The way the left treats Muslims vs. Christians is on display at the leftist NY Times. Don't dare insult Islam, but insulting Christianity is perfectly fine.

Quote:The New York Times editorial board tore into the nearly-murdered organizers of the Garland, Texas “Draw Mohammad” event Wednesday, calling it “hate speech” and “an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.”

“Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, 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,” the Times editorial reads. “As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

It’s not shocking to see the Times taking a stand against “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims.” Earlier this year, the Times pondered whether there were “legitimate questions” to be asked about whether there was a “double standard” in France allowing Charie Hebdo to “antagonize” Muslims.

Obviously there can be no “but” in condemning the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo, or the ideology that encourages murder in the name of religion… Yet there are legitimate questions raised about freedom of expression in this tragedy. In the wake of the terror attack, French authorities began aggressive enforcements of a law against supporting or justifying terrorism, including arrests of people who spoke admiringly about the shootings at Charlie Hebdo. Not surprisingly, their actions have raised questions of a double standard — one for cartoonists who deliberately insult religion, when their cartoons are certain to antagonize Muslims at a time when anti-Muslim feelings are already at high levels in France and across much of Europe, and another for those who react by applauding terrorists.
But when “Piss Christ,” a photograph depicting a Christian crucifix submerged in urine that was created on a federal grant and exhibited at New York Stux Gallery, the Times really liked it.

One of the few, unintended benefits of the Congressional outrage against Andres Serrano is that it has brought widespread attention to a good artist. His photographs are indeed provocative. They are also serious art… This religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze (without the title, there would be little or no way of knowing what the liquid is) suggests the arty images and the mass production of religious souvenirs that have been partly responsible for the trivialization and exploitation of both religion and art… It is possible to see Mr. Serrano’s use of bodily fluids as pure provocation. But you can also believe that Mr. Serrano views them as a form of purification. The fluids make us look at the images harder and consider basic religious doctrine about matter and spirit… People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect? It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.
Likewise, when Piss Christ returned to New York City in 1999, the NYT editorial board strongly defended its display in a public museum despite a public outcry: “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.”

And of course, when the “The Book of Mormon” first arrived on the Broadway scene, the Times reviewed a musical that was explicitly intended to mock the faith of millions of Americans. One particular song is titled (in a made-up Ugandan language) “F*ck You, God,” containing the lyrics (in English) “F*ck you, God, in the ass, mouth and c**t.” the Times loved it.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/the-ne...s-muslims/

Yep, Libs love their Muslims and despise Christians. They really can't pretend to deny it now.

Liberal logic

People know that blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed is punishable by death so they shouldn't do it. Also the government should not protect those who exercise free speech by doing it.

A crucifix in a mason jar full of urine is art and the government should pay the artist for his creativity.

The NY Times hates "traditional" America, and nothing is more traditional America than Christianity.

They see Muslims attacking Christians and they get a thrill up their legs.

(05-07-2015 06:36 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Yep, Libs love their Muslims and despise Christians. They really can't pretend to deny it now.

like a drunk or a person that is all smoked up thinks they are making profound obervations about life

they love thinking they are enlightened and superior.

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains

(05-07-2015 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The NY Times hates "traditional" America, and nothing is more traditional America than Christianity.

They see Muslims attacking Christians and they get a thrill up their legs.

Tingle. Pretty sure that was a tingle. Maybe it was a thrill, but thought it was plural.

And, yea. Pointed this out a few days ago-

Cartoons? Baaaaad. Time to murder someone.

A Cross with a symbol of Jesus submerged in a pickle jar of urine? Yaaaaay! ART!!!

Mental dystopia.

Now. How 'bout them Tories, eh???

I heard on the news Yesterday that the FBI knew about this possible attack in Garland for 3 weeks prior and They Never warned the garland police department. Thanks FBI, You wear it Well !

They claim that They notified them just hours before the attack.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015...ore-attack

http://wqad.com/2015/05/07/tweets-and-ot...and-texas/

Is the Times guilty of hypocrisy or willful ignorance?