NYTimes' Religious Double Standard

[cybrsage]

The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”


But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.
Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’”
“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger,” Times officials told Geller in a letter dated March 13. The letter said the Times would consider publishing the ad in a few months, and said “we publish this type of advertising, even those we disagree with, because we believe in the First Amendment.”
Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.
“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”
Robert Christie, the Times’ senior vice-president for corporate communications, did not return a call for comment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/1...ng-double-standard-on-religion/#ixzz1pDHdWWsr

It is OK to bash Catholics, but not OK to do the same to Muslims? Hmm....

 

[zsdersw]

It's always OK to bash any religion.

 

[cybrsage]

Apparently the NY Time thinks it is not OK to bash Islam.

 

[zsdersw]

Apparently the NY Time thinks it is not OK to bash Islam.

The NYTimes has as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

 

[cybrsage]

And your point, other than to troll, is what?

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me cybrsage, how does taking advertising dollars morph up to the NYT's editorial
position. And out of the one hundred thousand or so ads the NTTimes run every year, somehow only this one defines their position in a theory of everything.

Cybrsage, maybe you need something better to work yourself into a tizzy about.

 

[cybrsage]

Excuse me cybrsage, how does taking advertising dollars morph up to the NYT's editorial
position. And out of the one hundred thousand or so ads the NTTimes run every year, somehow only this one defines their position in a theory of everything.

Cybrsage, maybe you need something better to work yourself into a tizzy about.

The quote I put in the OP is not very long...you should try reading it:

But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.

So explain your position again, but removing money from it...see if it still makes sense.

 

[cybrsage]

The NYTimes has as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

And I have as much right to point it out. Other than trolling, what is your point?

 

[IBMer]

Did you read the article... its pretty clear why it was rejected.

Catholics don't murder people over advertisements.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let's face it, the other religions are peaceful enough to blatantly assault. One other in particular has Leftists shaking in their boots.

Then they go and support the Palestinians, go figure.

 

[zsdersw]

And I have as much right to point it out.

Never said you didn't.

 

[piasabird]

If Catholics were muslims, the NY Times would be on fire! Lets just call it hate speech, because that is what it is. How is this any different than questioning whether a Christian Fundamentalist or a Mormon can be president?

I feel that criticism of the Catholic Church and especially of how the Pope and the Cardinals in the USA have handled the pedophile priest problem is valid, but telling people to leave their faith and making fun of them is hate speech. In this country we still have a guarantee that the government will not interfere with how or where we worship. Maybe religion needs freedom from the Press!

 

[cybrsage]

Did you read the article... its pretty clear why it was rejected.

Catholics don't murder people over advertisements.

Then they should have rejected both, to maintain fairness.

 

[waggy]

Did you read the article... its pretty clear why it was rejected.

Catholics don't murder people over advertisements.

that is the point i was going to make. Catholics won't go and bomb the building. Muslims? yeah...

 

[monovillage]

There's media bias? This is the first i've ever heard about it.

I'm sure one of the several N.Y. Times apologists will come on to announce there's no such thing, never has been and never will be as long as they can deny it.

 

[HumblePie]

Then they should have rejected both, to maintain fairness.

There is no fairness here needed. This isn't a government run agency. This is a business with the right to refuse anything they don't want to do.

Even still the article stated that they would be willing to run the ad once US troops were out of danger of facing flak and possibly death from the ad. I find that more telling as they are NOT willing to put peoples lives at risk by running an advertisement which may do so. To me that shows integrity that they consider other things. To me this whole thing smells like a setup. If they run the ad then they get bashed for putting the lives of American troops in extra jeopardy. If they don't run it then they are bashed for being hypocrites among other things.

Again, the article even states they are not "refusing" to run the advertisement at all. They are just not running it right now. They are willing to run it later.

 

[cybrsage]

So basically, if Catholics want equal treatment, they need to start blowing things up...crazy world we live in, where a newspaper will only say bad things about civilized things...

 

[Karl Agathon]

it does seem to be almost trendy like to bash Christianity these days. Meanwhile, many "progressives" seem to walk on eggshells when it comes to Islam.

 

[cybrsage]

We will always have troops in Islamic nations.

 

[IBMer]

So basically, if Catholics want equal treatment, they need to start blowing things up...crazy world we live in, where a newspaper will only say bad things about civilized things...

Non-violent does not mean civilized...

I am a liberal and I consider Islam and the shape of Islam nations in the middle east to be very dangerous. I am also an atheist and read history and know that nearly all current religions were exactly the same in the past. Funny how people tend to over look the violence in the name of religion that has happened in the past.

 

[MovingTarget]

You cannot be allowed to selectively bash (or not bash) any particular religion. If Catholicism is fair game, so is Islam. Thats how we roll with freedom of speech. We expect our press to be similarly fair. Looking at the cartoons, I find no reason that they shouldn't both be printed. (Unfortunately, the text of the rest of the ads happens to be too small for me to read, so I can't make a complete judgement here.) The NYT seems to have a bit of a double standard here...

Edit: My first line seems to convey that I think bashing a particular religion should be outlawed...I do not. I fully support freedom of speech, even for the purpose of bashing religion.

 

[bfdd]

Excuse me cybrsage, how does taking advertising dollars morph up to the NYT's editorial
position. And out of the one hundred thousand or so ads the NTTimes run every year, somehow only this one defines their position in a theory of everything.

Cybrsage, maybe you need something better to work yourself into a tizzy about.

Uh... it clearly has everything to do with their position. I mean if they were a business out to make money, they'd just make their money regardless. Clearly there are other reasons involved to this, my guess is they don't want violent backlash.

 

[theeedude]

So basically, if Catholics want equal treatment, they need to start blowing things up...crazy world we live in, where a newspaper will only say bad things about civilized things...

Pretty much. But NYTimes didn't create this world. They are just doing the most responsible thing given that's the way the world is.

 

[dank69]

If Catholics were muslims, the NY Times would be on fire! Lets just call it hate speech, because that is what it is. How is this any different than questioning whether a Christian Fundamentalist or a Mormon can be president?

I feel that criticism of the Catholic Church and especially of how the Pope and the Cardinals in the USA have handled the pedophile priest problem is valid, but telling people to leave their faith and making fun of them is hate speech. In this country we still have a guarantee that the government will not interfere with how or where we worship. Maybe religion needs freedom from the Press!

Nothing like a call to suppress freedom of speech from a conservative. :thumbsup:

 

[William Gaatjes]

it does seem to be almost trendy like to bash Christianity these days. Meanwhile, many "progressives" seem to walk on eggshells when it comes to Islam.

True...