Posted on 02/12/2006 11:20:20 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Regrettably, the decision by the media not to offend Muslims is motivated by fear, not ethics.
Whenever the Catholic League criticizes a work of art, cartoon, movie or TV show, we are told that (a) we’re the intolerant ones (b) what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder (c) art is supposed to make people uncomfortable (d) no one can criticize anything until they have seen it (e) protests have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech (f) it’s not real anyway, and (g) get over it. So why have Muslims been spared this lecture? Because the extremists in their ranks—and they are not a tiny minority—have shown they may respond with beheadings.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
This needs to be a full page ad in the NYT. It's right on!
It might've been more apropos if the Jo Nuvark had said, "Does that mean citizens aren't allowed to make an example of the bully, exposing his bad behavior?"
HF
Liberals always resond to fear, the constitution be damned.
For example, when they were fearful - being threatened - by violent riots in the cities out came a huge expansion of welfare and a new order of racial preferences. To make outcomes equal in schools, they gave into demands to demolish our education system and change it's purpose as demanded by the most radical - the meanest - the ones who scared them the most.
When Marxists took over education, liberals then accepted the demand of total debasement of Western civilization - including art and Christianity. They called it tolerance; multiculturalism. As they surrendered to the most hateful and ignornant mobs, they congradulated themselves for keeping the peace and "democracy" while praising the "change."
Liberals would not hesitate to bow down to radical Islam if they feel threatened. If the left - the only ones willing to get really nasty when offended - decide Islam is history, then libeals will turn against Islam. If the left lets the violence of the Islamists ride, in thirty years we will all be wearing burkas while the NYT calls it great progress and change.
[... It might've been more apropos if Jo Nuvark had said,
"Does that mean citizens aren't allowed to make an example
of the bully, exposing his bad behavior?" ...]
Or better...
I should have made it clear the tongue was firmly planted in cheek.
I agree with you that the anger against hypocricy is mounting. Every day, more and more, the major players in the MSM can be seen to be exactly what they are: phonies, false and fake, puppets to political mantras, show-biz wannabees and shameless cowards in the face of real threats to free speech.
Part of the reason that we have nothing from the "great liberal" mouthpieces is that they have promoted Pro-muslim, anti-christian propaganda for a generation.
For a generation or two now we have had a constant Christian bashing by the liberal elite about the crusades and any other attempt to slow or limit muslim expansionism. The muslims, (as they were on the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were and are always portrayed as the better, more peaceful, victims of Christians.
Now, the anti-christian left, who supports anything against christians now finds itself in a quandry "how to effect a better image of the idiots that they have portrayed as the 'good guys' in opposition to the 'evil' christian horde.
They have gone so far as to compare the murderous riots after these cartoons to the public outcry against "piss Christ" in getting NEA funding challenged because of things like that.
They are idiots and don't deserve the forum they have. Good thing that they sent people to the internet, there is no news in their publishings anyway.
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.