NYT: Anti-Catholic ads are OK, but anti-Islam ads put our troops in danger

posted at 6:15 pm on March 17, 2012 by Tina Korbe

About a week ago, The New York Times ran a blatantly anti-Catholic ad from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The ad urged readers to “consider quitting the Catholic Church,” featured a mocking cartoon and blamed the Church’s teaching on contraception for poverty, misery, unwanted pregnancy and even deaths.

Never mind for a minute all that the Church does to alleviate poverty and misery (the very motto of Catholic Charities USA is “Working to reduce poverty in America”), to help mothers cope with unexpected pregnancy and to foster a culture of life. Set aside, too, that the Church’s ban on contraception doesn’t force people to have sex. (If, in a given season of life, doing so will lead to poverty, misery, unwanted pregnancy and even death, then it makes sense to me to abstain.)

Let’s focus instead on the double standard that was revealed shortly after the NYT published the anti-Catholic ad.

Pamela Gellar of Stop Islamization of America drafted an anti-Islam ad that mimicked the ad from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The New York Times rejected it — and here’s why:

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.”

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.”

As Breitbart’s Ezra Dulis points out, The Times wasn’t nearly so concerned that it might incite violence against U.S. troops when it published details of the WikiLeaks documents leaked by Bradley Manning in 2010. And, as a Breitbart commenter pointed out, U.S. troops are also stationed in predominantly Catholic nations. Why isn’t the NYT concerned about potential backlash in those places?

Geller and prominent Catholic leaders aren’t buying the NYT’s spin.

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, accused the Times of having a double standard and told The Daily Caller that The Time’s was based on “either [anti-Catholic] bigotry or fear [of Islamic violence], and they’ve painted themselves into that corner.”

Donohue said the frequent claims of intellectual honesty by Times employees would compel them to address the double standard if they weren’t “shameless.” …

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?”

Nobody in this debate thinks the NYT should have to publish an anti-Islam ad. The paper has the right to reject any advertising it wants. They’re just saying uniform standards would be nice.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The true policy for not doing anything to criticize Islam is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

pedestrian on March 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

It’s so great to see that the talking points from the White House get to the New York Times in such a timely manner. 4th Estate, we don’t need no stinkin 4th Estate.

Dr Evil on March 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Among the many thousands of reason I will never again read the NY Times. Perhaps the most important one being, as this ad underscored, its obvious liberal bias. Why anyone would believe anything that old rag publishes is a mystery to me.

chai on March 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

NYT, uniform standards, good luck with that.

Bmore on March 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Cowards incentivize violence.

If we rioted in the streets and killed innocent old women charity workers from other faiths, then Christians would get respect.

Thanks, Times.

Message received.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The left reveals it’s alliance with Islam once again.

darwin on March 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

From Drudge. Newspapers are the fastest shrinking industry in the US. There’s the standard.

Bmore on March 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The NY Times didn’t seem very concerned about our troops when they ran lurid, accusatory Abu Ghraib stories on their front page every day for three months straight.

There’s really no way to overstate what disingenuous, lying scum the NY Times and the rest of the Democrat media are.

Django on March 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

The New York Dhimm Times

RalphyBoy on March 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The Times wasn’t nearly so concerned that it might incite violence against U.S. troops when it published details of the WikiLeaks documents leaked by Bradley Manning in 2010.

Neither were they or the left concerned about the troops when Bush was president.

darwin on March 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Silence or they kill you.

the_nile on March 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I think liberals ought to perform as much retroactive abortion on themselves as they like. Can we get them a tax deduction and perhaps some kervorkian style service? I’d happily kick in extra tax money for that because for every aborted socialist progressive adult, that’s one less welfare queen.

Mean? Why not, they seem to have no limits so why should anyone else?

Wolfmoon on March 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

NYT has chosen to die a coward’s death.
-

RalphyBoy on March 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

It’s so great to see that the talking points from the White House get to the New York Times in such a timely manner. 4th Estate, we don’t need no stinkin 4th Estate.

Dr Evil on March 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

4th Estate, 5th Column; what’s the difference?

Steve Eggleston on March 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

It’s so great to see that the talking points from the White House get to the New York Times in such a timely manner. 4th Estate, we don’t need no stinkin 4th Estate.

Dr Evil on March 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

…Georgie Porgie did the White House bidding with the contraceptive questions at the debate too. The White House has connections everywhere. Why is that?

KOOLAID2 on March 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The Catholic church is a western institution that promotes good moral character so the left must attempt to destroy it in order to destroy the western world that is the biggest threat to the communist tyrannical eastern world.

Grunt on March 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

How about an ad praising Islam: We approve of the killing of women for adultery, we support executing thirteen year old girls for the crime of getting themselves gang raped. We approve of suicide bombing to eliminate the infidels whether they be eight years old or eighty years old. We approve of a worldwide caliphate that executes homosexuals, bans women from driving, outlaws all music and requires an absolute faith in Islam. Would they run that ad?

Smedley on March 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

In a way, the NYT is giving Catholics a backhanded compliment. It’s telling them that, unlike Muslims evidently, they are not dangerous whackjobs, who might go on a rampage if someone says something wrong about their religion.

Leave it to the NYT to figure out a way to insult two major religions and the military (the NYT didn’t care about them under Bush and is using them as an excuse now) at the same time all in the name of political correctness.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

U.S. troops are also stationed in predominantly Catholic nations. Why isn’t the NYT concerned about potential backlash in those places?

Um…because Catholic nations are less likely to disembowel U.S. troops and display heads on the nearest parapet? Just sayin…

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

its obvious liberal bias
-chai

Why is Islam “liberal”?

The greatest feat of the liberal media is the way they have been able to divide and conquer faith. Real Muslims are anti-homosexual agenda, anti-abortion, and against government control of religion. We share more than what we disagree on. We should be marching side-by-side against Sebellius, Obama, and HHS.

I recommend purging the party of fools like Coulter and GOProud who watch the gov’t kick orphans into the streets without a peep of protest and replacing them with Muslims who are cowled by snarky know-nothing TV personalities.

We are selling out our freedom for the lie that the Secular Supremacists will honor our faith.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Well this is just an incentive for the Catholic Church to bring back the Inquisition.

rbj on March 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Silence or they kill you.

the_nile on March 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

…Ha ha!…how long before they blow Achmed up?

KOOLAID2 on March 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Message received.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I don’t support your idea but I get your point. These “journalists” want to pretend they are of principle and fighting for what is right and good when we know they are just full of it and shills. (no not all journalists but most .)

CW on March 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Make that NOT cowled.

I even previewed it.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I recommend purging the party of fools like Coulter and GOProud who watch the gov’t kick orphans into the streets without a peep of protest …

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Huh?

CW on March 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

The New York Times is a steaming pile of rancid goat dung.

rplat on March 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

So the takeaway here is that if Catholics would start rioting and beheading people whenever they feel offended, the NYTimes would start treating them with the utmost respect, right?

Doug Piranha on March 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

bhopress are doing their thing against anything but the rop type? bho is he!! bent out of shape against the Catholics and by golly he is seeing to it bhopress does his bidding?

If a thinking human can’t see what is going on, well shame on YOU! bho and team are against the Jews, Christians, and in the same frame Catholics that the ‘dare’ challenge bho. Just like Perry here in TX, you challenge bho and team, YOU WILL GET the rath of bho and team and the bhopress?
L

letget on March 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Huh?

CW on March 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I think Ron Paul is ahead of the game here to identify common points between Islam and segments of the US population. Dropping support for Israel and opposition to the US military are strong points of agreement between him and Imadinnerjacket. Throw some bags on top of the women and he has got a steady supply of donations.

pedestrian on March 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Why is Islam “liberal”?

Its ‘liberal’ in the sense that they want to destroy the west just like the Left does. Same reason the Left embraced Che, Mao, Castro, Stalin and even Hitler (before that became uncool).

The greatest feat of the liberal media is the way they have been able to divide and conquer faith. Real Muslims are anti-homosexual agenda, anti-abortion, and against government control of religion. We share more than what we disagree on.

That whole head chopping, stoning, women being worth half a man, and Sharia law thingie gets in the way of the love.

We are selling out our freedom for the lie that the Secular Supremacists will honor our faith.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM

The enemy of my enemy can be our friend, but that isn’t always the case and this is one of them. Islam will destroy the west if it can and the liberals will be first in line for the chopping block but conservatives will also be required to convert, pay the submission tax, or die.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

This is only illogical when the NYT is being dishonest. It makes perfect sense if you can ever get a typical leftist to be honest. Christianity is a threat to liberal sacred cows and the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

NotCoach on March 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I don’t support your idea but I get your point. These “journalists” want to pretend they are of principle and fighting for what is right and good when we know they are just full of it and shills. (no not all journalists but most .)

CW on March 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

The greater danger to civilization right now is Secular Supremacism. This is partly because it is not recognized as a threat due to our traditional understanding that the Secular is kind of neutral meeting place where religious differences are de-emphasized for the common good of the pluralistic society.

Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is, Secularism has evolved into its own counter-religion sociopolitical movement. How can we chide Islamists for choosing “theocracy” once free of the Secularist dictators we propped up when they have been suffering until the iron rule of Utilitarian Materialists? At least theocracy allows for the spiritual dimension of human existence.

They are reacting with violence and force against the very ideology that is moving to throttle our freedoms. Before we can resolve any differences with Islam, we need to clean our own house or we will not have a house of our own to clean.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Christianity is a threat to liberal sacred cows and the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

NotCoach on March 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

It’s funny how selectively the Left applies that time-tested axiom, however.

For example, if you suggest to them that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots, they will saw “no way”.

Then when you suggest this axiom, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, they simply pretend you never said it, and then repeat what they’ve been taught in College, namely that Iraq is absolutely the only country on Planet Earth that would never cooperate with al Qaeda.

They know that if they admitted the possibility the two collaborated, they would be admitting Chimpy Bush was right.

They would rather be taken out back and shot first.

Del Dolemonte on March 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Didn’t we just have a story like this with billboards? The Catholic neighborhood got their “leave the Church” billboard courtesy of the atheists. But it wasn’t okay to put a “leave Islam” billboard in the Muslin neighborhood. Who was the thought leader here? NYT or the billboard company? Or did they just end up in the same place by coincidence?

Point being, this problem is a whole lot bigger than the New York Times.

Dee2008 on March 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

*Muslim*

Dee2008 on March 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM

That whole head chopping, stoning, women being worth half a man, and Sharia law thingie gets in the way of the love.

The enemy of my enemy can be our friend, but that isn’t always the case and this is one of them. Islam will destroy the west if it can and the liberals will be first in line for the chopping block but conservatives will also be required to convert, pay the submission tax, or die.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

This is not necessarily so. The type of violent reactionary Islam you are talking about is very much a product of Secularist oppression.

The crisis we face is actually an opportunity to allow better educated Muslim scholars a chance to be heard and gives Muslims around the world a foothold in the mainstream.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

This is not necessarily so. The type of violent reactionary Islam you are talking about is very much a product of Secularist oppression.

And what was the excuse for the violent reactionary Islam that attacked the US during the Barbary wars?

They were asked about that you know. Two fellows by the name of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams inquired about that in 1785.

The reply…

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

The crisis we face is actually an opportunity to allow better educated Muslim scholars a chance to be heard and gives Muslims around the world a foothold in the mainstream.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

So you have the answer to Muslim attacks that has evaded the west for 1,400 years? Great if true… but I gotta say I am a little skeptical.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

How about an ad praising Islam: We approve of the killing of women for adultery, we support executing thirteen year old girls for the crime of getting themselves gang raped. We approve of suicide bombing to eliminate the infidels whether they be eight years old or eighty years old. We approve of a worldwide caliphate that executes homosexuals, bans women from driving, outlaws all music and requires an absolute faith in Islam. Would they run that ad?

Smedley on March 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

i seriously want someone to try that ad. i really want to know what nyt would say to it. hmm!!

Sachiko on March 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Bill Donohue is just jealous we don’t have a theocracy here so he could crucify the unbelievers.

lester on March 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Not to say i support the liberal bummy new york times but

anti-islam ads DO endanger our troops.

anti-catholic(whilendespicable) don’t endanger our troops

gerrym51 on March 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Not to say i support the liberal bummy new york times but

anti-islam ads DO endanger our troops.

anti-catholic(whilendespicable) don’t endanger our troops

gerrym51 on March 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

That would explain why there were no anti-Nazi films during WWII then?

pedestrian on March 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Pam Geller is a sick pig.

lexhamfox on March 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The ad urged readers to “consider quitting the Catholic Church,”

Too late!

Yours truly,
Recovering Catholic
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Freedom of the press is OK, but the NYT is hazardous to the health and well-being of the USA.

Eren on March 17, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Never mind for a minute all that the Church does to alleviate poverty and misery (the very motto of Catholic Charities USA is “Working to reduce poverty in America”), to help mothers cope with unexpected pregnancy and to foster a culture of life.

Catholic so-called “help” for mothers with unexpected pregnancy and fostering a culture of life is exactly what the Freedom from Religion Foundation objects to. It makes no sense to start the quoted sentence with “Never mind for a minute”. Maybe if Tina were capable of logic, she would occasionally come up with some good arguments.

Nobody in this debate thinks the NYT should have to publish an anti-Islam ad. The paper has the right to reject any advertising it wants. They’re just saying uniform standards would be nice.

Very weak, irrelevant ending!

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Bill Donohue is just jealous we don’t have a theocracy here so he could crucify the unbelievers.

lester on March 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

You’re an idiot. I’m an atheist and fully support religious freedom and freedom of speech, including that of Mr Donahue and the Catholic Church.

Donahue and others do not want a theocracy. They want their rights under the Constitution.

I’ve seen your future and it does not work.

Hitler’s Ghost Haunts Europe

Norway: A Tolerant, Inclusive, Diverse, Multicultural Society For Everyone…Except Jews

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 7:23 PM

This is not necessarily so. The type of violent reactionary Islam you are talking about is very much a product of Secularist oppression.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

If you have utterly no knowledge of Islam, you could believe something like this. You could also believe that Islam requires listening to Barrey Manilow on 8-track tapes in order to get to Nirvana.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

The NYT: All the News That’s Fit to Tint”

DevilsPrinciple on March 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

There’s a double standard in part because no one believes Catholics will commit mass murder if one publishes an anti-Catholic ad. Although the two-faced-ness of it all is infuriating, in one sense Catholics should consider it a compliment.

PerceptorII on March 17, 2012 at 7:29 PM

When my son was in Iraq, I told him two things: Do not disobey a lawful order and do not leave the wire with a member of the American media.Refuse to go. I told my son I would get a lawyer to get him out of the brig.
Fortunately his command had this policy in place.
The US media was hated by the troops in my sons’ outfit. This was universal in Iraq after Haditha.

Thicklugdonkey on March 17, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Guess it’s time for religious leaders in the US to threaten the lopping off of heads. Hell, it appears to work for the followers of Islam “The Religion of Tolerance”.

PS

George Orwell is laughing his ass off!

GarandFan on March 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

You’re an idiot. I’m an atheist and fully support religious freedom and freedom of speech, including that of Mr Donahue and the Catholic Church.

Donahue and others do not want a theocracy. They want their rights under the Constitution.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Are we talking about the same Donahue? The guy who claims preists are abusing children because the have “the ghey”? The same guy who runs around and calls anything remotely critical of Christianity hate speech and wants it banned? The guy who thinks first amendment only applies if you bow to his religion? The record holder for calls for boycotts? Is that the same Donahue?

lester on March 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Hi.

SparkPlug on March 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Known by the cowardice of their conviction……

ProfShadow on March 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM

lester on March 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Again, he doesn’t want a theocracy. I don’t agree with him on a lot of issues, but I’ve never heard him say anything that remotely resembles an argument for replacing American law with Canon law.

As I said above, I have seen what happens to a society where secularism becomes imposed by the Left, but special groups like extreme Muslims get preferential rights. Nature abhors a vacuum. In the UK and Europe, that vacuum has been filled with a noisy, increasingly violent, radical bunch of Islamists. I am from Londonistan. The stories that I could tell you would blow your mind.

PS: Contrary to what many Leftists in America will tell you, second and third generations are not assimilating and becoming more European. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Second and third generations are those most likely to become radicalised.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM

They were asked about that you know. Two fellows by the name of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams inquired about that in 1785…

So you have the answer to Muslim attacks that has evaded the west for 1,400 years? Great if true… but I gotta say I am a little skeptical.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

If you have utterly no knowledge of Islam, you could believe something like this. You could also believe that Islam requires listening to Barrey Manilow on 8-track tapes in order to get to Nirvana.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Hm. I think the burden justifying alliances is on the side of those who promote the Secular-Christian alliance against Islam.

Secularists have killed 53 million helpless and innocent people in the past 39 years. They argue that all faith, especially Christianity, is toxic. They advocate oppressive objectification of women as “freedom” and are actively pursuing idiotic doctrines to replace families with the all-powerful State.

There is Truth and there are those who believe in Truth. Some believe more than others. This is called the “Hierarchy of Truth”. Islam shares far more with Christianity than Christianity shares with the anthrophobic Left.

On top of that, I recommend you actually leave your home and meet a few Muslims before cherry-picking scripture quotes from a faith you do not understand. (Or at least study it.)

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

The NY Times, just like most of the media, are afraid for themselves. They don’t want the muslims coming after them like they do in other countries. They just use our troops as a convenient excuse.

Whatever happened to that girl who did the “draw Mahammed” day? Is she still in witness protection?

Night Owl on March 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Are we talking about the same Donahue? The guy who claims preists are abusing children because the have “the ghey”? The same guy who runs around and calls anything remotely critical of Christianity hate speech and wants it banned? The guy who thinks first amendment only applies if you bow to his religion? The record holder for calls for boycotts? Is that the same Donahue?

lester on March 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I don’t care for Donohue’s style much but I have not found a quote from him yet calling for having the government ban speech. Also to pretend that much of the problems with priests is not with gay child abuse is just silly. Are boycotts not within the first amendment? Are you arguing against it in the same post that you are arguing in its defense? Seems like it.

CW on March 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

And yet, the NY Times is afraid of muslims, but not Christians, and I don’t think even if your point were correct it would stop muslims from killing us if they get the chance.

Night Owl on March 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Catholic so-called “help” for mothers with unexpected pregnancy and fostering a culture of life
thuja on March 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You’re ignorant and haven’t a clue about what the Church and its members do. That is quite clear. You’re just one sadly ugly person.

CW on March 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Heckler’s veto writ large

J-Paul00 on March 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Catholic so-called “help” for mothers with unexpected pregnancy and fostering a culture of life
thuja on March 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You’re ignorant and haven’t a clue about what the Church and its members do. That is quite clear. You’re just one sadly ugly person.

CW on March 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

See my point above about Secular Supremacists and Christians.

They engage in this type of hysterical screeching to justify the abolition of religion AND kill babies that interfere with their careers or vacation trips to Spain.

Yet, these are the ones we side with?

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

There is Truth and there are those who believe in Truth. Some believe more than others. This is called the “Hierarchy of Truth”. Islam shares far more with Christianity than Christianity shares with the anthrophobic Left.

Not all religions are the same any more than all ideologies are the same. What is shared with Islam matters less than what isn’t shared. That they have some of the same distastes for the libertine left does not make them any less of a threat.

You seem to believe that the essence of Christianity is meaningless and that some generic message of religiosity is all that matters. That isn’t the case. The specifics matter a great deal, and Islam specific message is a horror, while Christianity’s specific message is essentially decent.

On top of that, I recommend you actually leave your home and meet a few Muslims before cherry-picking scripture quotes from a faith you do not understand. (Or at least study it.)

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

The Nazi’s of Germany were good family folks who loved their children, were law abiding and would be great fun at a barbecue. The Soviets loved their children too and if you knew some of them you would not think they were monsters. The men that died defending Hitler’s regime were for the most part good men dieing in an evil cause.

That does not translate into National Socialism, or Marxism being an ideology that we can embrace. Ideologies and religions are expressed in a communal sense and we have seen what Islam brings to any nation that is majority Muslim, and we have seen Fascism and Marxism in action when they gain ascendancy. You will know them by their fruits.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Hm. I think the burden justifying alliances is on the side of those who promote the Secular-Christian alliance against Islam.

Secularists have killed 53 million helpless and innocent people in the past 39 years. They argue that all faith, especially Christianity, is toxic. They advocate oppressive objectification of women as “freedom” and are actively pursuing idiotic doctrines to replace families with the all-powerful State.

On top of that, I recommend you actually leave your home and meet a few Muslims before cherry-picking scripture quotes from a faith you do not understand. (Or at least study it.)

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

It is you that hasn’t been even bothered to read the basic facts about the history of Islam. You could wikipedia Islamic history and get a really good clue about what hateful violent religion it has been, and that is despite wikipedia’s efforts to whitewash. Murder as an Islamic practice can not be whitewashed or hand waved away.

Also, there is no unified Secularism that anyone can rationally talk about. Similarly there is no unified Religion in which all religions have to account for the evils of Scientology. It’s just silly to make arguments based on such a notion.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Charity Navigator has given 4 stars to Catholic Charities USA.

A lot of great work is being done and efficiently so. Sure beats the Kony movement and its founder from Invisible Children and their 30 percent that actually goes to serving the people.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656

CW on March 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

This is not necessarily so. The type of violent reactionary Islam you are talking about is very much a product of Secularist oppression.

The crisis we face is actually an opportunity to allow better educated Muslim scholars a chance to be heard and gives Muslims around the world a foothold in the mainstream.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

So your ideal would be the situation in Saudi Arabia?

I’ve got problems with the Catholic Church, but they’re mostly along the lines of gullibility. They take the harmless as doves part seriously, but ignore the command to be wise as serpents. More of this, and maybe they’ll come around. Or not.

Fenris on March 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Pretending that Islam is not our enemy is what puts our troops in danger.

MikeA on March 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Pam Geller is a sick pig.

lexhamfox on March 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Why Charles, we’ve discovered your nic on this page!

Or are you somebody else that Pamela turned down for a date other than the age of Culver City?

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

BS.

It’ll be a cold day in H*ll when the New York Times gives a rat’s a** about the troops.

clippermiami on March 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM

The Nazi’s of Germany were good family folks who loved their children, were law abiding and would be great fun at a barbecue. The Soviets loved their children too and if you knew some of them you would not think they were monsters. The men that died defending Hitler’s regime were for the most part good men dieing in an evil cause.

That does not translate into National Socialism, or Marxism being an ideology that we can embrace. Ideologies and religions are expressed in a communal sense and we have seen what Islam brings to any nation that is majority Muslim, and we have seen Fascism and Marxism in action when they gain ascendancy. You will know them by their fruits.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

It makes me happy when people make good arguments.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

sage of Culver City, not age of Culver City

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM

It is you that hasn’t been even bothered to read the basic facts about the history of Islam. You could wikipedia Islamic history and get a really good clue about what hateful violent religion it has been, and that is despite wikipedia’s efforts to whitewash. Murder as an Islamic practice can not be whitewashed or hand waved away.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Ah, a Wikischolar. I am truly at the foot of one of the great minds of the West.

Also, there is no unified Secularism that anyone can rationally talk about. Similarly there is no unified Religion in which all religions have to account for the evils of Scientology. It’s just silly to make arguments based on such a notion.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I explained this on my first post on this thread. This is not the idea you attack. Nor is this my own.

Philosophers, theologians, lawyers and others have known for many generations that there are irreconciable differences between the two world views that will only lead to greater friction as time goes on.

Hence the increasingly deeper division in the society you have been living in all your life.

Welcome to society.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM

It makes me happy when people make good arguments.

thuja on March 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Thank you, but don’t forget this part…

The specifics matter a great deal, and Islam specific message is a horror, while Christianity’s specific message is essentially decent.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

“irreconcilable”

Sorry.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

BS.

It’ll be a cold day in H*ll when the New York Times gives a rat’s a** about the troops.

clippermiami on March 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Bingo. They didn’t hesitate to run Abu Graib above the fold for months on end; they had no problem widely disseminating the Murtha Haditha accusations, more recently they’ve been more than happy to shout to the world about the koran burnings and the rampaging troop who killed those civilians. Thus, their pattern of reporting betrays the lie about their concern for the troops by running that ad.

More like it is fear on their own part. That’s fine, but they should at least be courageous enough to admit that the pinnacle of the printed press is afraid of consequences for printing something.

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Pam Geller is a sick pig.

lexhamfox on March 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yeah, just like the victims of Islamic honor killings are, right?

You are an indecent person.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Thuja

Please consider the following possibility:

Google searches and Wikipedia are not enough to support your position. Right or wrong, if you hold such a strong opinion, you must spend more time researching in an actual library and talking to actual Muslims.

The deeper you, the greater the likelihood that you will have an encounter with knowledge rather than simply prop up your own biases.

Islam has informed your worldview in ways you can never have imagined, so really study before you dismiss it out of hand.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I don’t understand why the NYT thinks they have to lie about it. We know people fear reprisals for their own sake not the troops. If they were concerned about the troops, there were many pieces they would have withheld over the years. This is the paper that published a series back in 2007 or 2008 claiming stateside veterans were more violent than the general population. We know that is not true and yet they ran it anyway. They care that much.

So, what’s the conclusion? The Mohamed cartoon was a learning experience and/or they respect Muslims more than Christians.

I don’t see why they can’t just say it. Obviously, I’m missing the flashing neon sign that explains it all.

tuffy on March 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

you must spend more time researching in an actual library and talking to actual Muslims.


StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Talking to actual Muslims? You mean the religion in which lying to the infidel is not only sanctioned but encouraged if the lie furthers the cause of islam? Tauia, do you know that term? So, which actual muslims are we to talk to and be able to come away with an understanding that we can believe?

Frankly, given the principle of Taqia being a tenet of islam makes it very difficult to believe anything any muslim tells someone not of their faith. How can we believe anything they say to us without some substantial substantiating, independent evidence? We really only have their actions and their writings (yes, that can be found in some simple internet searches) from which we can discern their objectives. As someone in another blog once said, “When a muslim smiles at you and says, ‘I tell you the truth, …’, you are guaranteed that they are lying to your face”

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Tauqia, do you know that term?

Fixed it

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

The New PorkTimes will have santorum all over them on this one!

Rusty Allen on March 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Afganistan must be the only place where the NYT readership is growing and the don’t want to hurt that.

Say what does it cost to have the NYT delivered to Kandahar? Do they really have it on your doorstep in Kabul before 6 AM?

KenInIL on March 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

AZfederalist,

Here is a suggestion for meeting actual Muslims:

Go to your local chapter of Catholic Charities, and contact the refugee resettlement department. Ask to work with refugees from Somalia, Afghanistan, or some other Muslim country or region. Through helping and getting involved with other human beings who need your help, you will be able to talk about religion in a context where you see the Muslims as fellow human persons.

Right now, you see them as caricatures fueled by media stereotypes. God bless.

In addition, what substantiating evidence do we have when dealing with Secularists who lie to our faces every day and portray us as evil for being against the killing of innocent babies?

Really. Who is the greater liar?

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Addendum to the above suggestion re Catholic Charities:

This may or may be possible in some states where gay marriage laws have been passed due to the intolerant and openly anti-religious attitude of the homosexual lobby.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Go to your local chapter of Catholic Charities, and contact the refugee resettlement department. Ask to work with refugees from Somalia, Afghanistan, or some other Muslim country or region. Through helping and getting involved with other human beings who need your help, you will be able to talk about religion in a context where you see the Muslims as fellow human persons.

Right now, you see them as caricatures fueled by media stereotypes. God bless.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

You can come off of your high horse now. You have no idea how I see individual muslims nor how I view people needing help.

Seeing individual muslims as prospects for the spread of the gospel is one thing; believing that the religion of islam is benign except for a few radicals is another. The latter view is purely naive and ignores the history of islam through the ages.

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Here is a suggestion for meeting actual socialists:

Go to your local union and you will be able to talk about ideology in a context where you see the socialist as fellow human persons.

Right now, you see them as caricatures fueled by media stereotypes. Workers Unite. /

In addition, what substantiating evidence do we have when dealing with Secularists who lie to our faces every day and portray us as evil for being against the killing of innocent babies?

Really. Who is the greater liar?

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Why do we have to choose one of the deceivers? They are both lying to us and they are both part of a movement that is murderous in their intent and their actions when they achieve power.

Show me the kind and decent Muslim state, or the kind and decent socialist state? If you cannot do this then there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM

you must spend more time researching in an actual library and talking to actual Muslims.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I don’t talk to actual Muslims enough, and I falafel about it.

Rusty Allen on March 17, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Seeing individual muslims as prospects for the spread of the gospel is one thing; believing that the religion of islam is benign except for a few radicals is another. The latter view is purely naive and ignores the history of islam through the ages.

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM

53 million in 39 years.

History class over.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Talking to actual Muslims? You mean the religion in which lying to the infidel is not only sanctioned but encouraged if the lie furthers the cause of islam? Tauia, do you know that term? So, which actual muslims are we to talk to and be able to come away with an understanding that we can believe?

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

This might help to answer your question: while it’s true that some Sunni Muslims are advocates for taqiyya [that's the way I've most often seen it spelled], the majority of them are not – taqiyya is more of a Shiite thing.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I just noticed I made a mistake in my post at 8:25 PM, in which I meant to say, “Yeah, just like the victims of Islamic honor killingsers are, right?

Bizarro No. 1 on March 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM

They would rather be taken out back and shot first.

Del Dolemonte on March 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

That can always be arranged for them.

DevilsPrinciple on March 17, 2012 at 9:04 PM

taqiyya [that's the way I've most often seen it spelled],

Apparently there are a number of acceptable spellings.

The majority of them are not – taqiyya is more of a Shiite thing.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Thanks for that bit of information; I was unaware of the difference between the sects in terms of acceptability of taqiyya.

AZfederalist on March 17, 2012 at 9:07 PM

53 million in 39 years.

History class over.

StubbleSpark on March 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

No, class isn’t dismissed yet…

2 million dead in the Sudan
80 million dead Hindu’s in India
2 million Armenians dead in Turkey
Between 1.25 and 3 million massacred in Bangladesh
And more besides.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Islamic Naziism

Make sure to look at the purty pictures. /

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Kind of puts a fresh light on these anti-religion bigots as well. They have no problem asking readers to give up their Catholic faith, but avoid saying the same about other religions. Why no ad attacking Buddhism? Or Islam? Or Judaism? Is it only Catholics that are to blame for all the misery in this world?

This really is all about politics. Catholics have a moral issue with Democrats, and so long as they stick to those morals, they won’t be swayed.

Book on March 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM

I don’t talk to actual Muslims enough, and I falafel about it.

Rusty Allen on March 17, 2012 at 8:56 PM

HAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Islamic Naziism

Make sure to look at the purty pictures. /

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Don’t forget the 13th Waffen SS Division of Bosnian Muslims.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:17 PM

The left reveals it’s alliance with subservience to Islam once again.

darwin on March 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

FIFY.

Midas on March 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:17 PM

You didn’t look at the link, did you? Old and new.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 9:22 PM

The New York Times is a steaming pile of rancid goat dung.

rplat on March 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

…and the goats are udder-ly ashamed!

KOOLAID2 on March 17, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2