Skip to comments.New York Times new President/CEO says Christianity is based on objective truth
Posted on 11/13/2012 2:23:35 PM PST by NYer
Tomorrow, Mark Thompson takes over as the new President and CEO of The New York Times. Thompson is a practicing Catholic who believes "that the truths of the Christian faith are objective truths, rather than being entirely subjective."
The position is primarily focused on running the business aspects of the Times. Thompson turned the British Broadcasting Company into a global online media powerhouse, and the Times management feels that he could do the same here.
The New York Times Company announced on August 14th that Thompson would become its new President and CEO. Thompson left the position as director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation on Friday, September 14th. Times Company's chairman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., told analysts last month that Mr. Thompson "possesses high ethical standards, and is the ideal person to lead our company." However, questions about Thompson's ethics arose in October.
Soon after, Thompson left the BBC, a scandal broke out over how the British media enterprise had handled charges of pedophilia made against Jimmy Savile, one of its most famous show hosts in an earlier era. Thompson says that he did not know specifically how BBC news was handling the Savile scandal, though he was told that a program exposing Savile was shelved shortly before his media enterprise ran a celebratory program about Sevile. At the Times journalists say that they will ask Thompson if he did all he could to get to the bottom of the Savile affair. Did he live up to his Catholic ethics to protect the vulnerable? Or did he stick his head in the sand?
Thompson has also faced questions about his editorial sensibility in regard to religion reporting. In 2005 BBC aired a controversial program "Jerry "Springer: the Opera" which contains some satire against Christianity. Last spring, Thompson talked with Oxford University professor Timothy Garton Ash about the role of his Catholic faith in journalism. Below are some of the most interesting points and the full interview in the video provided by Ash's organization freespeechdebate.com.
Religious believers are realists.
Almost all people who have religious belief are realists about the belief They believe their faith refers to things that have an objective reality.
Mark Thompson is in the realist camp.
I am a practicing Catholic, and I would probably describe myself as a critical realist in religious matters but Im a realist and I believe, as it were, that the truths of the Christian faith are objective truths, rather than being entirely subjective."
Secularism is on the decline.
Around the world, it would appear that, if anything, secularism is rather in a decline actually.
Because secularists privilege their beliefs on the public square, they often dont understand the deep offensiveness of their ridicule of religious belief.
One of the mistakes of secularists is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels to some one who is a realist in their religious beliefs For a Muslim a comic or demeaning depiction of the Prophet Mohammed might have the force, be the emotional force, of a piece of grotesque child pornography Religion as it is lived is not simply about a kind of interplay of propositions , two plus two equals four versus two plus two equals five. It is a felt experience with a big emotional charge.
How does a publisher, producer or editor decide whether to run an offensive characterization of someone elses religion?
The decision is based upon whether the level of offense that it is likely to cause is justified by the intended artistic expression involved
Would you treat Christian beliefs and Muslim beliefs the same way? BBC broadcast "Jerry Springer: the Opera" which contained several sideswipes against Christianity.
Muslims in a majority Christian country "may already feel in other ways isolated, prejudiced against, and...they may well regard an attack on their religion as racism by other means". Thompson agreed with the statement that he "wouldn't dream of broadcasting something comparably satirical if it had been the Prophet Mohammed rather than Jesus."
That is a great move, but too little too late for the hidebound liberal dinosaur.
The Old Gray Whore is on her way out (thank God!)
So Jesus is fair game, but Mohammed is off limits?
He WAS with the BBC, after all.
If true, there is going to be a lot of culture shock at the NYT.
Is this the Onion?
I’ll be looking for the pictures of aborted children coming out, and looking, and looking...
Nah, they’re just going to push for “Christian” socialism, mis-applying the tale of Jesus and the rich young man, etc.
I’m reminded of the words of SanFranNan - “My favorite word is... The Word”.
Justice Souter was described as a conservative pre-nomination.
I guess you can say pretty much anything.
Proof is in the pudding, eh?
I doubt if SanFranNan knows “The Word” is Christ.
I also doubt Christianity will begin getting anything like a fair hearing in the NYT.
IIRC, sometime in the last decade the BBC hired a Muslim to oversee their religious broadcsting. I wonder if this guy was responsible for that?
Perhaps there’ll be a written disavowal of the Times’ implied support of the Communist regime in the USSR throughout the 20th century. You know...that benevolent regime that did nasty things to those considered non-compliant...
He is no more Catholic than Obama is Christian.
Could it really be that a good Christian is allowed to run the (mostly pretty atheistic) NYT? Maybe he can repair, heal what ails the newspaper? (If not, its demise will not be missed much, given its editorial bias being so extreme...)
How in hell (and that’s what the NYT is) did this guy wind up there? Is he being punished for some cardinal sin?
I’d hire a Muslim, atheist or Mormon if they were the best person for the job.
I’m astounded....................but maybe we don’t yet have ALL of the story. Ohhhh wow...have I become such a cynic?
Again? Well, another lesson, even though very few have been honest enough to see the lesson of the last round of non-Catholics cheering on the government when it attacked Catholics. It was anti-Catholic folks spreading anti-Catholic propaganda who screwed up what amounted to a voucher system that was the most common way to provide public funds for education back in the 1870s. As a result, we now have exactly what the Catholic Bishops predicted we would get; secular public schools working to destroy Christianity.
Christians are under attack and putting a Catholic face on the current target and/or the pagans working for the government doesn't change the fact that all of Christianity is the target. People refuse to believe that, otherwise there would be more institutions bringing suit against the Federal government and a class action suit against the Federal government on the behalf of individuals as well. Like all traitors, this guy will make plenty of noise by running articles rationalizing the HHS mandate and portraying his fellow former Catholics as being fully qualified to change Church Doctrine and Dogma. He will, in effect, but just another Protestant who decides for himself which portions of Scripture apply to him and what Scripture means without any regard for Church teaching.
Just like the head of HHS who pretends to be Catholic while mandating Catholics pay for the murder of infants, these CINOs are put in place by the democrat fascist party as part of their propaganda efforts. There's no sense in pretending either one of them are Catholic when they both support abortion and contraception as well as a long list of Church Doctrines that don't fit their democrat fascist lifestyle.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him expand or otherwise highlight the religion section of the paper just in time for the mandate to go into effect.
In case you missed it, here is an article on that very topic that I posted to the forum, yesterday.
Would sincerely appreciate your thoughts on it.
Goodness knows there are plenty of those around...particularly in this country.However,this isn't the type of statement one would expect from a CINO.For example,never in a million years would Ted Kennedy have made a statement like this...publicly *or* privately.
In fact, I was going to do that this morning because I read the article when I was drifting off to sleep then forgot about going back to do that.
Today is one of my bad days, though, so typing is a real pain which means I don’t usually go back and edit much so stuff can get messy. I’ll find the notes I made when I read that and comment shortly.
WHAT A CROCK!!!! The BBC has been virulently anti-Christian for decades.
I never checked it out but a few years ago someone said somewhere that every member of the editorial board was a homosexual.
Pls comment if you can as to veracity.
Sorry. Posting a thread from any source does not render me an authority on corporate structure of that particular journal.