Posted on 06/30/2015 10:49:47 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
As you might recall, a few months ago The New York Times announced that they would not publish any of Charlie Hebdo‘s cartoons of Muhammad, even after Islamist terrorists massacred the French satire paper’s staff. ““Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities,” they said in a statement. “After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”
Flash forward to yesterday…
Now for those who somehow missed the culture wars, the Catholic Church has held that the use of condoms is intrinsically evil for over a millennium. It also teaches that Pope Benedict XVI served as the representative of God on earth and had the divinely-given power to speak infallibly on very specific issues. In short, to a devout Catholic, the image the Times published is no less offensive than a drawing of Muhammad would be to a Muslim. Indeed, the entire point of the Times piece is that Catholics were offended by the portrait, now displayed at Milwaukee Art Museum.
Make no mistake, the portrait was “deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities,” at least to the same extent that Charlie Hebdo “intended to offend.” Likewise, the Times could have just as easily described the portrait without showing it, and the story wouldn’t have suffered an iota. There’s simply no way to reconcile the publication of the Pope portrait with the Times statement back in January.
As I’ve written in the past, The New York Times‘ brave anti-blasphemy stance is essentially a farce. Despite a blistering op-ed back in May attacking Pamela Geller for “inflicting deliberate anguish” on Muslims, the Times gave glowing reviews to Piss Christ (which they showed), to images of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung (which they also showed), to The Book of Mormon, to The Death of Klinghoffer, and to basically any provocative anti-religious speech that didn’t target one specific religion.
What I wish we could really get from the Times is honesty. I understand on some level that a newspaper with hundreds of employees– many embedded in the Middle East– doesn’t want to publish images of Muhammad. I personally don’t have any issue publishing the image of Muhammad. Hey look, here’s one now!
But I’m a nobody. If I had hundreds of people depending on me for their safety… I don’t know what I’d do. Could I really risk the death of other human beings just to make a political statement?
But instead of being forward with their readers, the Times sanctimoniously acted like they were taking the high road. “Oh, we’re not scared of terrorists,” they tutted. “We’re just so above such coarse and rude depictions, not like those other outlets.” But in reality, coarse and rude depictions are perfectly okay at the Times when directed at religions that– lets face it– aren’t all that popular at Manhattan cocktail parties.
The Times need to come clean. The anti-Catholic art display was republished because the Archbishop of Milwaukee’s response was, “Love your enemies, do good to those who might harm you, said Jesus. In the face of ridicule, we’ll continue to do our best to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.” The Charlie Hebdo images of Muhammad were not republished because the response from the offended parties was mass murder.
It’s an intentional double standard. It may be a wise one, or it may be a dangerous one. But the least the Times can do is address it.
However, I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of the pope made of worthless carbon credits and collector item indulgences from the 12th century...
Does anyone still read the Times?
Here’s a hint: Violence works.
Christianity is seen in the Left Wing world as weak, because of the forgiveness and love of Jesus Christ. The Left Wing sees Islam as strong and attractive, because of the death, violence and Islam’s hatred of Jews and Christians, whom they also hate
But, but that’s not a cartoon——It’s a portrait, which makes it art, right?
Exactly. The Archdiocese of New York should attack the NYT’s Manhattan offices Inquisition-style, and purge Pinchie & his minions. End of insults; with fear comes compliance ;)
This image is solely “deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities” - it is based on the fact that homosexuals who disagree with Catholicism hate Catholicism and demand that it change to accommodate them. They are no different than Mohammad.
The piece was donated to the museum from philanthropist and gay rights advocate Joseph Pabst, who originally bought the painting for $25,000.
http://observer.com/2015/06/a-portait-of-pope-benedict-made-of-condoms-sparks-outrage/
The pusillanimous New York Times knows perfectly well that most of their “cultured” readers, many of whom are only nominally Catholic, will chuckle at derogatory depictions of almost anything having to do with the Pope and the Catholic Church as a whole, and the entire spectrum of the Christian religion in general.
But these same newspaper editors and readers are deathly afraid of doing anything whatsoever to “offend” the relatively small Muslim minority in our midst, as this would inflame the more fervent to unimaginable levels of rage, and they shall run amok slashing and killing random people they should happen to come across once they have been told that somebody was disrespecting the Prophet Mohammed.
Nothing is that sacred.
From Catholic sheeple? Not a chance.
” the Catholic Church has held that the use of condoms is intrinsically evil for over a millennium.”
All about increasing the number of followers? And Jews and muzzies not eating pork was about not decreasing the number through Trichinosis deaths?
Easy to understand. ROP’ers are dark-skinned. Christians are light-skinned. Dark = oppressed. Light = oppressor. The oppressed can do no wrong, even if they main, burn, destroy and murder. Their beliefs are wonderful examples of kindness and nobility. Christians’ beliefs are to be mocked and eliminated.
This is the mind of a liberal.
Title correction: After Censoring Muhammad, NY Slimes Publishes Offensive Image of Pope Benedict
“All the news that’s fit to print, providing of course that it helps advance the anti-American left-wing agenda”
It's still a highly objectionable encyclical, but it did come out against the two "anti-warming" strategies which are most popular on the Left: carbon credits, and population control.
Not sure what your comment means.
The Slimes will suck anything to stay off the Al Queda Airlines destination list.
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.