The NYT: we thought it was about bonnets and parades – it’s something else?

Oh, that - wasn't it replaced by the Puerto Rican Parade?

Oh, that – wasn’t it replaced by the Puerto Rican Parade?

The Times editors admit that they’ve never understood Easter.

Correction: April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven.

Easy mistake to make for progressives, who don’t know what Christianity is about and leave its mysteries to the despised bitter clingers. Here’s my stab at an explanation for them:  Christianity is a non-Muslim religion, and unlike that one, or other officially recognized cults, holds that “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. Christians believe that this Son, whom they call Jesus, joined us in the muck of daily human existence and is involved in humans’ lives right now, offering them a path to redemption. It’s this latter concept that so baffles progressives because redemption, for them, comes from the government, not some mythical spiritual being (although Obama does combine both, miraculously). They have heard of that “render unto Caesar” bit, but not the rest of it – to them, everything belongs unto Caesar, so what’s this other stuff about?

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “The NYT: we thought it was about bonnets and parades – it’s something else?

  1. Has anyone ever told you you really have a way with words? LOL! : )

  2. CatoRenasci

    Well, lots of people have always said it was Jewish paper….

    • anon

      CR – comment is antisemetic. NYT is as well.

      • Libertarian Advocate

        anon: Is it possible that CR meant his comment to be explanatory rather than derisive?

        • anon

          Most Jews understand Easter. The comment is antisemetic.

          • Well I happen to know that Pinch Sulzberger attended a Quaker boarding school (because he was classmate) so he’s surely not unfamiliar with Christian holidays, though Quakerism as practiced in 1969 was mostly pacifism with a brief nod toward the faith that it was founded on, so Pinch can be forgiven -aren’t we all? – for not being completely immersed in Christian lore.
            That said, the Times seems to be anti-religion of every flavor and is only tolerant of Muslims because they hate Americans, and don’t we deserve it?

      • CatoRenasci

        Two points:
        1. It’s true enough that anti-semites are among those who denounce the NY Times as a Jewish paper –
        2. The NY Times itself has often been highly sensitive to any charge that it favored what used to be called “Jewish Interests” – especially during WWII when the NY Times intentionally played down or suppressed stories emerging about the killing of Jews in Germany and the territories it occupied.

  3. Dollar Bill

    Pretty amusing to hear a self-proclaimed atheist bashing progressives for the “sin” that he himself shares. Pot and kettle? What would the prime atheist Ayn Rand, your intellectual lodestar, have to say about that?

    • I may be an atheist as proclaimed by you but only a merciful higher power would have spared you from the consequences of natural selection.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Dullard Bill: It’s amusing to read what you consider incisive and witty commentary. BTW, are you cognizant of the fact that your chosen moniker’s reduction to initials is also short hand for Douche Bag?

  4. Al Dente

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
    which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
    to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
    contempt prior to investigation.”

  5. anonymous

    Hmmm. If the Times gets that one wrong, I wonder what else they are getting wrong..

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Most everything I’m guessing given the pride they take in publishing Chicom apologist Paul Krugman.

  6. Publius

    The is the same alleged newspaper that wanted to know during the recent conclave if the new pope would “get it” and gut 2,000 years of teachings to be more in line with 21st century progressive ideals.

  7. AJ

    They have heard of that “render unto Caesar” bit, but not the rest of it – to them, everything belongs unto Caesar, so what’s this other stuff about?

    ‘Governmental Highway Robbery: Asset Forfeiture and the Pillaging of the American People’

    ““This is the problem when police officers and police departments have a financial interest in doing their job. We got rid of bounty hunters because they were not a good thing. This is modern day bounty hunting.”—Public Defender John Rekowski

    Long before Americans charted their revolutionary course in pursuit of happiness, it was “life, liberty, and property” which constituted the golden triad of essential rights that the government was charged with respecting and protecting. To the colonists, smarting from mistreatment at the hands of the British crown, protecting their property from governmental abuse was just as critical as preserving their lives and liberties. As the colonists understood, if the government can arbitrarily take away your property, you have no true rights. You’re nothing more than a serf or a slave.

    The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was born of this need to safeguard against any attempt by the government to unlawfully deprive a citizen of the right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Little could our ancestral forebears have imagined that it would take less than three centuries of so-called “independence” to once again render us brow-beaten subjects in bondage to an overlord bent on depriving us of our most inalienable and fundamental rights.

    The latest governmental scheme to deprive Americans of their liberties—namely, the right to property—is being carried out under the guise of civil asset forfeiture, a government practice wherein government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure.

    For example, the federal government recently attempted to confiscate Russell Caswell’s family-owned Tewksbury, Massachusetts, motel, insisting that because a small percentage of the motel’s guests had been arrested for drug crimes—15 out of 200,000 visitors in a 14-year span—the motel was a dangerous property. As Reason reports:

    This cruel surprise was engineered by Vincent Kelley, a forfeiture specialist at the Drug Enforcement Administration who read about the Motel Caswell in a news report and found that the property, which the Caswells own free and clear, had an assessed value of $1.3 million. So Kelley approached the Tewksbury Police Department with an “equitable sharing” deal: The feds would seize the property and sell it, and the cops would get up to 80 percent of the proceeds.

    Thankfully, with the help of a federal judge, Caswell managed to keep his motel out of the government’s clutches, but others are not so fortunate. One couple in Anaheim, Calif., is presently battling to retain ownership of their $1.5 million office building after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration filed an asset-forfeiture lawsuit against them because one of their tenants allegedly sold $37 in medical marijuana to an undercover agent.

    Some states are actually considering expanding the use of asset forfeiture laws to include petty misdemeanors. This would mean that property could be seized in cases of minor crimes such as harassment, possession of small amounts of marijuana, and trespassing in a public park after dark.

    As the Institute for Justice points out:

    Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.

    Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

    Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s personal property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was obtained legally.

    Despite the fact that 80 percent of these asset forfeiture cases result in no charge against the property owner, challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself. As a result, most property owners either give up the fight or chalk the confiscation up to government corruption, leaving the police and other government officials to reap the benefits. For example, under a federal equitable sharing program, police turn cases over to federal agents who process seizures and then return 80% of the proceeds to the police.

    Asset forfeitures can certainly be lucrative for cash-strapped agencies and states. In the fiscal year ending September 2012, the federal government seized $4.2 billion in assets, a dramatic increase from the $1.7 billion seized the year before. Between 2004 and 2008, police in Jim Wells County, Texas seized over $1.5 million. The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. collected $358,000 from civil forfeiture in fiscal year 2011, and $529,000 from federal equitable sharing. The State Attorney’s Office in Madison County, Illinois, made $500,000 from asset forfeiture over the course of eight years.

    Often, these governmental property grabs take the form of highway robbery (literally), where police officers extract money, jewelry, and other property from unsuspecting motorists during routine traffic stops. As Mother Jones quips, “forfeiture corridors are the new speed traps.” Indeed, states such as Texas, Tennessee, and Indiana are among the worst offenders. Mother Jones continues:

    You all know what a speed trap is, right? If you have a highway running through your small town, you can make a lot of money by ticketing out-of-state drivers who are going one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. How many victims are going to waste time trying to fight it, after all? But have you heard about “forfeiture corridors”? That’s a little different — and quite a bit more lucrative. All you have to do is pull over an out-of-state driver….”

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/governmental_highway_robbery_asset_forfeiture_and_the_pillaging_of_the

  8. TheWizard

    It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven

    I do believe “ascension” is the word. One ascends into heaven, one doesn’t resurrect into heaven.

  9. armonk

    When the NY Times folds it will likely not be resurrected. Such an all knowing, arrogant publication. I read it just to know what the uber-intelligentsia, earning almost as much as the guys driving garbage trucks, are thinking.
    I read it for free, of course, online.
    I remember one time going into a magazine store and getting the NY Times and Screw magazine. I put the Times inside the Screw because I didn’t want people to know I read the NY Times.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Armonk: Now that was funny!

      • armonk

        It is a true story. The Indian cashier didn’t get it.

        I loved the witty writing in “Screw.” Those writers would know the difference between Resurrection and Ascension. These are the guys who did the movie poster for “Edward Dildohands.” They gave the review of “the Vault” as masturbating zombies from Ohio looking for other masturbating zombies from Ohio.
        TV Guide didn’t meet Television to them.