NYT publishes virgin Mary “art” – but not ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons

Posted by: ST on February 8, 2006 at 12:54 pm

The NYT has published a photo of the virgin Mary “art” (you know, the “art” that depicts Mary with blotches of elephant dung all over it) in it’s arts section today, effectively signalling that their willingness to not offend Muslims does not extend to not offending Christians.

The headline on the piece?

A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery

I think a revision of that headline to read A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Hypocrisy would be far more appropriate.

Here’s a refresher on the NYT’s policy regarding the ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons:

“On the one hand, we have abundant evidence that a significant number of people — some of them our readers — consider these cartoons deeply offensive and inflammatory” Mr. Keller wrote. “Indeed, to publish them after seeing the outrage and violence across the Islamic world could be perceived as a particularly deliberate insult” he said.

“On the other hand” he continued, “we feel we can quite adequately convey the nature of the cartoons by describing them.” I quite agree. I doubt that the descriptions of the cartoons in Times articles over the past four days have left many readers with any major questions about why the drawings could offend Muslims or why some people might find humor in them.

In other words, descriptions of the cartoons are good enough to convey the image of what they look like. Strangely, this newfound policy not to offend did not extend to the virgin Mary in elephant dung “artwork” photo.

I don’t like the picture they have on that page, but I respect their right to publish it. And I won’t commit any acts of violence just because I’m disgusted by it. What would be really nice, though is that for once, just once, the NYT would show some consistency: if they don’t care about offending Christians, they shouldn’t care about offending Islamists. This is a glaring, blatant example of how the NYT has capitulated to the demands of a militant group of out-of-control fantatical Islamists. Something tells me that wasn’t their intent, but nevertheless that’s exactly what has happened.

(Hat tip: Junkyard Blog)

More/Related: Omar at Iraq the Model writes:

One last thing, even if the entire EU apologizes it won’t change a thing; fanatics in our countries here had always considered the west their infidel arrogant crusader enemy and no apology no matter how big or sincere can change that.

Yep.

(Hat tip: KLo)

Update I: Michelle Malkin blogs about the latest lame excuse from CNN as to why they won’t broadcast/publish the cartoons.

Related Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • The World According To Carl trackbacked with Don't Offend Islam But Offend Christianity All They Want?
  • 21 Responses to “NYT publishes virgin Mary “art” – but not ‘offensive’ Mohammed cartoons”

    Comments

    1. Alex Nunez says:

      Sis,

      With the NYT, every day is “A Startling New Lesson In The Power Of Hypocricy.”

      In fact, that slogan should be replace “All The News that’s Fit To Print” as the paper’s mottoo on the front page.

      At least it’d be accurate.

    2. Alex Nunez says:

      Um, that would be “motto,” actually….

    3. andrew says:

      “The NYT has published a photo of the virgin Mary “art” (you know, the “art” that depicts Mary with blotches of elephant dung all over it) in it’s arts section today, effectively signalling that their willingness to not offend Muslims does not extend to not offending Christians.”

      The source of the offense is different. For the Christian works, its the material that is offensive. Picture or no, the offense doesn’t change with publication of a photo of the work. The offense has been made as soon as someone finds out what the work is made of.

      But with the cartoons, it IS the reproduction of the work that is offensive.

    4. David Foster says:

      Folk wisdom holds that bullies are usually also cowards, and it certainly seems to be true in this case. People like the NYT editors enjoy publishing things that will be upsetting to little old ladies in Dubuque; when it comes to upsetting people who might possible might possibly do them actual harm; it’s another story.

      And they have too little self-knowledge to even understand what they are doing.

    5. Jim M says:

      Hey Andrew wiggle your left hand between your left butt cheek and left shoulder and then wiggle your right hand between your right butt cheek and your right shoulder then push. Your ears might get in the way just keep pushing. Only a liberal looking through his naval could come up with; “The source of the offense is different.” It doesn’t matter if its called art, a photo or it IS the reproduction that is not the problem the problem is the desecration of something that people of different religions hold dear. The whole point is that the NYT has a double standard depending on what the religion is if it is Christian they will print pictures of offensive things to Christians but they won’t print pictures of offensive things to Muslims. If you can not see the double standard at the NYT then you need to plant you butt cheeks back on your shoulders.

    6. benning says:

      The Times shows again that it understands nothing. They are hypocrites and liars.

    7. steve says:

      Is this about censorship or about being racist? Are Christianity, Judaism and Islam each a respected religion? Is their only one God? Peace

    8. - Ok Andrew. I see your point. A picture of Mary splotched with elephant dung is different than a Picture of Mohamud with a lit bomb in his turbin. Of course…

      - The point I see in that stupid piece of lexiconal acrobatics is on the top of your Liberal head…

      - BTW…it turns out that that cartoon and a few others were “added” to the original group that the Danish newspaper ran, by the Mullah from Denmark that started all of this roting from his recent tour through the ME. Is there no means or ends you lying Liberals won’t go to in apoligizing for the Murdering thugs of this world?

      - Bang **==

    9. Baklava says:

      Bang mentioned, “- BTW…it turns out that that cartoon and a few others were “added” to the original group that the Danish newspaper ran, by the Mullah from Denmark that started all of this roting from his recent tour through the ME. Is there no means or ends you lying Liberals won’t go to in apoligizing for the Murdering thugs of this world?

      I mentioned this a few days ago. The fill in host for Rush today talked about it at length today. I was trying to listen to which newspaper was reporting on this thuggery. It was a Danish newspaper that talked about the original cartoons were a contents for Muslims to draw about tolerance. An imam in Denmark (prominent) didn’t like them and staged local protests last September that got nowhere. He figured he had to spruce up the problem and added cartoons that were even uglier with Mohammed on a body of a pig and others. To the muslim world these were the cartoons that were shown and these were the cartoons that Muslims were rioting about and calling for the Denmark government to do something about.

      The sorry tragedy in all of this is the editor calling for the “tolerance” cartoons in a contents in the first place, is receiving death threats even though he was well meaning and has had to hire protection..

    10. - So much fro the “peace loving Muslims”…

      - You Christiam infidel dogs publish pictures of our religious icons, and you deserve to have your hands cut off or be beheaded/murdered. We Isalmic “freedom fighters” can blow up women and children, bomb embassies and school buses, and just generally do anything we want and we have a right, and get a pass.

      - What a pure steamimg pile of one sided Theorocratic/Fascist dung…..

      - Bang **==

    11. andrew says:

      ” It doesn’t matter if its called art, a photo or it IS the reproduction that is not the problem the problem is the desecration of something that people of different religions hold dear.”

      The idea is that with the muslim carttons the offense is printing the pictures, but with the christian art, its with the making of the art, not with showing pictures of it.

      “Ok Andrew. I see your point. A picture of Mary splotched with elephant dung is different than a Picture of Mohamud with a lit bomb in his turbin. Of course”

      Right. in the picture you can’t see what it is.

    12. Baklava – The concept of “truth” doesn’t work in the terrorist countries, even in a lot of so-called moderate ME islamic regimes. What you see is the tactics of “accepted perception” they’ve been using for centuries since before the first Crusade to war on each other, just expanded to include their war with the rest of the world now.

      - Bang **==

    13. Andrew, even setting aside the fact that the “truth” about the pictures of Mary will take all of 5 seconds to pass around everyone in the city which makes your arguments moot, the Islamic press/web sites have been publishing articles and cartoons of hook-nosed, money grubbing evil Zionists Jews since the 40′s, and later the advent of the net. This is simply one-sided bigotry and religios thuggery, and the NYT panders to one side over the other. Period. If you were holding to your usual Liberal screeds you’d be claiming “free speech” equally in both cases, but the left has shown that the only equality it really believes in is “equality and free speech for me but not for thee” so many times, its pretty much usless to try to cover it up now.

      - Bang **==

    14. andrew says:

      “Andrew, even setting aside the fact that the “truth” about the pictures of Mary will take all of 5 seconds to pass around everyone in the city which makes your arguments moot, the Islamic press/web sites have been publishing articles and cartoons of hook-nosed, money grubbing evil Zionists Jews since the 40′s, and later the advent of the net. ”

      Oh yes. They’re awful.

    15. Sloan says:

      Andrew:

      To paraphrase Darth Vader: “I find your lack of moral clarity disturbing.”

      Your defense of what is obviously a clear double-standard is, in and of itself, offensive. Grow a backbone.

    16. andrew says:

      “Your defense of what is obviously a clear double-standard is, in and of itself, offensive.”

      I do agree that it is a double standard that christians don’t burn down embassies while muslims do.

      But the whole point is that if no paper published a picture of the dung Madonna, it would still be offensive. But if no paper published a cartoon of Mohammed, it would not offend.

      What offends people about the dung Madonna is not that a photo is printed, but that there was dung on the original. The photo does nothing about that.

    17. stackja says:

      NYT story about elephant dung seems appropriate. NYT seems to be always up to it neck in elephant dung.

    18. Brad S says:

      ST,

      Did you ever think why the NYT can get away with what it does to Christians, as opposed to being concerned about “deeply offending” Muslims? It’s been a long while, after all, since any bunch of Christians got together to perform terrorist bombings on blasphemers:-w

      Christians have yet to exact any real price for the Virgin Mary depiction.

    19. Tommy says:

      It`s all very simple. Really it is. Insult Christ, the Virgin Mary or repeat the lie regarding Jews who kill babies to use their blood for passover ceremonies and you`ll get bloggers criticizing your “art.” On the flip side you`ll increase your readers.

      Depict Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and your head office may be blown up and your reporters murdered.

      Which would you choose? No brainer huh?

      We`ve all become dhimmis. :(

    20. Brian says:

      Hilarious. You think I ‘censor’ people because I find what they say offensive? You never got it when you were posting here and you still don’t get it. What I don’t allow on my blog are posts that add nothing to the discussion. Typically the “you’re a stupid b!tch who*re” or “you’re nothing but a bunch of BushHitlerists” variety pack. And then there are those who make it their 24-7 mission to antagonize people here, rather than attempt in engaging in a rational discussion. So your comparison of my comment policy here to the NYT censoring the cartoons because they don’t want to offend their Muslim readership falls flat on its face. Why you have come back after all this time I don’t know, other than to antagonize me just for the heck of it. How shocking. Find another blog who’s policies fall more in line with your wishes. — ST