The Ongoing Hypocrisy of the NYT
Isn't this nice? Catholism and Catholics can be mocked at every given turn (even outright lies are perpetuated, advocated and condoned) and representatives of the media go along with it every time like they're singing along at a campfire.
Just don't you dare mock Islam or reveal the violence inherited in that religion (which is openly condoned and practiced for all to see) lest you invite ridicule from the MSM. It's o.k. for women and children in that religion to be burned, whipped, stoned and beheaded for simply talking to a male that isn't their husband, father or brother (or male cousins, nephews and so on) but if a Catholic (or any denomination of the Christian faith) even dares to write a letter opposing anything from abortion to pornography, it's open season on anyone believing in said faith.
Such is the case in yet another painfully obvious case of media hypocrisy from the New York Times.
Back in 2006 when newspapers and magazines all over North America and Western Europe refused to run cartoons editorializing on the mocking of the Prophet Mohammad (they said it was due to political correctness when in fact it was because of fear) "art" exhibits and museums, art galleries and said newspapers and magazines continued (and indeed continue) to run disgusting and highly offensive exhibits and articles mocking all facets of Christianity. Two in particular was the exibit in which a picture of the Holy Mother was submerged in a container with urine and another picture of Mary the mother of Jesus made up of pornograpgic stills.
The trend continues with an exhibit of ants scurrying all over a crucifix that the NYT proudly featured in Wednesday's Arts section by David Wojnarowicz entitled, "A Fire in My Belly." Another "artist," Michael Kimmelman was "granted the front page of Wednesday’s Arts section for a snobbish chiding of uncouth American conservatives who helped squelch a video some found sacrilegious, by a featured artist in a Smithsonian gay art exhibit: 'In Britain, Separation of Art and State.'”
Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy?
Just don't you dare mock Islam or reveal the violence inherited in that religion (which is openly condoned and practiced for all to see) lest you invite ridicule from the MSM. It's o.k. for women and children in that religion to be burned, whipped, stoned and beheaded for simply talking to a male that isn't their husband, father or brother (or male cousins, nephews and so on) but if a Catholic (or any denomination of the Christian faith) even dares to write a letter opposing anything from abortion to pornography, it's open season on anyone believing in said faith.
Such is the case in yet another painfully obvious case of media hypocrisy from the New York Times.
Back in 2006 when newspapers and magazines all over North America and Western Europe refused to run cartoons editorializing on the mocking of the Prophet Mohammad (they said it was due to political correctness when in fact it was because of fear) "art" exhibits and museums, art galleries and said newspapers and magazines continued (and indeed continue) to run disgusting and highly offensive exhibits and articles mocking all facets of Christianity. Two in particular was the exibit in which a picture of the Holy Mother was submerged in a container with urine and another picture of Mary the mother of Jesus made up of pornograpgic stills.
The trend continues with an exhibit of ants scurrying all over a crucifix that the NYT proudly featured in Wednesday's Arts section by David Wojnarowicz entitled, "A Fire in My Belly." Another "artist," Michael Kimmelman was "granted the front page of Wednesday’s Arts section for a snobbish chiding of uncouth American conservatives who helped squelch a video some found sacrilegious, by a featured artist in a Smithsonian gay art exhibit: 'In Britain, Separation of Art and State.'”
Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy?
posted by Northern Exposer at 00:23
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home