New York Times praised "P**s Christ", condemned Muhammad movie

The New York Times stands as a subversive icon to modern day liberalism and a media that made its fortune lying to its readership.  Once again we learn that liberals have no problems aligning with even Islamic radicals...they have no shame...if a person, group or nation is against America and our values, then you can bet the New York Times will be right along side them spewing their hateful propaganda.  - W.E.


When the target was Christianity, the Times said that artists had an obligation to "challenge the public." When the target is Islam, the Times starts talking about respecting religious faith. As Tim Blair notes, Islam has earned that "respect" at the point of a gun.
"Times Changes," by Tim Blair in the Telegraph, September 14 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
The New York Times editorial of October 2, 1999, defends the display of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary:
A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.
The New York Times editorial of September 12, 2012, condemns the display of The Innocence of Muslims:
Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths.
Whatever happened to “challenging the public”? Or is that obligation rendered non-obligatory when a certain public responds to challenges by killing people?

Popular Posts