NY Time surrenders credibility for sake of propagandizing for the papacy.
Gushy NY Times propaganda piece for the satanic Petro the Roman (Pope Francis S.J.).
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/why-evangelicals-should-love-the-pope.html?_r=1&referrer=The New York Times practices CENSORSHIP in its comments section.
On April 4, 2015 when the article shows only 2 comments, I leave a comment.
Upon hitting the submit button my comment simply disappears, without appearing on the page.
My comment, which I did not save for being too trustful of the page - don't make that mistake again - pointed out his hypocrisy for his focusing upon homosexuality while strongly supporting the state persecution-prosecution of millions of people for "drugs" as Cannabis.
I send a second comment about the dynamics suggested by such a disappearing comment.
The next day I check that article's comment section, by then with 84 comments and the notation that that section was "closed". How anti free speech.
Almost all of these comments are essentially pro Pope. The following is the most anti:
April 5, 2015 at 9:03 a.m.
Asides from that, there are no true Protestant ones, and none that are anti Francis S.J., such as anything identifying him as 'Petro The Roman' nor the Anti Christ, nor any pointing out his sheer fallacy of his attitude towards homosexuality while supporting the pharmacratic inquisition - drug war.
Nor does my comment appear.
This is clearly censorship. The New York Times is protecting the Papacy, not only by printing such puff pieces, but by censoring negative comments to create a false image that everyone thinks he is randy dandy.
Such is the mark of an anti liberal, anti human newspaper that serves satan by serving as a liar.
The NY Times ought to be ashamed of itself. It covered up for the papacy since the early 1900s. It helped promote the pharmacratic inquisition, including such things as the unjustified scare campiagn against dilute cocaine during the days of that papist political tool Al Smith, while poo pooing the dangers of Tobacco cigarettes.
And now it covers for the Papacy even as it is undergoing some process never seen before in centuries of having numerous Papal resignations - including that by the Superior General of the Jesuit Order, otherwise known as the 'Black Pope' - resulting in all of these living 'emeritus' Popes, with little notice let alone discussion of that.
It makes a mockery of its supposed liberal progressive values by censorship, and is effectively admitting that it places deceit over informing people.