The New York Times: It’s Fine To Tell People To Quit The Catholic Church, But You Can’t Say The Same Thing About Islam
Cultural Diversity: Only two cultures are permitted– atheistic and Islamic. — Ace
Isn’t that how the Left looks at it? It’s certainly how the New York Times seems to view it.
It ran an ad on March 9th that encouraged Catholics, who are now being relentlessly demonized by the Christian-hating Left for daring to stand up to Barack Obama’s anti-Catholic bigotry, to quit the Catholic Church.
Certainly, it’s a free country, and that’s the New York Times’ right. However, that ad stuck in Pamela Geller’s craw; so she was willing to pay $39,000 to run an almost identical ad — except this one encouraged people to quit ISLAM.
Executives at The New York Times have rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement that mimicked a controversial anti-Catholic advertisement they published on March 9.
According to a Mar. 13 letter sent by the Times to the ad’s sponsor, anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, the $39,000 anti-Islam ad was rejected because “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”
…TheDC asked Robert Christie, the Times’ senior vice-president for corporate communications, if the Times’ decision is a surrender to violence and also an incentive for additional threats of violence.
However, Christie declined to discuss the paper’s decision, and referred TheDC to the letter sent by the Times to Geller and her organization, Stop the Islamization of Nations.
The Times’ letter included a commitment to “consider the ad … for publication in a few months,” and the claim that “we publish this type of advertising, even those we disagree with, because we believe in the First Amendment.”
Geller scoffed at the Times’ conditional commitment. She told TheDC she believes the Times will never publish a criticism of Sharia, or Islamic law, because “when is it ever a good time to blaspheme under the Sharia?”
Suddenly, they’re supposed to be concerned about Afghanistan? What kind of idiot would you have to be to believe that? Keep in mind that this is the same newspaper that had zero qualms about hammering the Abu Ghraib story or publishing classified documents that helped out our enemies. So, there’s nothing in the New York Times’ past behavior that shows that it cares anything about the war effort in Afghanistan or protecting soldiers, as if an ad criticizing Islam in America is going to be a problem in Afghanistan anyway.
The truth is, for all their rhetoric to the contrary, liberals aren’t scared of Christians, but they’re terrified of Muslims. No Catholics are going to show up at the New York Times and cut their heads off for running an ad they don’t like. Muslims? Well, maybe. So, they might run a picture of Piss Christ, but they’re not going to run a cartoon image of Muhammad. The New York Times will rip Christians all day long, but Muslims, they bend over backwards to defend. Why? Essentially because they’re cowards.
This is the irony we live with. The same people who are too afraid of Muslims to run an ad critical of them, criticize people like Pamela Geller. Here’s a woman who is standing up against terrorism, Jihad, honor killings, clitorectomies, anti-Semitism, Sharia and all the other backwards savagery that goes hand in hand with radical Islam and the same people who are too frightened to run an ad critical of Islam are slandering her as a bigot and an extemist. All I can say is that in a world where the New York Times is terrified to run an advertisement that’s critical of Islam, we’re lucky to have people of courage like Pamela Geller standing up and fighting while they cower in the background.
FacebookTwitterEmail Let the hand wringing begin Coverage of Koran Case Stirs Questions on Media Role Mr. Jones was able to
FacebookTwitterEmail In my latest Pajamas column I talk about how President Obama is forgiven anything and everything simply because he’s
FacebookTwitterEmail Forbes has published its world’s most powerful women list and on that list, in the top slot no less,