Anti-Catholic Ad OK in New York Times, But Similar Anti-Islam Ad Rejected
Neil Munro of the Daily Caller reports on a double standard on religious-bashing ads in the New York Times involving Pamela Geller (pictured), the activist against radical Islam whose "venomous" rhetoric the Times finds offensive, especially after her involvement in the opposition to building a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero.
Executives at The New York Times have rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement that mimicked a controversial anti-Catholic advertisement they published on March 9.
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.”
Munro solicited the opinion of Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who responded in part:
....anti-Islamist activist Pamela Geller decided to submit an ad to the Times that played off the FFRF ad by changing the wording to make it look like an attack on Islam. For example, she asked Muslims to quit their religion because they oppress so many people....The Times’ rationale for denying Geller’s ad is sound: as a veteran, I am opposed to unnecessarily putting our armed forces in harm’s way. But I wonder why it takes fear to impel the New York Times not to run bigoted ads. Wouldn’t ethics suffice? It certainly wasn’t enough when they decided to run the FFRF ad assaulting Catholic sensibilities.
Mark Steyn at National Review comments: "Thus the courage of the secular left: If you’re going to be 'provocative', it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked."
Update 15:56 | Matthew Sheffield. The Times's sudden interest in protecting the lives and fortunes of America's troops overseas is really quite unexpected here considering the many stories divulging American intelligence practices and tactics over the years. These policies, such as so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques or international imprisonment of terrorist suspects are things widely condemned by leftists worldwide and have provoked outrage in the Islamic world as well, certainly leading to riots and instability in U.S.-occupied countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
As everyone knows, the Times pressed forward publishing these stories despite whatever (if any) concerns about putting American troops in harms way.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Bingo!
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 4:10pm.
Bravo, Pamela! Spot-on, Mark!
The ever-popular "Let the Wookie Win" wimp approach to conflict. Way to "speak truth to power" as long as it can't "speak back" to you.
Macho-macho metrosexual manliness there NYT! Perfectly predictable.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Typical NYT policies:
Submitted by KyWriter on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 4:41pm.
...bashing Catholics and offending any Christian denomination that seeks to live under the Bill of Rights; openly hostile to Israel; kowtowing to Islamists... Er, wait a minute, don't we have a President who does the same thing?
Typical NYT Policies
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 6:26pm.
Right on, KyWriter. You have summed it up perfectly.
Don't forget the new masthead for the NY Times....."All the News That Fits" (Our agenda.)
abu graib
Submitted by umpete on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 5:24pm.
The Times certainly thought about the troops when they printed story after story and photo after photo of abu graib.
EXACTLY! Since when had the
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:03pm.
EXACTLY! Since when had the NYT(D) ever given a D*** about our troops????
They don't hesitate to release classified information, Abu Graib crap, false stories about troops peeing on Korans, wiki-leaks garbage, troop attrocities stories, and any other un-vetted garbage they can get their miserable socialist hands on, and NOW they are concerned about anti-muslim ads putting our troops in danger???? Complete and utter BS.
Anti-Christian ad in NYT
Submitted by Steve Cakouros on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 6:01pm.
Liberals count on the pacific nature of Christians.
On the other hand they are afraid of Islamic militants.
The best example I have ever seen of liberal cowardice took place some time ago when Martin Scorsese brought out The Last temptation of Christ a film based on a book by the Communist writer Nikos Kazantzakis whose own religion had long since been deracinated.
Christians protested peacefully outside theaters. ABC anchorman Peter Jennings immediately responded by making Scorsese Person of the Week. His intent was obvious. He wanted to insult those who believe in Jesus. This same idiot went on to produce a series that cast doubt on the gospel accounts.
But the story doesn’t end there.
The very next week Iran made headlines again by rattling its sword.
So what happened?
Just one week after knighting Scorsese Jennings decided to make Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini the Person of the Week, a man directly involved in numberless assassinations that like Mohammed had a child bride.
What do we learn from this? We learn that Liberals are cowards.
Can anyone tell me why...
Submitted by gobnait06 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 6:14pm.
the Arapaho tribe will be permitted their religious freedom to kill two bald eagles while Catholics are denied theirs with regard to contraceptives?
That was all about having a Republican President...
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 6:18pm.
Should Obama be defeated (if God is good he will be) they'll be back to their old blatantly biased tricks again.
Libtards demand to qualify bigotry
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:10pm.
And use it for themselves.
Just some muslims at the cemetery:
Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:39pm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyfUZBWIn1E&feature=youtu.be
Would those be those wonderful Islamist freedom fighters?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:43pm.
Those wild and wacky wonderful guys in Libya, struggling to breathe free, that Baracka Obama supported? The flower of the new democracy movement sweeping the north of Africa?
This is exactly why I won't do business with muslims
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:47pm.
These animals are to stupid to know that even if they succeed in knocking down the Cross, the Cross isn't God. Unlike those savages we don't worship things, and kill for things like the koran.
Hey...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:59pm.
what's that putrid stench? Did somebody leave a copy of the NY Times in an open trashcan again?
SO
Submitted by chiefpayne on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 10:03am.
if Catholics got up in arms and threatened physical retaliation for anti-Catholic ads (not that they would DO such a thing...because THAT is against their religion)...the NY Times would back down?
In OTHER words, the NY Times are nothing but a bunch of worthless BULLIES who would pick on someone who would not fight back but would run like the gutless wonders they are if confronted.
they're scared, that's why
Submitted by rowdygirl on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 11:10am.
They'll bash the Catholics( or any other Christian faith) because they know the Catholics, etc. won't bomb the building afterwards.
Tam