« March for Life - Next Monday!!! | Main | Stop the ACLU's One Year Blogiversary »

Islamic Cartoons

The New York Times decided earlier this week not to reprint the cartoons that have led to widespread violent riots by Muslims. â€œThat seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religions symbols,â€ The Times wrote on Feb. 7, 2006.

The same editorial Board decided seven years ago to print an image of the Virgin Mary, covered in dung and surrounded by pornographic images. â€œCultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life,â€ said a Times editorial on Sept. 29, 1999.

But, on Feb. 7, the Times re-published the Virgin Mary dung image.

And, in his Feb. 8 broadcast, FoxNewsâ€™ Bill O'Reilly commented that when a Corpus Christi play opened with a gay Jesus, the Times criticized Christian protestors for â€œbigotry, violence and contempt for artistic expression".

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins sent out the following editorial regarding the deadly riots that have been manufactured in response to a few Danish cartoons:

Riots around the world--promoted by Al Qaeda and its sympathizers--have claimed a dozen lives. Jihadists claim to be offended by cartoons of Mohammed that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper. What's most interesting is to see the timidity of the mainstream media here. The New York Times declines to publish the offending cartoons--but does not hesitate once again to run a photograph of an "artist's" rendering of the Virgin Mary, done in elephant dung. The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times shied away from offending Muslims, but re-published pictures of a crucifix immersed in urine. Editors of The Washington Post sanctimoniously tell us they prefer to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." Oh, really? The Post gave a roost for half a century to Herblock. His vicious cartoons never shrank from showing contempt for Christians. One of his efforts showed George W. Bush putting a church steeple atop the White House. Another depicted a Baptist deacon in a knee-length frock coat, out at the elbows, with a snake in his pocket. The Post sneeringly referred to Evangelicals as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command." Let's be honest: the reason liberal editors stick it to Christians while avoiding criticisms of Islam is that they know we won't cut off their heads or burn their news rooms--and they fear jihadists will.

While Perkins concentrates on the blatant and yet expected media bias, it is important to consider that the current controversy (which has been manufactured) transcends offensive cartoons and media bias. There is a raging battle for the hearts and minds â€“ and ultimately the souls of men and women - that pits Islam and pluralism against Christianity. The Times' decision says more about their beliefs than it does about their timidity.

Posted by tim at February 9, 2006 12:17 PM

Articles Related to Commentary: