When historians look back on our era, one of the things they will scratch their heads about is the phenomenon of “Fake News” and its attendant “Fact Checking” and wonder why we stopped calling both by their proper name: “propaganda.” Boisterous re-definition of terms and ignorance about language seems silly, no?
This swing toward silliness may have reached its maximum amplitude in the wake of the death of Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. USA Today decided to fact-check a satirical article published by The Babylon Bee. The headline on the Bee’s article read:
“Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
The rest of the article is as you would expect, tweaking the nose of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and their often imperious legislation from the bench. The satire is funny because the Ninth Circuit’s frequent over-reach signals that they would overturn things like gravity and death if they could. (We know that death has been overturned by our King, Jesus Christ – a King that the Ninth wishes to supplant.)
USA Today, however, turned loose a fact-checker to contact fifteen sources and write an 800 word article to assure their readers that the Bee’s article “has no basis in fact.” This is way funnier than the satire because it’s true. Would you spend time or money writing an 800 page article checking to see if water is wet or grass is green?
During this same period, heavy criticism of the President’s nominee to fill Ginsburg’s seat (Amy Coney Barrett) is focused on her strong religious beliefs. When Barrett was undergoing hearings regarding her appointment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, she was lectured by opposing Senator Dianne Feinstein:
“Dogma and law are two different things and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when it comes to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for in this country.”
That scolding implies that Barrett’s dogma is contrary to the dogma of “large numbers of people.” It implies that Barrett’s dogma is wrong and the dogma of “large numbers of people” (and Feinstein) is right. It also implies that having strong personal convictions is wrong – at least if you are Amy Coney Barrett.
Feinstein’s comment can be re-worded thus:
“In my opinion, the law should have no religion in it. You, professor, have religious convictions in you. I don’t like your religious convictions and am concerned that your opinion about the law will override mine.”
There will be a hearing about the confirmation of Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court. I expect we’ll hear much more of the same veiled criticism of religion and separation of church and state. I pray that Barrett will respond with the obvious:
- That secular humanism (as has been ensconced in the law for so long) is itself a religion.
- That any system of thought that defines right and wrong is a religion.
- That all law, being definitions of right and wrong, is inherently religious because religion defines right and wrong.
Truly, what the hearing is about is whether humanism will always be predominateand destroy our nation.
The mainstream media (represented in this essay by USA Today) is unashamedly humanistic, i.e. unashamedly religious. Their beliefs are anti-Christian and in today’s political atmosphere they are worn on their sleeve. There is no longer a pretense about being unbiased. They want what they want and vociferously denigrate, label, and flag for destruction anyone who speaks a different way.
I welcome their finally taking off the mask of impartiality. And I believe that the “fact-checking” of the over-turning of Ginsburg’s death gives us a peek under the hood regarding their depth of understanding. They are blind guides. Yes, they are clearly biased toward depravity, perversion, and chaos yet they are flailing comically. Neither do they know what to do with deeply opposed conviction.
It is long over-due for those of us opposed to their wickedness to say so out loud, to proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus. We must work toward getting people to acknowledge that they and all around them are religious to the core.
Maybe they will ask, “Which religion?”