I wouldn’t call it a double standard, more like cowardice and admission of fear…

… “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 reason, stated a Times official responding to accusations of media bias, “…fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.” [source]

But Islam is so peaceful. What is this “danger” of which you speak?

Riiiiiiiight. Not even the Times believes that, or else they would have found the testicular fortitude to run the ad. At the core of their own explanation is an admission of fearing Islam. They fear retaliation, beheadings, and riots in the streets. Not a completely unfounded fear I might add.

We really need to stop kidding ourselves here. It’s not about being crassly un-PC and desiring not to cause offense. It’s not even about the liberal media’s hatred of Catholics and their favorite pastime, Catholic bashing. It’s quite plainly about fear. Fear of Islam and it’s adherents. And why fear? Because we have seen this religion practiced out in nations where it’s the religious majority and we understand it’s main objective – to dominate by force.

Unlike Christ who sacrificed himself to death on the cross for our sins, harmed no one, and only flipped a table in justified righteous indignation, Muhammad conquered and converted by the sword. And not much has changed since.

We really need to stop the cowardice now for the sake of our nation and Christianity. Nothing can be gained by continuing to deny and state the obvious. Period. The end.

About Katrina Fernandez

Mackerel Snapping Papist

  • Janet Butler

    Actually, Catholics who attempt to get their news from and/or believe the New York Times to begin with have already quit–in practice, if not in name. So is that preaching to the choir? :-)

    • Mitchell Palmquist

       Or one can read the NY Times knowing that many of their writers have a particular bias. But also knowing they have a large newsroom, provide lots of original content and balancing what they say against other sources. Since most other newspapers just print AP stuff now, its nice to see original content. Also they have Ross Douthat who is a wonderful, conservative columnist.

      Or you can cast aspersions. Whatevs

      • Mitchell Palmquist

        A good example Douthat’s work:

         http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-safe-legal-rare-illusion.html?_r=1&ref=rossdouthat

  • Anonymous

    Oh, if I were only canonically and geographically desirable, I’d be laying flowers at your feet for this post….

  • Anonymous

     Hey, I get (some of) my news from the New York Times!!! One of the key elements of military espionage is to gather information directly from the enemy.

  • Amy P.

    Annie Laurie Gaylor is a woman who wakes up every morning determined to make others as miserable as she sadly seems to be.

    She needs prayers.

    But a swift kick in the shorts probably wouldn’t hurt.

  • Seraphic

    Maybe we should riot a bit.

  • Tim

    The New York Times did say that they would publish it, eventually,  just not right now.

    I imagine they need Ms. Geller’s money ($39,000 for an ad in the NY Times) in order to pay the salaries and benefits of its departing executives:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/new-york-times-s-robinson-s-exit-package-tops-23-million.html 

    You can only cut so many newsroom staffers and salaries of editors/writers:

    http://www.observer.com/2009/03/inew-york-timesi-announces-salary-cuts/ 

    Someone needs to take out an ad asking why people still read the New York Times.

  • http://thehomesickhome.blogspot.com/ L.

    [Full disclosure, as a member of the lamestream media: I love the NYTimes, and have written for them before.]

    I just want to make the point that at the vast majority of media companies, the people deciding which ads to run and the people who write the articles have no contact with each other (and when they do, it can be a problem, because no reporter ever wants to be accused of pandering to an advertiser). Most of us at least TRY to be objective, but we are all human and imperfect, so sometimes we fall short.

    In other words, though, the people who rejected one ad and accepted another might very well have done so out of cowardice, prejudice toward Catholics, etc., but the editorial side of the paper doesn’t get input into what ads run next to their stories. 

    The “liberal media” is far from a united block. Like society at large, it consists of a vast swatch of people with all kinds of opinions, that don’t necessarily reflect the views of their bosses, their corporate owners or their advertisers.  Hey, I know this for a fact, because until recently, I worked for Rupert Murdoch.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

      “In other words, though, the people who rejected one ad and accepted another might very well have done so out of cowardice, prejudice toward Catholics, etc., but the editorial side of the paper doesn’t get input into what ads run next to their stories. ”
      Precisely my point. I have no control over the ads appearing here. Just typing the word “spiritual” and “eastern” as in Eastern Catholic generates ads for Buddhism. Blah. 

      I sincerely do not believe this was an act of intentional Catholic bias, like so many are claiming,  and will defend the Times on that account. I instead believe the ad is on hold from running due to fear of violent repercussions from a religion of peace. And I ask, why is that. 

      It’s bc Islam is violent. Period. 

      • http://thehomesickhome.blogspot.jp/ L.

        Any religion can be used as an excuse for violence — even Buddhism. Remember these guys? 
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1554817/Sri-Lankas-Buddhist-monks-are-intent-on-war.html

        I can’t defend or agree with the NY Times decision on its face, and I’m not ready to condemn an entire religion with millions of followers, but I can generally say that I don’t agree with what I have read about Islam being used by some of its proponents not just to perpetuate acts of aggression, but to discriminate against women. 

  • kenneth

    Islam and Christianity are no different whatsoever in their capacity or propensity to enforce their views through violence. Islam simply happens to be at a different point on that bell curve right now. For over a dozen centuries, publishing the “leave Catholicism” ad would have earned the advertiser, and the publisher, a free evisceration and/or slow roasting in a public square. 
       And the idea of Christianity as a “religion of peace” as opposed to “spread by the sword” would have amused a few populations throughout history. Like the entire population of the Western Hemisphere, India, Africa, Australia, 16th (or 20th) Century Europe, the Jim Crow South etc. Both Christianity and Islam have shed enough blood in the name of their respective doctrines to fill the Amazon River Basin. Any system of thought which considers itself to the sole and inerrant repository of God’s will is capable of this. In fact, they are inclined to it unless and until that instinct is tempered by countervailing forces such as legal and cultural tolerance and for lack of a better term, something which might be called “theological maturity.” 
       Christianity has (mostly) moved past that ugly craziness we now attribute solely to Islam. It did so not because it’s a qualitatively superior “peace and love” religion. It did so because it’s been around longer, and had time to work these things out, and was tempered by powerful forces of science and commerce and political freedom in its host societies.  Christians haven’t entirely given up on the fatwa tradition, either. A recent atheist victory to remove a prayer from the wall of a school gym in Rhode Island earned lots of death threats for the 16-year-old girl who filed the lawsuit! That happens in pretty much every instance where someone rocks the boat of Christian entitlement that way. I guess we can consider it “progress” that those threats are rarely followed through anymore. 
        Islamic societies have more work to do in that direction. For the most part, our meddling in the Middle East has done nothing to help that work. It has instead, helped condition the toxic cultural soil to be more receptive to radical Islam as all of the other realistic avenues of hope are closed off (earning a decent living, free political expression etc.) 

    • CN

         Some of this is a good argument, and as to the violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity, I think that one must stipulate that there is much to be ashamed of.
         But, the nuance that is missing here is that rather than being currently at different parts of the ‘bell curve’, I think it would be valid to argue that Christianity and Islam come from different ends of the curve altogether.
         Christianity is, fundamentally, a faith of non-violence.  It has been corrupted by the sin of its members, and when it co-opts the coercive power of government, we know that bad things happen.  I would say that Christianity, in its present form is more like its beginning than its ‘middle form’.  The ancedote about ‘death threats’ is regrettable, but niether typical, nor as alarming as a similar threat coming from the Muslim community (case in point, NYT’s response to the ad.)
         Islam has never really faced the challenge of the renaissance and (in its Christian form) the reformation.  It remains a fundamentalist faith with respect to its sacred text, which results in extreme readings (not unlike extremist fundamentalist interpertations on some sects of Christianity, even though these sects can’t really be said to be representative of the whole).  Can there be such thing as a ‘post-reformation’ Islam, however?   Islam was born of blood and the sword, and relies on that for its spread and evangelization.  There’s no desire or advantage in getting out its end of the ‘bell curve’, except to remain ‘under the radar’ until it can take control of the political realm of a society.
         Christianity, on the other hand, relies on the blood of its martyrs.  When it fails to live up to its origins, it shrivles up and goes away with a whimper.  Why the reformation?  So many parts of the Church lost the way in its marriage with political power.  The places where it survived and even flourished in this age and since were with the great spiritual saints of the reformation… Ignatius, Catherine of Sienna, Pius V, Robert Bellermine… not the heretic burners or the ‘connected’ popes and cardinals of the age… the real saints.  Why the challenge to Christianity today?  We have not lived up to our call to be different from the dark, violent, selfish world… in other words… holy.  In places where Christians tend toward this holiness, the Church is growing and promoting the dignity of the person and the good order of surrounding society.
         I think this writer is on the track, but un-nuanced and un-informed in his analysis. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X