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?

[99percentatheism]

The only group in the world it is legal and celebrated in secular society to insult is Christians (and Christianity).

And besides, the NYT Ads sales reps do not want to be beheaded on the subway by those following Islam the religion of peace.

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

"Christian persecution" is a common attempt by some to put themselves out there as a "loving" but "disrespected" bunch.

When your holy text quits condemning others, perhaps that bunch of others'll quit condemning you.

Spinspinspinspinspin. You guys all use the same tactics book.


Our "Holy Book" does not condemn one repentant person at all. Every one came from the position of disagreement.

And what's laughable, is that those that hold that The Bible is myth and fairy tale make such an issue of what it says about them. Aesop hasn't written anything that causes me woe in any way.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

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

"Christian persecution" is a common attempt by some to put themselves out there as a "loving" but "disrespected" bunch.

When your holy text quits condemning others, perhaps that bunch of others'll quit condemning you.

Spinspinspinspinspin. You guys all use the same tactics book.

Does 99percentatheism deny the Bible contains the following passage:

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

?

Our "Holy Book" does not condemn one repentant person at all. Every one came from the position of disagreement.

I never said it condemns folks who agree.

Are you capable of arguing this issue on what is actually presented, or do you prefer to use diversionary tactics?

And what's laughable, is that those that hold that The Bible is myth and fairy tale make such an issue of what it says about them. Aesop hasn't written anything that causes me woe in any way.

I'm just not gettin' a lot of 'Aesopists' trying to dictate how I go about living my life.

Is 99percentatheism willing to argue this issue on what is actually presented, or are strawman arguments gonna be the order of the day?

It never fails to amuse me when theists present the comparison of admitted fable to their own 'holy' texts.

[dusk]

Did anyone read the frist Anti-Catholic letter?
I think most of the Catholics would actually agree with many of those accusations yet not the conclusion. Still they can handle it and the ones that cannot are out of luck.
During the last years with all the stuff about the boys and priests in Catholic institutions that happened some decades ago, there was much worse in news papers and nobody complains.

The anti-islam letter is a bit over the top. As an editor I would send at least the bottom half back and demand it to be rewritten or deleted. On a newspaper that is read world wide one can formulate this message in a more diplomatic way.

I wonder if it wouldn't be so bad if Muslims would get a broadside someday so they can get over it and move on. The outrage every time mohammed is criticized is just ridiculous. Via Internet and Social Media the masses have left the bubble they used to live in. Moderate muslims in non muslim countries are used to critic and shrug it off just like the Catholics, the Mormons, the Protestants, and all the rest.
They are too sensitive maybe the equivalent of a hyposensitization therapy initialized by the Anonymous hacker group would help bring them to reason. Sorry for the Muslims that don't deserve it but it sounds like a quick fix and they will survive it. With Anonymous starting it nobody can really be blamed and ones it caught on there is just no few points to blame left.

Regardless of if it is possible? Would you think it could work or do more harm than good in the end?
Other religious people rarely burn buildings, storm consulates and stuff (ANYMORE). Somehow we have to get all the muslims into the modern age too or else it will be difficult for many more decades to come.

[East of Eden]

The only group in the world it is legal and celebrated in secular society to insult is Christians (and Christianity).

And besides, the NYT Ads sales reps do not want to be beheaded on the subway by those following Islam the religion of peace.

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.

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

[dusk]

Jesus didn't write the bible. Other people did based on loads of hearsay about Jesus and they added their share of believes. In the end the holy book is still filled with the stuff regardless what Jesus said and what he did not.
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.

[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.