Give syndicated columnist Cal Thomas credit for coming up with apt description of the New York Times. Thomas, a serious Christian, worried that he might be getting a one-sided view of the world by reading the Bible every day. So he made sure he got the opposing viewpoint by daily reading the New York Times. Or, as he put, "Every day I read the Bible and the New York Times, so I'll know what both sides are saying."
“They earned the nickname ‘Mexican Hunters,’ a special unit of screeners at Newark's Liberty-International Airport, who singled out Mexicans, Dominicans and other Hispanic passengers for extra scrutiny.”
A while ago I wrote an article that generated quite a discussion. With this I was well pleased. Yet, I must confess, my pleasantness over the response with which this issue was met was qualified by a frustration mixed with regret over the fact that ours is a time when this would be considered an issue at all.
Particularly disconcerting were the remarks made by one respondent, a self-avowed “liberal” who also claims to be a college professor of many years. While some of his comments were not devoid of insight, the thrust of his reasoning left me disheartened, for in spite of his age and vocation as an educator in the liberal arts and humanities, the anti-intellectualism and, thus, raw emotion on display in his engagement with a race-based issue — typifying, as it did, the reaction to racially-oriented questions that we have long since come to expect from his ideological and professional brethren — is further confirmation that ours is indeed an age notable for its conspicuous absence of genuinely mature thought, i.e. thought that is at once sober, daring, and rigorous.
Most of our nation's problems are a direct result of our being immune, hostile or indifferent to several moral questions. Let's start out with the simple and move to the more complex. Or, stated another way, let's begin with questions that generate the least hostility, moving to those that generate the greatest.