Posted on 01/14/2015 3:09:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The double standard laid bare. If you’re a devout believer of whichever faith and eager to see less blasphemy in the media, as many Americans are, there’s no other conclusion to draw here than, “I need to be much, much angrier.”
The image of the prophet Mohammed, however, seems to occupy its own category, with its own rules. Last week, Baquet told me via email that as editor of the Times he had to consider “the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.” [sic] When I replied, “I just wonder about the Jewish family in Brooklyn,” Baquet responded as follows:
“I would really do some reporting — I did — to make sure these parallels are similar for the two religions. You may find they are not. In fact they really are not.”
Baquet’s argument, if I’m reading him correctly, is that a cartoonish depiction of Mohammed is more offensive, categorically, than a cartoon that depicts, say, anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews trying to fabricate a Holocaust that, per the cartoonist, never took place.
I don’t know if it’s categorical. As I read it, he’s not saying that cartoons of Mohammed are objectively more offensive than anti-semitic cartoons, he’s saying that the amount of rage they evoke in Muslims and Jews, respectively, is evidence that the former are more offensive to the aggrieved group than the latter. If Jews want the Times to take their feelings seriously, they can prove the depth of their injury by grabbing some AK-47s and machine-gunning a group of cartoonists. This moron is actually providing an incentive to overreact to blasphemy. Which is probably the closest he’ll come to acknowledging the real calculus in all this: To the extent that Times editors have more to fear from angry Muslims than they do from angry Jews, yes, it’s quite true that cartoons that offend each group don’t parallel each other.
This isn’t the first time recently that Baquet’s supplied a justification for terrorism, however unwittingly. John Sexton of Breitbart made a smart point last week after Baquet grumbled that other papers being applauded for running Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons weren’t running the most offensive ones. Quote:
“Have you seen them? They are sexual, and truly provocative. They are not the ones a handful of papers have run. Those are mild. If you really want to understand the issue, you would have to show the most over-the-top images,” he said.
What could Baquet have meant, wondered Sexton, when he said that to really “understand the issue” we’d need to see the most offensive cartoons? It sounds like he was saying that without seeing the most provocative images, you couldn’t hope to grasp why a couple of Muslim radicals might want to shoot up an editorial room. We need, in other words, to be fair to the terrorists if we’re going to start picking and choosing which images are representative of Charlie Hebdo’s oeuvre. If that’s not what he meant, what did he mean?
Dylan Byers of Politico, who squeezed the quote up top out of Baquet, notes at the end of his piece that “it stands to reason that if a free media has an obligation to not offend one group, then it has an obligation to not offend all groups — right down to restricting profanity in order to satisfy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Right — that’s exactly what the Bill Donohues of the world are counting on in joining the media’s charade that this is about “sensitivity” towards Muslims rather than fear. You can fear one group while not fearing another but you can’t be sensitive to one without being sensitive to another and expect to be taken seriously. That’s why all the media outlets refusing to show the Charlie Hebdo cover today will also think twice about images that offend Christians and Jews from now on. The anti-blasphemy ethic will grow. And we’ll have jihadism to thank for it. If you don’t believe me, just read this. Exit quotation: “[T]he academic publisher has issued guidance advising writers to avoid mentioning pigs or ‘anything else which could be perceived as pork’ so as not to offend Muslim or Jewish people.”
The way I understand it, blasphemy is the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God. At least, that's the dictionary definition.
So based on this definition, can one blaspheme the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Moses or Mohammad?
The NY Times is very blatant on this
The NY Times does not want to be targeted. They are cowards will only satirize “safe” groups.
Or blaspheming Yeshua - ... have to remember with these people that the prophet (pork BBQ’s unto him) is higher than all others .....
You mean real modern day religions of peace.
Someone should put a picture of Mohammed along with a crucifix in a bottle of piss and see what the media says.
Another open anti-Semite! I wonder how the Ochs-Sulzberger family likes that.
Translation: It’s rare that a Jew or Christian kills innocent people for blasphemy or sacrilege, so we don’t care if we offend them.
Exactly right.
So the child who throws a violent temper tantrum should get his way.
That just means there will be alot more temper tantrums.
has issued guidance advising politians to avoid mentioning pigs or ‘anything else which could be perceived as pork’ so as not to offend Muslims.
Ok, Pork Barrel, right out.
Bringing home the pork, right out.
Porky Pig, he’s gone.
Miss Piggy, she’s gone too.
BBQ, unless it’s from Texas, you’re done.
“Special rules for special people.” I mock it, but they really do believe it over at the NYT. It works this way: Muslims = Palestinians = Oppressed. Jews = Oppressor. Social justice demands that you behave differently between the two groups. And if I put it to them in exactly those terms they’d agree with it.
The NYT has been trashing Jooos for years and years, through terribly distorted reportage ... and editorial malfeasance...
and they get away with it. They know the Jooos are safe to criticize, ridicule, and lie about.
so they figure, they don’t need another scape goat group
or even a scape-camel group...as it were...
Fortunately, the NYT looks like it is on the way down...
BECAUSE ISLAMONAZIS WILL KILL YOU OVER IT!
Someone had to point that out.
Yeah- the main difference being that THEY LIKE anti-semetic cartoons.
It’s hard to believe that we’re collectively that stupid.
Basically, if you insult Christianity, the Christians don’t care for it, but we just leave all revenge up to God. He can take care of them, we don’t need to.
RE: BECAUSE ISLAMONAZIS WILL KILL YOU OVER IT!
BINGO !! GO TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS.
When you break into the classroom at lunch and find some chalk, who are you going to embarrass by drawing them naked on the chalkboard? The runty little class nerd, or the oversized bully who could kick your ass?
These journalists are scared of ass beatings. They know the Jews won’t do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.