Get The Picture ?

[Torog]

Get the Picture?

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Feb 09, 2006


So here's my question, and it's a simple one because I am a simple man: The New York Times will not print any of those Danish political cartoons that mock Islamic violence, but it will publish a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. What's up with that?

Here's what the Times wrote about the cartoons: "(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

Okay, fine, I agree with that editorial which appeared on February 7th. But the next day, the newspaper ran a picture of the dung-covered Mary accompanying an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery."

So we can't see the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban in the Times, but we can see a sacrilegious "gratuitous assault" on Mary that came from a shameful Brooklyn Museum exposition in 1999. Do I have that right?

Once again, we have a huge double standard in play in the secular-progressive press. In 1989, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, among others, published a picture by photographer Andres Serrano that showed the crucified Christ submerged in urine. Serrano was also featured in a New York Times fashion spread, according to reporting in The Washington Post.

And then there was the play "Corpus Christi," which featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles. The New York Times opined that folks who protested the play had "contempt for artistic expression."

Maybe I'm wrong, but dung on Mary, Christ submerged in urine, and a gay Jesus just might be "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." But, again, I'm kind of dense when it comes to "artistic expression," so I could be way off here.

The real question is this: Do the editors of The New York Times intentionally want to denigrate Christianity? I don't know. I can only go by the best available evidence, and the case I just made seems air-tight. Religious minorities in the USA seem to be given much more respect by the Times than the religious majority. Remember, 84% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

If you read The New York Times and the other secular-progressive papers, you know they often see the Christian majority as "oppressive." And its easy to see why. Many Christians oppose unfettered abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage--just to name three issues that the secular-progressives champion. Resistance to "progressive" change in America is strong in quite a few Christian communities. So they have become "dangerous" to some in the secular-progressive press.

Therefore, any denigration of Christian symbols is far more acceptable than the negative depiction of minority religions. Would The New York Times print a picture of Mohammed covered with dung? If you think so, I have a condo in Baghdad I'd like to sell you.

The cold truth is that it is open season on Christian symbols in much of the American press. That was demonstrated during the Christmas controversy which the secular-progressive press denied even existed. Insulting Christian icons is wrong, just as mocking the prophet Mohammed is wrong. The difference might be that Christians are taught to turn the other cheek, while militant Muslims might react a bit differently. And The New York Times knows it.

Torog Reviewed by Torog on 02-14-2006. Get The Picture ? Get the Picture? By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Feb 09, 2006 So here's my question, and it's a simple one because I am a simple man: The New York Times will not print any of those Danish political cartoons that mock Islamic violence, but it will publish a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. What's up with that? Here's what the Times wrote about the cartoons: "(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but Rating: 5

[daves19]

Get the Picture?

The cold truth is that it is open season on Christian symbols in much of the American press. That was demonstrated during the Christmas controversy which the secular-progressive press denied even existed. Insulting Christian icons is wrong, just as mocking the prophet Mohammed is wrong. The difference might be that Christians are taught to turn the other cheek, while militant Muslims might react a bit differently. And The New York Times knows it.

well that answers a lot of questions...media are whores and they know christians have a better tolerence in general, muslims are blinded by their religion and so, their blood temperature rises to the boiling point at the sligtest "insult"... :dance:

[beachguy in thongs]

I'm not sure how popular the cartoon of Mohammed would be. Many Americans don't care, but the Virgin Mary thing happened in our own backyard.

[Myth1184]

I laugh my ass off at the Muhammed Cartoons, I think they should be in the Funny papers everyday of the week.

[SomeGuy]

The double standard on free speech in the press and media is total Bullshit.
Besides the examples mentioned in the article, Jesus and other Christian figures are insulted and mocked. Why is it that only Anti-Christians are truly guaranteed this right of free speech? If we speak up about this kind of stuff we get bashed and are told that its free speech.

Point number 2: It seems to me that the muslims acts of violence in response to the cartoons is making an example of what the cartoon was meant to depict...

[Breukelen advocaat]

The Virgin Mary "art" in question, if my memory serves me, was rendered in dung - not "covered" in it. It was not meant to offend, or shock - but our culture has a different take on it. I admit that I have not seen the exhibit, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but I'm OK with it even is she WAS covered in elephant shit.
Here's an article about the piece: http://dh.ryoshuu.com/press/19991005_a.html

BOYCOTT the OIL! Without firing a shot, we can fuck 'em where they breathe. The United States has boycotted Castro's Cuba for almost 50 fucking years, and he really didn't do anything to us for a reaction like that. Castro's a ruthless bastard, but at least he's keeps his shit in his own back yard.

Buying oil from the middle east is nuts. WE should be dictating what price we'll pay when, or if, we resume trade. As far as I'm concerned, they can shove it.

P.S. O'Reilly is still an asshole.

[vincevaper]

advocaat made a point I bit my tongue about. Yes, volumes have been written about that exhibit. O'Reilly is indeed a "simple man" who's "kinda dense." It's just another example of the right criticizing something they "don't understand," or haven't seen at all.

It truly shows pride of freedom to allow some misguided right wing youth to wear a mohammed/bomb t-shirt. However, the only thing that t-shirt wearing antagonist is proving of himself is that he's an ignorant, divisive hypocrite.

It's typical nonsense from the same sort of genuises who STILL support Bush.

[SomeGuy]

It's just another example of the right criticizing something they "don't understand," or haven't seen at all.

Whats not to understand? He gets the basic picture, and hes making a critique on the left wing powers when it comes to the press and freedom of speech.

"Because its ok to make fun of those evil christians, but we should be nice to the poor innocent muslims that are killing people...Im sure the old lady with the Nativity Scene in her front yard is going to firebomb the neighborhood..."

No... its not right no matter how you look at...I agree with the article.

[Torog]

The Virgin Mary "art" in question, if my memory serves me, was rendered in dung - not "covered" in it. It was not meant to offend, or shock - but our culture has a different take on it. I admit that I have not seen the exhibit, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but I'm OK with it even is she WAS covered in elephant shit.
Here's an article about the piece: http://dh.ryoshuu.com/press/19991005_a.html

BOYCOTT the OIL! Without firing a shot, we can f*ck 'em where they breathe. The United States has boycotted Castro's Cuba for almost 50 fucking years, and he really didn't do anything to us for a reaction like that. Castro's a ruthless bastard, but at least he's keeps his shit in his own back yard.

Buying oil from the middle east is nuts. WE should be dictating what price we'll pay when, or if, we resume trade. As far as I'm concerned, they can shove it.

P.S. O'Reilly is still an asshole.

Howdy BA,

If it wasn't meant to offend,what was it meant to do ? Would you throw elephant dung on yer mom or on a pic of her ? The Virgin Mary 'art',was most certainly meant to offend both Catholics and Christians,there's no other reason for it. It also sends a message to boys and men,that women should be treated like such,that they are only worthy of having dung thrown at them,rappers are always calling for violence against women,including beatings,rape and kickin em in the stomach to force a miscarriage and kill the un-wanted child of promiscuity.

Have a good one ....

[Raiden]

Christian religion has been forced to become more tolerant (thankfully) whereas as the Islamic people tend to come from backward countries that have not progressed and resemble western countries hundreds of years ago, and they simply do not understand the freedoms we take for granted. Unfortunately a lot of Southern US states are similarly backward which is why you get freaky rednecks like Torog. The vast majority of Europeans are not religious and it is a culture/time clash going on. I am very anti religion although I think the Dalai Lama has a lot to say.

Insulting religious icons is not wrong, it shows you have a brain.

Supporting US troops who torture and kill (just like Nazis) and thinking your Country is God's special country is wrong. If you believed in God you would know it is Gods universe, and the US troop is no more right, infact probably more wrong than the Iraqi troop he is fighting, because the US is the aggressor in this and most instances. It is about respect for life and human life no matter who or where the person comes from.