The Crap Factor - Week 3: 50% Crap
This week, O'Reilly is outraged by the New York Times refusing to print the Danish cartoon which has enraged Muslims throughout the world, but printing a picture of a work of art with the Virgin Mary covered in feces. He also references some other similar works of art which were reported on by the New York Times and others.
Once again, O'Reilly is comparing apples and oranges. In all of his examples, the "secular-progressive press" was the originator of the anti-Christian stories. They were reporting on local works of art. In the case of the Danish cartoon, the New York Times and others were not the originators, but were rather reporting on other newspapers.
Essentially, O'Reilly doesn't want there to be any religiously offensive material ever printed anywhere. The example he uses of the play "Corpus Christi," which, according to O'Reilly, "featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles," is clearly an artistic statement about the destructive views toward homosexuality by many Christians. While this may be offensive to some Christians, the Christian views toward homosexuality are much more offensive.
Clearly an editorial decision was made that the result of printing the cartoon would furthur contribute to the worldwide violence. If the cartoon were not so readily available, like for example, if if were a local work of art that had not already been printed by hundreds of newspapers throughout the world, I believe that the NYT would be more inclined to print it.
In a supposedly free press, newspapers have the right to print material which is likely to offend someone. I would even go so far as to say that it is a responsibility. It is equally a right for people to protest to show their opposition to it. Unfortunately, many of these protests have taken place in areas of the world that are not terribly familiar with the concept of peaceful demonstration, and have led to violence.
In summary, perhaps it was somewhat inconsistent for the New York Times to reprint photos of the Virgin Mary painting, while refusing to show the offending cartoon they were comparing it to. That is not an argument in favor of censorship of all offensive material, as O'Reilly suggests. O'Reilly's statements are very offensive to me, yet I don't argue that he shouldn't be able to print them. What would he propose? He says that the majority of the US is Christian, and these works of art are offensive to Christians, so newspapers should not be allowed to print them. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those Christians would not be infavor of the type of censorship that he suggests.
Crap Factor: 50% - is was a little hypocritial for the NY Times to print the offending anti-Christian piece, but not the offending anti-Muslim piece, but this is not an argument in favor of increased censorship.
Once again, O'Reilly is comparing apples and oranges. In all of his examples, the "secular-progressive press" was the originator of the anti-Christian stories. They were reporting on local works of art. In the case of the Danish cartoon, the New York Times and others were not the originators, but were rather reporting on other newspapers.
Essentially, O'Reilly doesn't want there to be any religiously offensive material ever printed anywhere. The example he uses of the play "Corpus Christi," which, according to O'Reilly, "featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles," is clearly an artistic statement about the destructive views toward homosexuality by many Christians. While this may be offensive to some Christians, the Christian views toward homosexuality are much more offensive.
Clearly an editorial decision was made that the result of printing the cartoon would furthur contribute to the worldwide violence. If the cartoon were not so readily available, like for example, if if were a local work of art that had not already been printed by hundreds of newspapers throughout the world, I believe that the NYT would be more inclined to print it.
In a supposedly free press, newspapers have the right to print material which is likely to offend someone. I would even go so far as to say that it is a responsibility. It is equally a right for people to protest to show their opposition to it. Unfortunately, many of these protests have taken place in areas of the world that are not terribly familiar with the concept of peaceful demonstration, and have led to violence.
In summary, perhaps it was somewhat inconsistent for the New York Times to reprint photos of the Virgin Mary painting, while refusing to show the offending cartoon they were comparing it to. That is not an argument in favor of censorship of all offensive material, as O'Reilly suggests. O'Reilly's statements are very offensive to me, yet I don't argue that he shouldn't be able to print them. What would he propose? He says that the majority of the US is Christian, and these works of art are offensive to Christians, so newspapers should not be allowed to print them. I would be willing to bet that the majority of those Christians would not be infavor of the type of censorship that he suggests.
Crap Factor: 50% - is was a little hypocritial for the NY Times to print the offending anti-Christian piece, but not the offending anti-Muslim piece, but this is not an argument in favor of increased censorship.
posted by Immoral Majority at 10:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home