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

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

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

I wanted to make the obvious point.

A lot of people aren’t aware of who the Schutzstaffel are, but they do know who the SS are. :)

The links between Hitler’s regime and the Muslims are extensive and extensively ignored by what passes for academia. 70,000 Turkestanis for example served with the Schuma Bns. If the Nazi’s are responsible for what then so are the Muslims given their near identical behavior and rhetoric.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM

OK. Just wanted to know because I didn’t forget them.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 9:39 PM

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

Jesus speaking, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 11, verse 23

When I was young, I always thought that Jesus must have left out a third category. But the older I get, the more I see that Jesus was absolutely correct. What do the New York Times, the Liberal MSM, atheists, secularists, NationalSocialists, Marxists, Progressives, Communists, Democrats, and Muslims have in common? They not only refuse to acknowledge the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth and the true of Scripture, they will attack Him in any way they can, especially with attacks on Christians and any Christian organization which dares to hold to the Bible. But then Jesus told us that was going to happen too, didn’t He?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” John 13:16

and again;

“Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.” John 15:20

oldleprechaun on March 17, 2012 at 9:45 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? Taqia, 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

Worse; read up on Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits ‘Creative Lying’

How could we ever expect them to honor peace treaties?

slickwillie2001 on March 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM

You might also like this:

Nazism Was Not Based In Christianity

As I mentioned before, I’m an atheist, but my father is Jewish and his great-aunt and her children died in a Nazi concentration camp. I’ve done a lot of work (research, interviews, etc) on the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, current anti-Semitism in Europe, etc. I don’t have a dog in the religion battle, so to speak, but the misconceptions and deliberate mischaracterisations must be addressed. Too many are unaware of some basic facts about what happened in Nazi Germany and, indeed, what is occurring in Europe today.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 10:16 PM

You might also like this:

Nazism Was Not Based In Christianity

I will take a look at that. I do know that Christianity had little or nothing to do with National Socialism. Its closest relative is Marxism.

Too many are unaware of some basic facts about what happened in Nazi Germany and, indeed, what is occurring in Europe today.

Resist We Much on March 17, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I very much agree and if we do not know what and how the NSDAP came to power and who they really were, there exists the danger that we may allow it to happen again.

I am a non-believer myself, though not an atheist. More of an agnostic I guess.

sharrukin on March 17, 2012 at 10:25 PM

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?

The NYT is full of crap, but this is a silly argument. When was the last time a Catholic attacked our troops, or cut off someone’s head because they saw a newspaper ad they didn’t like?

xblade on March 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM

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

This journalistic idiocy certainly explains this story.

landlines on March 17, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Yeah, the NYT was really concerned for the safety of the troops when they put Abu Ghraib on the front page for more than a month straight, right?

deucegeary on March 17, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Given their choices is there any other outcome except bankruptcy that would not be inevitable for the New York Times? At the very least it will lead them to modify their behavior to one that embraces commerce over socialism and draw them back to independent reporting. Commercial television broadcasts have already come to that conclusion with GE being the first to bail on holding onto politically motivated news organizations. The implosion in MSM while slow in coming will be striking in the destruction that will befall the industry.

nicknack60 on March 17, 2012 at 11:36 PM

May they be first in line.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

As a Catholic, I’ll make it clear that any of these anti-religious advertisements don’t appeal to me. Clearly, many who practice Islam would be as offended as us Catholics are. Ads like these don’t help encourage dialogue between people of different faiths.

Yet as upset as I am about the anti-Catholic ad that actually was published, I’m more concerned about the reason the NY times chose not to publish the anti-Islamic one. “The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, here’s what they’re really saying: if you don’t like your religion being mocked, go ahead and threaten or actually commit acts of violence; and then we will stop mocking it. Now I don’t think the NY Times is intentionally calling Catholics to become violent against their fellow brother. But I do think the NY Times and others have been seduced to follow the easy road toward appeasement in their quest for peace. They may feel their actions make them brave and virtuous, but it ends up inciting violence and exposes their own cowardice.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the Mohammed cartoon controversy? Check out David Warren’s 2006 op-ed written over at Real Clear Politics. How relevant is it these days? An excerpt:

The reason I have written so copiously on this subject — not the cartoons themselves, but what I have called the ‘organized apoplexy’ in response to them — is because it is important. In my judgement, it is the most important thing that has happened since the Al Qaeda attack on the United States, in 2001. It is important in combination with other fast-developing events, including the victory of the openly terrorist Hamas in a Palestinian election; Iran’s public promise to ‘wipe Israel off the map’; collapsing public order in Pakistan, Nigeria, and elsewhere; the recent Muslim riots, and continuing low-level Intifada in France; and now the destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, triggering vicious sectarian strife in Iraq. And quite literally, hundreds of lesser events of the same nature — each revealing an Islamic world in combustion, and a West retreating into contrived apologies and other confused gestures of cowardice and panic. One cannot keep up with all these events — the wheels of history are turning too quickly. The world in which we will find ourselves, a few years hence, will not resemble the world we inhabited a few years ago. Yet this is among the few predictions that can be safely made.

The editors and reports over at the NY Times need our prayers. So do our Muslim friends – especially those who do not embrace acts of violence in the name of Islam; yet live in places where their government repeatedly isn’t brave enough to call out the extremists. The actions by the NY Times reaffirm the prediction that our path would lead to “an Islamic world in combustion, and a West retreating into contrived apologies and other confused gestures of cowardice and panic.”

pt on March 18, 2012 at 1:11 AM

I look forward to the day when the question of what the New York Times will or will not publish is of merely academic interest. Or more precisely, historical interest. Or scatalogical.

drunyan8315 on March 18, 2012 at 2:27 AM

xblade: “The NYT is full of crap, but this is a silly argument. When was the last time a Catholic attacked our troops, or cut off someone’s head because they saw a newspaper ad they didn’t like?”

That’s to the point. The New York Times is full of anti-Catholic bigotry which it expresses freely because there is no danger. I’m sure there are people at the New York Times who look down on Islam, but that prejudice is muted because Muslims are bloody fanatics and everyone knows it.

The question “why aren’t they afraid of Catholic terrorism too?” underlines the hypocrisy of the New York Times treating Catholics as villains because they are not villains, and treating Muslims as if they were not villains because they are.

David Blue on March 18, 2012 at 5:22 AM

drunyan8315: “I look forward to the day when the question of what the New York Times will or will not publish is of merely academic interest. Or more precisely, historical interest. Or scatalogical.”

I look forward to a day when the kind of academics we have now are of purely historical interest.

David Blue on March 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM

Since when does the NYT care about our troops? Oh yeah, re-election time from Obambi.

TfromV on March 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Über-Zionist Pam Geller sees a radical Islamist behind every tree.
It’s no wonder informed people don’t take her seriously. Her loyalty is questionable.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

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.”

Well gee Bill, maybe look at what they said, considering that they explicitly stated that it was based on fear of Islamic violence. Poor Bill. It must be exhausting always playing the poor persecuted American Catholic card.

Mark Jaquith on March 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Über-Zionist Pam Geller sees a radical Islamist behind every tree.
It’s no wonder informed people don’t take her seriously. Her loyalty is questionable.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Really? An Über-Zionist? You’re going to use Nazi innuendo to criticize a Jewish opponent of Sharia law in the USA? Have you no shame?

What’s more ridiculous is a president who mandates services to be bought and sold, and prevents plant openings and oil drilling and pipelines by summary decree. What’s amazing is that anybody takes Obama seriously, but they do, and therefore his proclamations go into practical effect.

Fenris on March 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM

explicitly stated that it was based on fear of Islamic violence.

Mark Jaquith on March 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Where was that fear when the NYT published the secret memos describing interrogation techniques? Didn’t we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I’ve been down this road and you guys had better wise up and stop kowtowing to Islamists out of “fear of Islamic violence.” Do you realise that in parts of Europe, like Denmark, that it is a crime to insult or criticise a religion…even if it means telling the truth? There are politicians and activists that have been convicted for speaking out against the way Islam treats women and girls. Condemnation of FGM has led to the convictions of not the Muslim men forcing this barbarity on their female family members, but of those that speak out against it.

You might think that Bill Donahue is playing the poor, persecuted Catholic and maybe he is, but you are willing to submit yourself to a two-tier, caste system of speech and behaviour imposed upon society by a minority of radicals using fear and intimidation.

Who is worse: The man, who speaks out about the double standard and sometimes goes overboard, or the one, who complains about the vocal man while meekly submitting to the demands of the intolerant?

Resist We Much on March 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM

The question “why aren’t they afraid of Catholic terrorism too?” underlines the hypocrisy of the New York Times treating Catholics as villains because they are not villains, and treating Muslims as if they were not villains because they are.

David Blue on March 18, 2012 at 5:22 AM

David, you nailed it.

Radical Islamists want to drag the world back to the seventh century, and the NYT has a problem with CATHOLICS? (While giving the Islamists a pass.)

SubmarineDoc on March 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2