superiority, straw man arguments, out-and-out lies, and self-righteous arrogance are not particularly useful evangelistic tools? They are certainly ready with criticism when Christians indulge in these same faults.

    The journalistic issue, it seems to me, is that even a column should be reasonable and treat opponents with respect. The profound disrespect with which Keller addressed Christians is a disgrace.

  • http://!)! Passing By
  • Martha

    Taking it on face value that President Obama is a Christian (I certainly see no reason to believe he’s a secret Muslim pretending to be a Christian for some nefarious reason), and assuming that he believes in (say) the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ –

    - is that the kind of bizarre belief (a woman got pregnant without having sex and her kid was God?) that makes no sense to outsiders?

    - does that make President Obama one of those weird religious nuts that should be cross-examined so we can be sure that he’s not going to impose his weird religious beliefs on public policy?

    Now, unless you can prove (one way or the other) that the politicians we (whoever “we” may be, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) like share the kinds of beliefs we like and have the acceptable view of faith that we find acceptable, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as far as I’m concerned.

    And if President Obama decides to seek re-election, and if he goes on the campaign trail and turns up at churches n Sundays to speak from the pulpit, then will we see a grilling on his exact theology with chapter and verse from the Bible by Mr. Keller?

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    Yes, every group has beliefs that seem bizarre to outsiders. Such as the belief that “religion is the cause of ALL wars”.

    And the belief that “The Churches” are all rolling in money. That seems particularly bizarre to me (He said, as he was handed a printout of the budget.)

  • Dave

    [...I]f President Obama decides to seek re-election, and if he goes on the campaign trail and turns up at churches [o]n Sundays to speak from the pulpit, then will we see a grilling on his exact theology with chapter and verse from the Bible by Mr. Keller?

    The question is, will he be grilled by the press, not whether Keller is the one doing it. And if the press has made enough of an issue of the Republican nominee’s religion then I would expect the answer to be yes.

  • MJBubba

    I agree that “Obama’s religious background was vetted to a fare-thee-well four years ago…” As I recall it, however, there was no mass-media coverage until after talk radio started playing inflammatory sound bites from Jeremiah Wright sermons. The mass media was uninterested until then.

  • Dave

    MJ, what you say may well be true, but it’s the same thing that has happened now. The blogosphere was exposing the faith connections of Perry and Bachmann before the story was picked up by the media GetReligion surveys.

  • Jettboy

    I am serious when I ask this, but can someone show me proof that he was ‘religiously vetted’ when Obama ran for President or even now? In other words, prove it! I contend he wasn’t vetted, but protected. The questions themselves by the conservatives were vetted and dismissed. He was never asked about anything other than “are you muslim?” where he promptly answered, “no” and the media became silent. Give me even ONE in depth story about his faith.

    I have to laugh at the whole idea that Obama was vetted in any way. He was protected by the elite journalists like he is now.

  • Jettboy

    Dave, wrong again. The conservative blogosphere only started checking on the faith of Perry and Bachmann because of the media. And that to show how anti-religious the media was toward those two (and other) Republican candidates.

  • Dave

    Jettboy, the Pagan blogosphere was checking out the connections of Bachmann and Perry before the MSM treatements hit the stands.

    During the 2008 campaign the statements of Obama’s UCC minister, Rev Jeremiah Wright, became news fodder. Obama wound up making a speech on the subject which was mostly about race in America — the first time he’d mentioned race in the campaign — and incidentally about the black preaching style that Wright represented. (I knew the latter was accurate from having been exposed to it under Unitarian Universalist auspices 40 years earlier.) The Obama speech was quite well received generally as, among other things, the most honest extended statement by a public figure about race in a long time.

    Nonetheless, Rev Wright continued to make headlines and eventually Obama had to reluctantly disassociate himself from a longtime friend.

    I daresay the media went silent when Obama said “no” about being a Muslim because there wasn’t a shred of evidence. It was another attempted swiftboating based on nothing. Nevertheless the candidate was forced to respond.

    And that, compadre, is vetting.

  • DaveD

    “Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism.”

    I guess that’s the “correction” to the misidentification of Santorum as Evangelical?

    Catholicism has wings? How many? How are they organized?

    This “correction” poses more questions than answers…

  • http://!)! Passing By

    To it’s credit, The New York Times has printed a response to Keller’s nonsense.

  • Ellyn Bullock

    I read Keller’s opinion piece in NYT before I read this piece and I didn’t think it was satiric and I liked it. I’m 48 years old and when I was a child the evangelicals considered themselves important because they were persecuted for their faith. (They also put silly “I found it” bumper stickers on their cars.) Perhaps Keller is expressing a fear of triumphant martyrs who believe impossibly and simultaneously that they are persecuted for their faith and also that they deserve political power, natural resource dominion, and permanent financial wealth. What’s new and developing is their interest in using faith to trump science and using rural white sentimentality to re-write history. Those sins on the parts of evangelicals appear newly invigorated with the current Republican primary candidates. Why can’t Keller and NYT readers like myself, be wary, angry, terrified and confused by the religious views expressed by current Republican candidates? I do not find Ms. Bachmann’s religious positions to be above moral reproach, and I do not find Mr. Perry’s prayer meetings to be the least bit private, and I do not find Mr. Romney’s Mormanism to be the least bit attractive as a religion. If they want to tell me why I’m wrong in my thoughts, then let’s talk, but I’ve done nothing wrong in saying what I’ve said. Mr. Keller’s sin may amount to not understanding evangelicalism and finding it disturbing. That’s not really that big of a sin. It’s more a natural reaction to what we’ve all seen. Sincerely, Ellyn Bullock

  • codyweber

    Anyone who sees this as either satire or a religious litmus test didn’t get it. It seems first to be completely honest and secondly quite necessary. These questions are less questions about the person’s religion and more about whether or not they would attempt to make our country into a theocracy. Both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman are very tied up with the New Apostolic Reformation, whatever name it might be going by today, which has specifically expressed Dominionist ideas. I personally don’t want to live in a nation where I could be singled out for not believing in Jesus.

  • Jettboy

    Mollie, you do realize what you posted is just as offensive to religious people as Keller’s diatribe don’t you? To quote:

    “6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

    1. No. Christianity as a faith distinct from Judaism has a discernible history, including a theological history. That history begins in the middle of the first century (although, it is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, which is much older). That history clearly states that Christians believe in one God in three persons–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Light from light, very God from very God. Mormons reject this. Mormonism is one of several new religions born in the 19th century. It is a quasi-Christian sect, like Christian Science and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They may be fine people and fine citizens. They should be free to practice their religion without interference, so long as they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Just because someone says he’s a journalist does not make him one. Uh, I meant Christian. Just because someone says he’s a Christian… As for Romney and Huntsman, only if they believe that their faith or their church should somehow be granted special status or its doctrines enshrined in civil law.

    b. No. But then neither are Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, so that doesn’t make me an anti-Mormon bigot.

    c. Don’t worry, Bill: I’m an atheist, just like Pol Pot.”

    In other words, Mormons aren’t Christians. Then again, neither are Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Yep, those aren’t fighting words that cause equal amounts of animosity. But, you know, it doesn’t matter because “we all know” how crazy anyone who doesn’t claim the Evangelical Protestant faith are. With friends like that, it makes Keller look half right.

  • http://n/a BikerDad

    Sorry Mollie, but Keller’s column isn’t satire, or if it is, it’s truly pathetic satire. Such a column, if it were posted here, on a website devoted to the intersection of journalism and religion, could support an argument that it is satire.

    But it wasn’t posted here. It was published in the most influential newspaper in the country, possibly the world. By one of the editors, a man who theoretically KNOWS his business. It was simply a hit piece disguised with questions. The sort of questions that one asks when they just KNOW the answers are going to reflect (from the questioners perspective) poorly on the questioned, which is the entire point of asking the questions.

    For anybody to believe it is satire, they have to be possessed of a great knowledge of Keller and his writings, and they have to be quite charitable in their interpretation, both qualities which you bring to your assertion. Can you reasonably argue that anymore than a modest fraction of the NYT’s millions of readers fit that bill? Furthermore, are you going to argue that Keller is counting on that so that readers will know it’s satire?

    The gold standard of journalistic satire is and always will be A Modest Proposal. 400 years old and it doesn’t take any knowledge of Swift or charity regarding his motives to realize that it’s satire. A Modest Proposal is FUNNY, laugh out loud funny.

    You gasped at what Keller wrote. You didn’t laugh. Have you even chuckled? No, because you know, in spite of your charitable theory, that Keller wasn’t writing satire.

    Grace and peace.

  • Scott

    Mollie,

    Your response to Mr. Keller’s piece could not be sillier.

    We are always concerned (and rightly so) about the organizations to which our political candidates voluntarily belong and in which they participate.

    This is true whether the issue is membership in a segregated country club, or the ACLU, or the John Birch Society, or the KKK, or GreenPeace, or what have you. Any time someone voluntarily joins, or participates in an organization whose philosophy may impact on policy decisions, we are justifiably interested and concerned.

    Why is it that religion, alone, seems to demand (and frequently be granted) a free pass that allows it to escape inquiry? Religious beliefs may be spiritual, or private, or loud or public, or comforting, or hateful, or literal or metaphorical, or superstitious. All things we should know about. But when the questioning gets a bit uncomfortable, religious communities often seems to resort to that Wizard-of-Oz-like “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” sort of thing.

  • Scott

    A short while ago, I wrote a brief response in this discussion, stating my belief that just like voluntary membership in any organization, whether a segregated country club, or the ACLU, or the John Birch Society, or the KKK, or GreenPeace, or anything else, an individuals membership in an organization whose philosophy could impact on policy decisions, are matters of justifiable interest and concern.

    I noticed that someone here gave that post a “thumbs down” vote, without actually responding to explain what it was in my post that he or she found disagreeable or unworthy.

    I suspect (but, of course, cannot be sure) that the “thumbs down” vote was cast by a theist who wishes to take on that “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” approach. That is to say, someone who wishes for religion (in contrast to any other issue) to remain cloaked and free of question or discussion (except approving discussion).

    Of course, if I’m wrong, you can let me know what it was that did form the basis of your thumbs down vote.