Posted on 05/10/2015 6:07:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
When an event was held in Garland, Texas, last week that included a $10,000 prize for the best drawing of the Muslim prophet Mohammad, it was no surprise that many Muslims, particularly radical ones, would be upset. Considering that radical Muslims have spent a lifetime being upset, and in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, it also wasn’t shocking that two of them would attempt to kill everyone who dared look at what they didn’t want drawn. That’s the world we live in right now.
What was surprising was the reaction to the attempted mass murder and how the blame went to those targeted for death more than the would-be killers.
The Associated Press actually tweeted out a link to a story on the aftermath of the event that read, “Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths.” How dare the event organizer not apologize for “asking for it” by having an event where people draw, right?
The New York Times took the “she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt to the bar” mentality to the next level.
The Times editorial board wrote an attack on the event under the name, “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.” The people who run the “paper of record” actually wrote, “the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.”
Not finished deflecting from the fact that two men literally set out to murder people for drawing pictures or attending an event where those pictures were drawn, the Times took it a step further.
“Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression,” they wrote, “though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism.” Anguish? ANGUISH? It’s a drawing of a guy who no one knows for sure what he looked like done by people who don’t subscribe to his religion. That causes anguish?
Also, people were going to murder them – not critique their skills, but murder them – for those drawings. If these Muslims who suffered “deliberate anguish” were otherwise moderate people and accepting of others who don’t share their beliefs, no drawing, no matter how much they dislike and disapprove of it, would lead them to murder.
The two terrorists who were killed by police weren’t participating in a drum circle and singing “Kumbaya” at a diversity seminar until they heard about the drawings. They were inclined to kill and waiting for something they deemed “worth it.”
It seems the Times’ sensitivity toward religious people is something new and seemingly very specific to Muslims.
In 1988, when the movie “The Last Temptation Of Christ” came out, many Christians protested its depiction of Jesus. (I found the movie to be faith affirming, but whatever.) The Times had no time for religious sensitivities when it came to Christians being offended.
The editorial entitled “Satanism in Hollywood,” contain the following paragraph:
Those offended by such works certainly have the right to condemn, to shun and to picket. But in a free Republic, where church and state are wisely divorced, critics have no sanction for censorship. It says something about the persistence of Pharisaism (''rigid observance of external forms of religion without genuine piety'') that some of the loudest voices denouncing distribution, like Patrick Buchanan, also trumpet their devotion to free speech and free markets.
Principle, it would seem, is not a constant to the “old gray lady.”
When taxpayers subsidized “Piss Christ,” the “art” consisting of a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine, angry Christians were not only brushed off by the Times, the “artist” was praised and defended. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done,” the Times wrote.
While it seems like a long journey from defending attacks on religion when that religion is Christianity to explaining the perspective of those who would murder because their religion was “insulted,” it’s really not. The institution that described “Piss Christ” as “This religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze...” is the same one that wrote, “As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”
To pretend The New York Times is motivated by anything is other than selective hate is, well, something much stronger than hogwash.
___________ the New York Times
NYT......the fourth estate equivalent of “she was just asking for it”. The hypocrisy of liberals is just truly astounding.
It’s too late for the Muslims to complain. We all know what Mohammed looked like now!
Personally, I have given up watching even bits and pieces of O'Reilly because of this incident. No big deal since those bits and pieces had already declined to just crumbs. But now the crumbs are gone.
Someone said that the best drawings at the contest in Garland, TX were the two chalk drawings in the parking lot.
LOL! The contest ended in 2 deaths!
The worst whitewashing job since The Adventure of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
But after the idiotic and asinine comments about Garland and Free Speech, no more!
This from a paper that exercises bigotry and hatred towards Christianity and Conservatism posing as a blow for freedom on a daily basis.
The largely white, progressive left thinks they can get more and complete power if they pander to minorities, illegals and Muslims - and they likely will succeed in this.
Yet, they have in the back of their minds these groups will just go away - assimilate, disappear, melt or acquiesce and they can have power and continue to rule. When things get bad and they have consolidated control they'll just stop the gibsmedats and pandering and nothing will go wrong because THEY are in charge. Obama is in charge - that's working out just ducky, ain't it?
This ALWAYS fails. You see it in a dozen or more South American countries, you have seen it in the USSR, Europe and a number of places in the past. It always fails.
When established law becomes obsolete and the whimsy of rule becomes operative (see Zimbabwe), it always is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.
Resources to meet needs require work, work needs people, and the people you have on your side don't want to work. Otherwise you end up with a Dystopian future with masses fighting over rapidly dwindling resources that can't be replenished.
Oppositely, rule-of-law (and its strict adherence), freedom from the whims of mob rule and a foundation of ethics and morals works. It's that simple.
Truly. Leftists are nutjobs.
Referred by us as the New York Slimes
Part of the big lie, the distraction, is the constant claim that terrorists are “upset,” “offended,” etc. That Pamela Geller should have known that the event would “inflame” somebody, that it was “pouring gasoline on the fire” (the Pope’s newspaper used that line), and that some “nutjobs” would come “unglued” and commit violence.
All these expressions are attempts to blame EMOTION for the attacks.
The attacks were carried out because of PRINCIPLE—the teaching of Islam.
I do watch certain segments of his show and if necessary I mute him. I do watch his series “Legends & Lies: The Real West” which he has on Saturday evening before Judge Jeanine. It’s quite interesting.
The New York Times is a hate group. They exist to promote leftist ideas and to spew, promote, and spread hatred of all things conservative, especially if it is also christian. In the category of “the enemy of your enemy is your friend,” they love muslims right now. Make no mistake, they do not really love them. They just find them useful because muslims often target christians.
The Garland event wasn’t christians vs. muslims. I am only addressing that because the NYTimes thinks insulting Christ is fine but insulting Muhammad is over the top.
FMCDH(BITS)
to the old gray whore, brothel tender for the presstitutes.....
the goal was not to strike a blow for free speech, the goal was to ridicule those that get their panties in a wad.
The arousal over free speech is collateral achievement
The great measure of success was two dead wackos
Similarly, the Assyrian and Akkadian empires were “asking for it” by creating sculptures offensive to Islam, thousands of years ago. I’m surprised that the Times didn’t scold the museum in Mosul for putting on display artifacts from the birthplace of civilization, which naturally infuriated ISIS into sledgehammering them into tiny fragments in February.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.