NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

[East of Eden]

Jesus didn't write the bible. Other people did based on loads of hearsay about Jesus and they added their share of believes.

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

A proper prophet would have made sure his words are properly written down instead of wasting all his time preaching and relying on some fools to get it right later. That is at least something on can say about Mohammed his words found their way into the Qur'an in a much more direct way.

No thanks, I don't need a murdering and pedophile prophet. Jesus harmed nobody.

[dusk]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.
It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.
It is also a bit funny that if you assume the greek gods to be real and dig up stuff about Hercules you end up with a figure that has about as much indirekt historic validity as Jesus.

No thanks, I don't need a murdering and pedophile prophet. Jesus harmed nobody.

That is not really an argument now, is it?
I don't like him so I take the other one. Mohammed still is historically the better documented person and his word is, however much you dislike him or not, more directly accessible than that of Jesus. It is possible (I don't say it was that way) Jesus was some really small insignificant little preacher or just a kind of story teller people liked to listen too. And the true masters of preaching where those that took that little seed and spread it. It seems perfectly reasonable that we would still have ended up at the same place we are now.
With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.

If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.


Besides all this. Jesus was probably a very nice guy but god isn't.
I think the Jews are the most advanced religion because of quite a few of their basic believes (they appear a bit more like grown ups to me instead of childlike behavior of many Muslims) but I still just don't like the OT very much.
Because of the god it depicts. Why would I prove my loyalty to a god who wants me to sacrifice my son? Goes against anything I think morally right. Such a god would not be worthy of a second though from my part. I think in many stories god looks like some really depraved ruler who needs too much attention and asks stuff from his subjects they just cannot fulfill, because he forgot to give them the right tools.

Christians are legally ridiculed because that is how it is supposed to be, with every Religion and non religious believe frameworks. The Christians specifically earned all the insults with their history and usually do not pout like little children anymore. It is one thing if a bunch of people gather in front of your church and throw insults at you, and another if a newspaper prints some funny cartoon or something else that happens in the public square.
Not everything is a personal insult and people that cannot keep one from the other and go banana over it, just need to be educated IMO.

[micatala]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing. The fact you disagree with Ms. Geller is irrelevant, or are you saying free speech is only for those you agree with?

[East of Eden]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.

Being God, He did write it himself. The bible was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

It is also a bit funny that if you assume the greek gods to be real and dig up stuff about Hercules you end up with a figure that has about as much indirekt historic validity as Jesus.

Where did I say anything about Greek gods? If they were real, they were demonic. Few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus.

That is not really an argument now, is it?

The character of a leader certainly is.

Mohammed still is historically the better documented person

Was Mohammed mentioned by a historian the stature of Tacitus and Josephus, who did mention Jesus?

With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.

The difference between the two is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles (as the Koran says), and rose from the dead.

If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.

And some peoples wishful thinking is that there be no God to be accountable to.

Besides all this. Jesus was probably a very nice guy but god isn't.
I think the Jews are the most advanced religion because of quite a few of their basic believes (they appear a bit more like grown ups to me instead of childlike behavior of many Muslims) but I still just don't like the OT very much.
Because of the god it depicts. Why would I prove my loyalty to a god who wants me to sacrifice my son?

But God didn't sacrifice Isaac, he was testing Abraham. Had Abraham failed that test God would have simply used someone else to accomplish His purposes.

[micatala]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.

I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.

That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.

And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment. You continue to conflate people opposing what someone says with violations of free speech.


Again, I would like to see the ad, but if the NY Times wants to publish it, that is there business and I support Ms. Gellar's rights to free speech and her right to seek publication for her views.

The fact you disagree with Ms. Geller is irrelevant, or are you saying free speech is only for those you agree with?

Never said any such thing.


As far as the publication of the ad, sure, my disagreements with Ms. Gellar, my objections to her lack of truthfulness, etc. are irrelevant.

But, with respect to Ms. Gellar's Freedom of Speech, your OP is also irrelevant.



To the extent that the issue is the morality or hypocrisy of the Times, or the appropriateness of either Ms. Gellar's ad or the other ad you allude to, then Ms. Gellar's truthfulness, the extent to which her view reflect bigotry, etc. are certainly relevant.



Would you object if the NY Times had refused to air the original "anti-Catholic" ad?
Would you object if they refused to run an offensive ad by white supremacists, or Taliban sympathizers?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

Oh please. The Christian holy text is chock full of condemnation for all who disagree.

Jesus never told His followers to behead non-believers, as the 'prophet' did in word and deed.

Does one really need to mention lopping folks' heads off, when that someone is sitting there telling folks to be hating others?

Don't you regularly condemn those who disagree with you?

My answer, either way, has no bearing on the Bible containing condemnation for those who disagree.

[Atrax Robustus]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?

It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.

Being God, He did write it himself. The bible was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You make the same assertion as someone who claims the same inspiration for the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon for example. Is the bible the only valid revealed text? If so, what evidence can you possibly bring to bear that would convince an atheist, muslim or mormon?

Mohammed still is historically the better documented person

Was Mohammed mentioned by a historian the stature of Tacitus and Josephus, who did mention Jesus?

Do you really consider that to be an argument? Seriously?

With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.

The difference between the two is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles (as the Koran says), and rose from the dead.

So, if I propose to you that the stories of Jeshua were developed with the specific intent of asserting that the OT prophecies were fulfilled, on what basis would you argue against me? Same argument applies to the miracles and resurrection - Josephus and Tacitus, whom you believe to be authorative, didn't mention anything about miracles or resurrections - why would that be?

If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.

And some peoples wishful thinking is that there be no God to be accountable to.

Wishful thinking? Is it illogical to suspend belief in something for which there is not one iota of evidence?


Edit: Response amended to address multiple comments.

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.

I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.

That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.

The bottom line here is, the NYT limited speech due to pressure from Muslims.

And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment.

I never claimed the First Amendment was involved. The 1A pertains to Congress.

]As far as the publication of the ad, sure, my disagreements with Ms. Gellar, my objections to her lack of truthfulness, etc. are irrelevant.

Off topic, but what lack of truthfulness?

To the extent that the issue is the morality or hypocrisy of the Times, or the appropriateness of either Ms. Gellar's ad or the other ad you allude to, then Ms. Gellar's truthfulness, the extent to which her view reflect bigotry, etc. are certainly relevant.

But the bigotry of the anti-Catholic ad isn't relevant? Why the double standard?

Would you object if the NY Times had refused to air the original "anti-Catholic" ad?
Would you object if they refused to run an offensive ad by white supremacists, or Taliban sympathizers?

I just want them to be consistent, and not be intimidated by pressure groups.

[East of Eden]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?

Cite?

You make the same assertion as someone who claims the same inspiration for the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon for example. Is the bible the only valid revealed text?

In my opinion, yes. Because there are false religions doesn't prove all religions are false.

If so, what evidence can you possibly bring to bear that would convince an atheist, muslim or mormon?

It depends on the individual. Many from all three of those groups have become Christians.

Do you really consider that to be an argument? Seriously?

Uh, yes, what serious historians attest too is usually considered evidence.

So, if I propose to you that the stories of Jeshua were developed with the specific intent of asserting that the OT prophecies were fulfilled, on what basis would you argue against me?

That it would be pretty hard for Jesus to 'rig' his place of birth, lineage, details of his death and burial to fulfill OT prophecy.

Same argument applies to the miracles and resurrection - Josephus and Tacitus, whom you believe to be authorative, didn't mention anything about miracles or resurrections - why would that be?

The 'wondrous works' Josephus spoke of were very possible a reference to the miracles. Jesus' Jewish enemies reference His miracles both in the NT and the later Bablyonian Talmud. (They ascribe them to 'sorcery'.) The Koran references Jesus' miracles. Why would that be?

Wishful thinking? Is it illogical to suspend belief in something for which there is not one iota of evidence?

You would be right, if there were really not one iota of evidence.