The Courage of the New York Times
Recently the New York Times ran a Catholic bashing ad calling for Liberal Catholics to desert the Faith. The ad was sponsored by the virulently anti-Catholic atheist group Freedom From Religion. Go here to read a superb evisceration of the ad by Charles Lewis.
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged decided to submit an ad which made similar accusations, but against Islam instead of the Church. The New York Times rejected the ad.
Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.” So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?” Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.” I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.” He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”
We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference is, ours was true and what we describe is true. The anti-Catholic ad was written by fallacious feminazis.
Go here to read the rest. Ah, the New York Times, not only controlled by anti-Catholic bigots, but cowardly anti-Catholic bigots.
22 Responses to The Courage of the New York Times
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- Jon commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(18 minutes ago) - georgeinbandon,oregon commented on Lent in a Sinless Age
(1 hours ago) - anzlyne commented on Invincible Ignorance
(2 hours ago) - Marietta commented on Why it is Worth Worrying: On the Brink of a New Pontificate
(2 hours ago) - georgeinbandon,oregon commented on Lent in a Sinless Age
(3 hours ago) - Tim Fitz commented on Invincible Ignorance
(3 hours ago) - Mary M. commented on We Must Not Forget
(4 hours ago) - Pinky commented on Lent in a Sinless Age
(4 hours ago) - George Haberberger commented on The New York Times as State Organ
(5 hours ago) - Larry Peterson commented on Why it is Worth Worrying: On the Brink of a New Pontificate
(5 hours ago) - Thomas Collins commented on The New York Times as State Organ
(5 hours ago) - philip commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(5 hours ago) - philip commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(6 hours ago) - philip commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(6 hours ago) - Elizabeth commented on Lent in a Sinless Age
(6 hours ago) - Jeanne Rohl commented on At Last Night's Emergency SCHISM Meeting...
(6 hours ago)
All the news that’s fit to print … er … spin … uh … omit.
What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?
This is getting scary. Where is this going?
When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?
I have my qualms about Pam Geller, but this was pure, unadulterated brilliance.
Starting with the fawning treatment of the “mostly peaceful” Occupiers, the President’s embrace of Bill Maher’s sweet, sweet cash and now this, 2012 is shaping up to be the Year of the Double Standard.
Good to have it out in the open.
“Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?”
The first step is to give the forces of anti-Catholic bigotry a thrashing this year at the polls that they, and the nation, will long remember.
They are so easily played.
It’s censorship, too. They do not tolerate dissent.
All the news that’s fit to print with a pinko yellow tint.
The Imam in the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz.
~The Sweet
Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
Ugh. Just read the original. Isn’t the “owner” of the blog here a lawyer? What are the definitions of libel? Is the original ad libelous? If not, it sure comes awfully darned close.
That said, though, I must (while holding my nose) agree with one thing it says. At the end, it asks all liberal, lukewarm and “cafeteria” Catholics to exit. Fine with me. Vaya con Dios, and please, do come back if you want to actually observe the faith. Remember the Prodigal.
I forget where I read it, but somebody of some import said that those who do not stand with Cardinal Dolan, et al., against this onslaught have already left the Church. They just don’t know it. It all comes down to actions vs. words. I could stand in the garage, go “vroom vroom” and expel smelly fumes but that does not make me a car.
If you want to work on Saturdays and eat a McRib, help yourself. Just don’t call yourself an Orthodox Jew.
If you want to throw back a shot or two of Jack Daniel’s and your wife & daughters can wear things other than a body-length shower curtain, fine. Just don’t call yourself a Muslim.
If you want to artificially interrupt God’s gift of the creation of life for your own carnal needs, hey, more power to ya. Just don’t call yourself a Catholic.
And, if you want to lie, twist, propagandize, oppress, attack, persecute, threaten and tyrannize, take your best shot. Just don’t call yourself an American, because that’s the last thing in the world you are. I’d suggest, too, that you go someplace else to do it – Americans are pretty patient but we do have our limits. Remember, there’s a Second Amendment right behind the First.
It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney. Nothing in the original ad would constitute libel in the legal sense, since it is basically a long rant based upon opinion. Additionally since the Church most definitely is a “public figure” it would be virtually impossible to prevail in a libel suit under current case law.
What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?
Prof. Robert David Johnson (a.k.a. “KC Johnson”).
Prof. Harold Pollack is a fairly resonable fellow.
Never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. There was a story the other day about a toilet paper shortage in New Jersey. Seems to me that The New York Times could very well fill the gap.
“When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets.”
Unfortunately there would be a fair number taking to the streets to attack the Church:
http://vox-nova.com/2012/03/13/us-bishops-veering-off-track/#comments
“It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney.”
Thanks for the chuckle and explanation. To my discredit I am not up to snuff on the basics of such things, and should probably reinforce my fundamental knowledge.
Maybe when the next teenager departs for academia and I get half my house back . . .
What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?
Nat Hentoff.
DP:
I’m not sure Nat H. is a real liberal.
Can you cite any writing or statement where he either called a conservative woman a dirty name or defended those that did?
AD: Clueless college professors don’t count.
eat a McRib
I’m not so sure that counts as pork. In fact, I’m not sure what it is.
I wonder whether those dissing the ‘lack of courage’ of the NYT have considered that their response – not wanting to inflame an already tense situation – - most likely had to do with our young men and women who are “in harm’s way” in Afghanistan and, in smaller numbers, in some other countries overseas. There’s nothing whatever in their response that indicates that the concern was for themselves.
The New York Times Tade has never been shy about reporting alleged misdeeds by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in banner head lines. The fact that this might have inflamed jihadis in those country and lead to the death of American servicemen never bothered them in the slightest. The rejection of the ad was all about the cowardice of the New York Times personnel fearing for their own safety if they printed the ad, and also because it is not politically correct to give vent to anti-Islamic sentiment while anti-Catholic bigotry is virulent on the ever so tolerant Left.
Nat Hentoff is my favorite pro-life atheist, a contradiction in realities. Pro-life persons are conservative. It was lovely meeting him here again.
Yeah, the Times is desperately concerned about the safety of our servicemen overseas. That must be it. It doesn’t jibe with how they reported Abu Ghraib, but charity believeth all things, I suppose.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/abu_ghraib/index.html
It’s our own fault. When are Catholics going to stop voting for Democrats? Yes, there is a connection between seeing this kind of anti-catholic bullying and politics. Do you think it’s coincidental this ad runs so closely following the contraception coverage controversy in the Obamacare law?
No, it’s no coincidence…..and it will continue…. Wake up and stop voting for Democrats!