« ID and its limits | Main | Underground Rome: Your Favorite »

February 09, 2006


Tim Ferguson

I think I'm starting to understand:

scowling Midwesterners with picket signs objecting to depictions of beloved figure covered in elephant poo = violent extremists, bent on destruction of free society as we know it.

scowling Middle Easterners with guns and explosives, following through on murderous threats, objecting to any depiction at all of beloved figure = simple, misunderstood and loveable partisans of the religion of peace.

Now that I understand it, can I get a job in the liberal establishment?


Amen, Tim.

And gosh -- I actually read what that columnist wrote about JPII! I want to gag!

Amy Pawlak

Of course, Tim. Don't you know that pretty much every problem in the world can be traced back to Christians and our oppressive, back-water mentality?

Or that our tax dollars *need* to support public showings of such insulting art in the name of tolerancy of diversity?

This is one of the many reasons I'm glad I didn't become a journalist and sell my soul to the liberal establishment.

Adolfo Rodriguez

I tend to view this as in a positive light. The management staff of the NYPress aren't afraid that we Christians are going to murder them, whereas they are clearly concerned about the reaction they might get from the Muslim community. Score one for our side.

Kitten On The Keys

This editorial staff consists of 4 people. Remember that in case you meet a Decent presser on the pilgrim's road.


OK, I got to number 2 on the "funniest" list and felt like I was going to vomit.
I'm certain Fr. Karol in his heavenly home is praying for the writer. I'll try to follow his example.

Patricia Gonzalez

Eeeewww ... how revolting! This is an example of "openness" and "diversity"???!!! With apologies to Mark Shea, of course it's just the Pope, the head of the eeeeevil Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christians, so it doesn't matter... May God have mercy on them! These guys are in serious need of prayer -- I'm with you, Lily, Papa Karol forgave the man who shot him, so he forgives these straying sheep, no matter how matted and dung-covered their wool.


Yes, the paper's management is inconsistent. Look on the bright side: they improved, from a bad decision to a good one.
Let's not fall into the trap of saying that anyone who insults Catholics is therefore morally obliged also to insult Muslims. Or into the trap of saying that it's somehow virtuous to be rude to people who murderously overreact.



RP Burke

Amy is exactly right.


BTW, there was an epilogue to the first story:

March 7, 2005
New York Press Editor Quits
Rather than accept a two-week suspension without pay, NY Press Editor in Chief Jeff Koyen resigned this morning. His departure comes on the heels of intense public criticism of a feature titled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope" that ran in the paper last week. President and Publisher Chris Rohland tells Editor & Publisher that -- contrary to comments Koyen made to the Web site Gawker -- the suspension wasn't due to the Pope article itself but a related instance of insubordination.
Source: http://www.aan.org/gyrobase/Aan/NewsByDate?newsCategory=Industry%20News&releaseMonth=2005-03

Jill Sawyer

Shame on you. I read the list while eating lunch. Couldn't get past the first five.


The paper's management doesn't want to offend religious sensibilities? Really?

Only when the religion in question goes into a kill-crazy frenzy and saws your heads off like a Halal slaugherhouse whenever you offend them in any way.

If we Christians did the same every time we got offended, they'd tiptoe on eggs around us to.


Isn't the NYPress one of those free papers that exist mainly to sell advertising, with a "staff" that is mostly not paid?


The NYP is an alternative paper with a tiny, low-paid staff. Collecting unemployment might, in this case, constitute a raise.

Frankly, I have no problem with the media not publishing these things, but it would be nice if they'd be honest about their reasons for it. It's not "respect." It's "fear."

F. C. Bauerschmidt

I hate to be a pollyanna (really), but maybe the NYPress learned something from the JPII incident (after all, it does have a different editor now).

Frankly, I don't care if the media in the US are not printing these cartoons simply because they're a bunch of liberal hypocrites. It doesn't mean that they're not doing the right thing.

Sam Howard

The publisher is not inconsistent.

They disciplined the previous editorial staff that published the Pope piece (presumably they didn't have to clear it beforehand).

And they refused to publish the second.

Both were deemed offensive. Both were clamped down upon. No inconsistency.

(I do disagree with the publishers position though. I think they should have published the cartoons. At this point the cartoons ARE the news. The Pope thing OTOH had no redeeming value.)

c matt

Frankly, I don't care if the media in the US are not printing these cartoons simply because they're a bunch of liberal hypocrites. It doesn't mean that they're not doing the right thing.

Doing the right thing requires not only the action done be proper, but the proper intent for doing it. So, if they are refusing to print because of fear or hypocrisy, arguably they are not doing the right thing.

I would hardly be doing the "right thing" if I saved someone from drowning only so I could steal their money before it sank to the bottom of the sea.


Someone needs to teach Sam Howard English. Publish - not publish is about as inconsistent as you can get.


Guess what subculture comes to mind from this kind of attack.


Jay, Sam Howard did not say publish-not publish was consistent. He said disciplined-refused is consistent.

F. C. Bauerschmidt

I meant "do the right thing" in the pre-moral sense, not that the action was to their credit.

I would rather have a thief save me from drowning than not.



Learn to read!

"This is perhaps the most amazingly brazen moment of inconsistency we've seen yet in the press treatment of this material."

You either agree with that or you're a fool. We know that Sam Howard is in the second category. Are you?


Jay, learn to read Mt. 5:22.

Jane Meyerhofer

Just to calm things down..... my favorite treatment of this whole situation is what the WSJ did. They published a Beautiful picture of Mohammed along with an article pointing out that "no pictures of the prophet" is an invention of radical Islamists. A list of pictures of Mohammed at various museums including the Topkapi was included in the article. The article also claims that Islam demands balance so the proper response to a cartoon is ...another cartoon... not killing and burning. Kind of interesting even if I think the author is whistling in the wind.


"A list of pictures of Mohammed at various museums"
Were they created by Muslim artists for a Muslim audience in a Muslim setting? Just asking.
Are there depictions of Mohammed in the Koran? In mosques?
Pointing to Mohammed's depiction in the frieze at the US Supreme Court is not relevant, really.


I wish it were that easy.

Sometimes I also wish I belonged to a religion that didn't require turning the other cheek. We've got no chips to play but love.

Samuel J. Howard

Jay, just because Amy thinks it doesn't mean I'm an ignoramus if I disagree.

Maybe she can back me up on this, or even that I'm not a fool?

Samuel J. Howard

"Are there depictions of Mohammed in the Koran?"

The Koran is a text...like the Bible, it could be illustrated, but they'd be auxilliary.

Apparently, Persian and Shiite Muslims have at times been less strict about the rule about not portraying Mohammed. A selection is here:


John M. Esparolini

IMO columnist Diana West pegged it just right in her op-ed piece ("Cartoon Rage") today:

"...We dress up our capitulation in fancy talk of 'tolerance,' 'responsibility' and 'sensitivity.' We even congratulate ourselves for having the 'editorial judgment' to make 'pluralism' possible. 'Readers were well served... without publishing the cartoons,' said a Wall Street Journal spokesman. 'CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam,' reported the cable network....

"...Calling these cartoons 'unacceptable,' and censoring ourselves 'in respect' to Islam brings the West into compliance with a central statute of sharia [Islamic "law"--JE]. As [Danish newspaper] Jyllands-Posten's Flemming Rose has noted, that's not respect, that's submission...."



On the "Pope" piece, columnist Alan Cabal wrote "I'm a card-carrying Satanist, and I'm disgusted".

Perhaps the worst offense is that it was NOT funny. At least, none of the parts I managed to read were.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)