The NYTs explains why they run imagery offensive to Judeo-Christians but not images offensive to Muslims.-

Photo - On Monday, the Times published an image of Niki Johnson's "Eggs Benedict," a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI fashioned entirely out of condoms. (Screenshot)

“[L]et’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet,” Baquet explained in a statement to Politico. “I don’t give a damn about the head of [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.”

“There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone.”

When explaining the running of a piece called Eggs Benedict (a portrait of the previous Pope executed in condoms) the Times said:

“I don’t think these situations – the Milwaukee artwork (Eggs Benedict) and the various Muhammad caricatures – are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork.”

“Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.”

“[T]he Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest…was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the editorial board wrote, pillorying the group that hosted the event, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and Geller. “As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ More at The Washington Examiner

The obvious rebuttal to the NY Times is a question. Before asking it I want to make clear that I am not threatening anyone, I am making a larger point, one that a civilized man would make, not a savage.

Here goes:

“Whose head do you have to cut off around here before the NY Times stops running imagery offensive to Judeo-Christians?”

Navigating through all their stupid crapcake they are simply saying, “we yield when someone will murder us.”
All this jiggery-pokery they spew about not wanting to offend the Muslim down the block in Brooklyn doesn’t square with, “we know we’re offending Christians and Jews, but they’re not really protesting with the same level of outrage.”

Yes we are. We’re protesting every bit as much as the Muslim down the block.
I’m protesting right now.
Thousands are protesting with every bit of vigor as the Muslim family down the block in Brooklyn.
What we are NOT doing is showing that we have the ability to be savage animals and cutting their friggin heads off.

That’s the difference.


  1. I’m reading how everyone’s offended and pissed but I’m not hearing anything about canceled subscriptions. WTF?

  2. Not only refuse to subscribe, but we refuse to even link to anything NYTs. Anonymous? You’re right. A Chastisement is on the way. No idea how or when, but the Good Lord is only going to take so much more.

  3. Amazing what fear does to all those crusading reporters (‘scuse me, journolists).who fearlessly crusade against America.

Comments are closed.