P.C. scholars take Christ out of B.C.
When the first sentence is "In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out", and the last sentence is the quote, "It sounds pretty silly to me", shouldn't this be labeled as an op-ed piece? And a rather snarky one, at that.
The main bias problem I see, actually, is why even write about it now, anyway? I can remember history classes in college officially replacing B.C. with B.C.E., and A.D. with C.E., more than ten freaking years ago. What suddenly made it an AP national news item today?
Is this AP writer suddenly accusing the nebulous Left of "a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order" and "secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness" as a continuation of "Justice Sunday", the conservative-Christian response to the Senate Democrats' "filibuster against people of faith"?
I don't particularly care one way or the other about the issue of changing the rules to eliminate filibusters. I'd probably marginally prefer that they be permitted, if only because I think anything that makes it more difficult for legislators to legislate is usually a Good Thing. But I do think that presenting judicial appointment votes, and filibusters thereof, as a battle of Christendom vs. Vile Heathens is scary and dangerous.