New York Times praised Piss Christ, condemned Muhammad movie

Dhimmitude :(
I don't want to die wearing an hijab or a niqab, pretending to be a muslim. I want to die as a free woman as i was born.

DITTO!!

You can piss on Christianity but not on Islam. The New York Times became a piss poor leftist newspaper years ago.

its core principle of respecting all faiths.

That is not only insane, it's not not even true...We do not respect all faiths and religions, and we should not do so...
Why should we respect another's religion or faith? Who says so? Just what is it that makes a religion based on a book, like Quran, worthy of respect? All religions create religious supremacist bigots...If you think the other guys religion is superior to yours, you should be over there with him...The best we can say is, 'I respect your right to be wrong', which is a lie... Then say, 'Please don't hurt me'...which is closer to the truth...Respecting all faiths is an oxymoron leading to cognitive dissonance...'I love you, please don't hurt me', should not be official gov policy...It's a mental trap that atheists manage to avoid...They got rid of the love part, but, 'please don't hurt me', is still there...It shows itself at every opportunity for appeasement...Respecting all religions and faiths might look good on paper, but it does not work out too well in reality...

Nicely done, Robert...

I used to read the New York Times pretty regularly. Now I can't bear to give them any money.

"Top 10 Reasons Why Liberals Are Hypocrites"

http://rantpolitical.com/2012/07/27/top-10-reasons-why-liberals-are-hypocrites/

The New York Times editorialists got this memo, and "rethought" their position:

On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, Muhammad agrees with Abu jahl that those who do not follow Muhammad will be "slaughtered":

Abu jahl said to them: "Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell." The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: "I do say that."

Actually, the NYT would probably claim that they changed their position because Muslims in the U.S. are a minority group and the NYT is for the "underdog." But underneath that claim is what the NYT doesn't want to mention: the widespread fear and intimidation felt by journalists with regard to commenting critically on Islam.

Anyway, Daniel Greenfield has well argued the sense in which Muslims are not a minority:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/04/muslims-are-not-minority.html

The coward mainstream press are corrupt henchmen of the dhimmi 9:29 government

"Islam respects the fundamental dignity of human beings"
— Hillary Clinton

(video) Clinton calls anti Muslim film, disgusting & reprehensible vs. Allah, Q. 8:12 “… I will INSTIL TERROR into the hearts of the unbelievers”

http://schnellmann.org/clinton-calls-anti-muslim-film-disgusting-reprehensible.html

Muhammad full movie - Innocence of Muslims 74 Min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgx1_JVxfZE

NYTimes editors are totally deceitful liars and nothing else or may be totally brain dead so that cannot distinguish between lies and truth!!

Today I have a post in American Thinker. It praises your SION organization as the pre-eminent anti-Jihad group in the world. I suggests that your International Defense of Freedom Congress adopt a platform with specific policies. We can use this to judge politicians and political parties.

The article is here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/a_plan_to_stop_the_islamization_of_the_world_is_at_hand.html

Please contribute to the policy formulation. I will post the results of todays on-line conference.

Thank you for your work,

John K. Press, Ph.D.
www.culturism.us

We need to completely cut off all funding and aid to Muslim countries that have citizens that can't behave as civilized people, and ban travel to and from those countries until they join the 21st century. Such policies worked to end apartheidt in South Africa, and I believe they may work to end Islam. After all, unless they have oil, Muslim countries are complete economic basket cases, dependent on jizzya, or extortion, from the civilized world. Without that, they will begin to realize that, unlike their saying "Islam is the solution", "Islam IS the problem". Also, we should add a new phrase to the lexicon; "Going Muslim"

It was amazing to peruse the "Review" (op-ed) section of today's New York Times. After the jihad murders and riots of this week, there wasn't a single article about them -- or about the lickspittle foreign policy that gave rise to them.

All the news that's print to fit.

No PC B/S from the press downunder http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-scourge-of-muslim-terror-is-growing-with-the-rise-in-followers/story-fn56avn8-1226475172746

The latest rampages by the muslim savages merely re-enforces my assertions that it is pretty sad that muslims are assumed to be violent thugs and terrorists that must be coddled as to not set them off from anything that might offend them.

Most of the Police now assume it is easier to arrest and detain the peaceful protester( non muslim) at a muslim rally than go after the actual muslims hurling death threats and burning flag or throwing stones at non-muslims.
Sadly here in canada, a Moderate islamic Org made the mistake of excusing away the violence by claiming it was only a few "Misunderstanders" and that the MSM kept repeating the same clips as if to make it look like thousnads of Muslims were rioting and burn an Embassy.
Pretty sad when the Moderate muslims are so shamed by the overt savagery by muslims and islam that they resort to taqqiyah and deny the level of violence and hatred that comes from Shariah and the quran.

During this whole episode, my thoughts kept drifting back to the "artistic" denigration of Christianity that is endorsed and celebrated by the mainstream media and the Progressive Elitists.

I struggled to remember riots and murders when "Piss Christ" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" were released. Oh yeah, that's because real Christians don't riot and murder when their religion is insulted!

"In a struggle between the civilized man and a savage, support civilization" has never been a more apt phrase....

Good catch!

hypocrites (I'm talking about The NYT)

There was an AP story in my local paper this am about one of the actors of the movie complaining he'd been "duped."

First of all, if you've watched the movie, yes, it's been dubbed, badly. Call me crazy, but, a lot of the dubbing is around the name of the main character. Every time it's spoken, it's dubbed, but not the rest of the dialogue. It certainly looks like the actors are lips are saying "Moses."

Okay, so these, bad, most likely liberal hippy actors, had no problem making a film about Moses. Fine, freedom of speech.

Let's not forget that leftist loons and hollyweirdos are very vocal about "the religion of peace." They never mention how they came to that conclusion, but, honest, sane people would actually read mein kuranmpf, sira, hadith before making that bold statement. So, we would assume that they've read the relevant texts.

Explain to me then how these ROP and all that dippy hippies who were more than happy to make a mocking movie about Moses didn't realize they were making a movie about mo? There was no burning bush but there were Khadija's burning thighs. No parting of the Red Sea, but parting of Aisha's little girl thighs. No destruction of the Golden Calf but destruction of an old woman by camel power.

How could anyone who's read islam's repulsive texts NOT know that this film was depicting mo the mad's repulsive existence as recorded in islam's texts?

Because, liberals are hypocrites. They declare islam a religion of peace without ever so much as lifting a mein kuranmpf yet they boldly declare those of us who despise islam *after* having actually read its repulsive texts as "ignorant haters!"

I feel ZERO sympathy for those tools in the film. None. They went into this thinking they were mocking Moses (and most likely Jews) and were okay with it. Through their own ignorance they couldn't see that they were actually portraying mo the mad as he really was.

Now their little pets of the ROP are out for their blood. The ROP they claim loudly and obnoxiously is peaceful and benign!

Oh the irony! It's so delicious!

The leftish establishment in Europe long ago, apparently, decided to allow, encourage, and protect Muslim immigration at the price of muzzling speech critical of Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic immigrants, Muslim terrorism, or anything connected to Islam, worldwide.

The American left has gone along and adopted Muslims here, there, or anywhere as a victim group that can do no wrong and Islam as something to be protected by the taboos of PC.

Right now, there is a growing academic industry producing quality bullshit explaining why American fidelity to our "core principles" (supplied to suit the propaganda needs of the moment) requires that blasphemy and sacrilege against Islam must be punished while the like attacks on Christianity must be protected.

Or Buddhism, Hinduism, or whatever.

Islam is special.

So STFU.

We infidels are plagued by 5th-Columnists like NYT, but meanwhile the Islamists suffer from no such dyslexia and have a clear uniformity on hating infidels which they can rally around. They've always steadily and immediately killed off all dissenters, so that's why they suffer from no self-doubt.

Did the New York Times condemn this 14th century fresco?
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/last-judgement-le-jugement-dernier.html

Some commonsense:

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1655/westerners_who_fuel_the_muslim_world_s_grievance_culture

Support "The Commentator".

'The New York Times' new CEO, Mark Thompson, ex-director general of the BBC, will bring his 'liberalism' (i.e. pro-Islam, anti-Christian political stance) with him, e.g-

"Christianity gets less sensitive treatment than other religions admits BBC chief"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106953/Christianity-gets-sensitive-treatment-religions-admits-BBC-chief.html#ixzz26ed2lKP3

New York Times praised Piss Christ, condemned Muhammad movie
.....................................

This shouldn't surprise anyone here.

Here's the New York Times' by now "classic" moral equivalency, where critical—but entirely peaceful—comments about Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" (Dung Virgin) or Tom Tole's political cartoons are compared with murderous rampages in Dar-al-Islam over the Danish MoToons.

The writer, Michael Kimmelman, meretriciously notes about Jyllands-Posten that "The newspaper was banking on the fact that unlike the West — where Max Ernst's painting of Mary spanking the infant Jesus didn't raise an eyebrow when recently shown at the Metropolitan Museum — the Muslim world has no tradition of, or tolerance for, religious irony in its art."

Well, that's *one way of putting it*.

That these cartoons were also a *defense of freedom of speech*—which he notes obliquely in a preceding paragraph—simply isn't pursued. Instead, the MoToons are posited as nothing more than a "provocation".

The piece of stupidity was headlined, "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery"—when, actually, it should have been titles "A Startling New Lesson on Muslim Oppression and Savagery".

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/arts/design/08imag.html?pagewanted=all

And the fact is, that—just like the MoToons—Nakoula's film "Innocence of Muslims" *is a critique of Muslim violence, and the roots of that violence in the "Prophet" of Islam*.

This film may not be impressive artistically, but all of its content is rooted in the canonical texts of Islam.

Why should we "respect" this savagery? Only because Islam's adherents will slaughter us if we do not?

The most repulsive thing is that the NYT and so many other apologists are framing this cringing dhimmitude as a righteous moral stance. Disgusting.

'Dhimmi Times' (2006)

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/newsmeeting-dhimmis-explain-why-no-cartoon.php

"Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths."

No he didn't.

These NYT writers should be better educated. It is not a "core" principle of government that it must respect all faiths, certainly not in the sense that it must disallow rebuke & disrespect of any. It is only constitutionally constrained to allow all faiths to be practiced to the extent they do not violate any laws. If an individual despises a particular religion he is free to bash it however he or she chooses (even in this clumsy & un-artful way).
The NYT should hire more intelligent writers.

...the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths.---

The core principles of the U.S. are freedom and individual liberty. So f' you and your authoritarian, dictatorial, bigoted and intolerant pro-pedohammedan agenda.

And thanks Robert, for highlighting this Telegraph column by Tim Blair that exposes, yet again, the shameless double standard of most of the western media.

Much of the West's political class and MSM wittingly or not adopts a kind of Muslim Brotherhood political line on Islam.

And Qatar plays an easy role in this, with its Islamic Al Jazeera TV, and the distinctive Arabic and English versions, with duplicitous political messages for
different audiences.

"The Two Faces of Al Jazeera"

by Oren Kessler.

http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera

The links to the New York Times articles don't seem to be working.

This is how countries were taken over by Islam in the past.

Since Sept 11 - the New York Times' position has changed on religious satire - but the Islamic position has not.

This is what happens when people who are not Muslims - look to rationalize the Islamic belief - versus - as the Pope remarked - [which the Muslims also decried and shot a few people - including Catholic clergy] - Islam allows no such rationalization or reason on faith.

Now you have the US President and leaders of the free world - toying with the idea of Shari'a law / or aspects.

A law that would mean the undoing of the work of the civil rights movement - as Muslim are given priority position - in any Islamic state - is being rationalized as we speak.

::

We are being told by learned professors that there were small windows in Islam's history where Christians and others were treated well under Shari'a rule and that we could reasonably expect the same - if aspects of Islamic law were introduced in western society.

Careful to leave out that Shari'a law forbids equality with Muslims, that a Christian was never a ruler in one of these states [Islam forbids this] and that as soon as these 'just' rulers died - there was almost a struggle to bring back the old system - of degraded treatment for non-Muslims as laid down by the Prophet - in verses such as Koran 9:29.

::

The new New York Times' position is a part of the effort to demonize all those who would suggest that we hold on to and respect our freedoms - in the face of requests - from the Saudis and others to do away with them.

And it is in line with the new position - which sees that it is the 'intelligent' people who want aspects of Sharia - found in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and the 'unintelligent' people - who still hold to New York Times previous position on rights and freedoms and want to see these maintained.

Further those who consider themselves 'intelligent' - are gearing up - [as they did in Europe before the elections - that shifted politics to the center right] - to put in place these Islamic laws without the people's consent or by dictate.

As the majority of the Islamic world lives under a dictatorship - any suggestion of imposing Islam - on people they view as lesser /ignorant/or dhimmis [in Islam] - Muslims will no doubt see the attraction - and offer themselves willingly - to be the driving force and allies in these efforts.

If they succeed - the New York Times might change its position back to the good old days before Sept 11!!

COWARDS COWARDS COWARDS

"Muslims were so much shamed by the savagery of their coreligionists as that they simply found it inconvenient to the "slow Jihad"."

Bingo!

One one of the other threads an apologist responded to you, I believe, with pictures of a few dozen Libyans counter protesting with signs reading "Sorry America, this does not represent our Islam or our Profit(sic)"

I laughed because even in the "moderates'" protest it was all about them and their cult.

A day later I was watching CNN and about fell out of my chair laughing. They were showing *the same* few dozen protesters but they failed to edit out a few of the new signs the "moderate muslim counter protestors" were waving:

"No to insults of Islam!
No to insults of Muhammad!
No to insults of Muslims!
Allahu Akbar!"

How obtuse do people have to be to not understand that these people feel no remorse, no sadness, or no shame for murdered innocents. Their remorse, sadness, and shame are for their cult and themselves.

What core princpal? I never heard that we had a principal respecting all faiths.

The members of government who forced the mormons to abandon polygamy didn't seem to be aware we had a core principal of respecting all faiths.

Police that arrested men for tying to sacrafice a goat in a public park didn't seem to be aware we are commited to that principal either.

We didn't seem terribly concearned about respecting David Coresh's interpretation of his faith. Nor would anyone be expected to respect Jim Jonse's religeon, nor the Hale Bop cult.

When antisocial behavior is considered by it's adnerants to be inherant to a faith, we are under no kind of obligation to respect that faith.

Nor for any other reason.

"What core princpal? I never heard that we had a principal respecting all faiths."

I've been scratching my head over that one too. I'm assuming it comes from that "Living Constitution" that the leftists trot out that guarantees a happy outcome for everyone rather than just guaranteeing the right for everyone to *pursue* a happy outcome.

Know shariah - NO art
No shariah - Know art

Tim Blair is perhaps the Mark Steyn of Australia. He was a great comfort (and delight) after 11/9/2001, one of the few who spoke rationally when the rest of the press was wringing its hands about how the US - and indeed, all of us in the hideous West - were to blame for the attacks.
Nice to see him make it to Jihad Watch!

This newspaper has been dhimmified out of fear of the enforcement of Shariah law against them. C.A.I.R. would sue them for every word they printed in criticism or in analysis or insulting to Islam or Mohammad. They need to fear a boycott by U.S. citizens who are rejecting dhimmitude. We need a national anti-dhimmitude movement.

Whats new?

In the 1950´s it was the Blacks, the Negroes, the Afro Americans I have no idea how they are called today but back then they were called Niggers. They were not allowed to use the same drinking water fountain as the whites or go to their hospitals or to sit in any restaurant, cafeteria or public places with them. They had to sit at the back of the bus and if they were beaten up by a white it was the joke of the town. Then it was the Japanese, then the Russians and then Gorbachov told Reagan that the USA would have to find another enemy and so they found the Muslims? Is that why 911 was done to start the kicking, the trashing and the humiliation on the next in line to satisfy the evil of the Americans? So the USA must have some humans to step on, trash and kick about? Nice people. I need to ask the USA 7 questions about 911. www.muslimsdefend.com