Friday, March 16, 2012

Anti-Catholic Ad, New York Times

We know the New York Times is a Leftist propaganda rag.

Now we know it's anti-Catholic as well.

From FOX News:

The New York Times is being accused of a double standard by a group of Catholic leaders who say that the newspaper showed discrimination in running an anti-Catholic ad but refusing to run a similar anti-Islam ad.

In an ad run by the atheist group Freedom From Religion, a cartoon bishop is depicted in a disparaging act. The ad reads, “it’s time to consider quitting the Catholic church.” It also blames the church for causing poverty, misery, unwanted pregnancy and debt … among other things. … cut refused one similar about islam.

After it ran last Friday, Pamela Gellar — a controversial anti-Islam activist — created an ad that mimicked it; instead of a bishop being depicted in the cartoon, it was a Muslim imam.

“I think this is a crushing blow for free speech and freedom of the press. If you’re going to run these ads, be consistent,” Gellar said in an interview with Fox News.

Gellar is correct. The inconsistency is what's revealing. The bias is exposed.

On one hand, the Times champions free speech. On the other hand, it squelches free speech. The bias is glaring.

There's no problem running an ad from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, calling for members of the Catholic Church to quit.

The atheist group issued a news release to announce the ad.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation placed an open letter via a full-page ad in today’s New York Times (page 10, front section) urging liberal and nominal Roman Catholics to “quit” their church over its war against contraception.

Beginning “It’s your moment of truth,” the ad asks: “Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop.”

“As a member of the ‘flock’ of an avowedly antidemocratic Old Boys Club, isn’t it time you vote with your feet? Please, exit en Mass,” requests the ad, signed by FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker.

The ad features a cartoon by Steve Benson depicting an angry bishop, with a woman next to a birth control pill telling him: “All the outrage over something this small is a bit hard to swallow.”

The Times required FFRF to alter its punchy headline, ‘It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church,’ to ‘It’s Time to Consider Quitting the Catholic Church.’ Barker called that decision “disappointing” and “a sign of the Catholic Church’s inordinate power to intimidate and muzzle criticism.”

The ad blasts the church’s “pernicious doctrine that birth control is a sin” and the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” introduced into Congress to impose church dogma on employees. FFRF warns the liberal Catholic that the church is “launching a ruthless political Inquisition in your name.”

“It’s a disgrace that U.S. health care reform is being held hostage to your church’s irrational opposition to medically prescribed contraception. No political candidate should have to genuflect before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Gaylor called “The war against contraception and reproductive liberty the state/church issue of our day.”

She called the ad a “ ‘telling truth to power’ moment,” adding that “The Roman Catholic hierarchy would wither away without the support, financial and otherwise, of its members. They must be accountable for what is being done in their name.”

The ad concludes by inviting nominal Catholics to “join those of us who put humanity above dogma.”

FFRF warmly thanks the outpouring of support by hundreds of FFRF members and others who helped FFRF raise $52,000 in just one weekend, making possible the stand-by ad.

Significant donors who contributed $1,000 or more included Dan Barker, Fairfid M. Caudle, Robert & Jo Chanaud, James G. Coors, Jeff & Jill Dean, Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Gallivan, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Lali Reddy, M.D., Nicholas Sargeantson, Jane & Stefan Shoup, Claudette St.Pierre, Fred Thorlin, R. Jeffrey Wenk and John Whiteside. Several major donors preferred to remain anonymous.

These haters contributed $52,000 to slam Catholics and encourage them to quit the Church, "exit en Mass."

Really disgusting.

The New York Times took it.

Supposedly, the Times refused to run Gellar's ad because doing so would put American troops in Afghanistan in danger.

Here's what the New York Times wrote to Gellar:

The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.

What hypocrites!

The Times doesn't care about the safety of American troops. If it did, why would the paper spill military secrets and plaster the front page with information that undermines operations?

Worried about the safety of U.S. troops?

Give me a break!

The New York Times displays no journalistic integrity.

Here's video.


2 comments:

Susan (rainy) said...

I have been a long time reader of Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugged" blog. She is NOT anti-Islam. She IS a "counter-jihadist". There is a huge difference and we should be sure to make that distinction and not let the Time's get away with their labeling of her. From her blog, "Note FOX's take on the story. They call me an anti-Islam activist. I am a counter-jihadist. Why doesn't the media distinguish between the two? Their lack of distinction implies the two are interchangeable. How islamophobic! FOX refused to run a graphic of either ad, as "both were offensive." More abridgement of free speech in adherence to the sharia. They do not address the motive, the fear, the sharia behind the New York Times' craven hypocrisy. Instead, they focused on the inconsistency of the Times accepting one ad and rejecting another, without clearly explaining why or giving the reasons for the inconsistency, which accords with FOX's increasing tendency not to address this subject matter at all.

Megyn Kelly refers to our ad as an anti-Islam ad. It is not. It is a rebuttal ad. Also, it bears noting that Trace Gallagher ran the Times' pathetic excuse unchallenged. In my interview with Fox, which they severely edited, I questioned the dishonesty of the Times' position, when they have done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. How many front page stories ran on Abu Ghraib? Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan? Why didn't Fox mention any of that? Why did Fox give the New York Times a free pass, while jumping to repeat the Islamic supremacists' "anti-Islam" label of me?" http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en&tab=wy#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2Fatlas_shrugs%2Fatom.xml To Fox's credit, however, it looks like they are going to have her on tomorrow: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11032459&postID=5039442116698064079

Mary said...

Yes, it's inappropriate to label her an "anti-Islam activist."

Very unfair of FOX.