Remember that whole religious freedom idea that the United States was based upon? Good idea, right? No favoritism, just the freedom to practice and a basic respect for those religions that you don’t practice? Well, the New York Times is here to say tosh on that! The Times has arrived at a firm policy that Christianity should be attacked but Islam is sacrosanct, never to be smeared!

At least, one would be excused for reading this as the Times’ firm policy considering the recent flap over competing advertisements, one that the Times happily published and another the erstwhile paper of record refused to print. One that excoriated Christianity published by the Times and one on Islam the Times rejected.

The ad in question was a vicious anti-Catholic ad replete with calls for Catholics to turn against (and quit) their religion and featuring a satirical cartoon of a Catholic official. The ad was placed in the Times by a virulent anti-Catholic group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The ad was reminiscent of the Nazi’s cartoons against Jews in the run up to WWII.

Naturally, Catholic groups were incensed at the Times for taking this hate-ad.

Consequently, Pam Geller of, a noted activist against radical Islam, decided to create an add mimicking the anti-Catholic add that The New York Times ran but instead of being anti-Catholic, her ad was anti-radical Islam.

Naturally, in a truly hypocritical move, the NYT refused to run Geller’s Islam-themed ad. Geller noted that the Times gave her reason, too. The Times claimed that they might run the ad later but said that it would incite Muslims to kill our soldiers overseas if run now. She quotes the Times as telling her: “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

A pretty weak excuse, really.

Interestingly, Fox News gets some of the particulars about this story wrong. They call Geller an “anti-Islam” activist. She is not. She is an anti-jihadist, an anti-radical Islam activist, not an anti-Islam activist. This is an important point that Fox decided to ignore.

Certainly the NYT can publish any advertisement it likes. No one is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to pick one over another. But the Times’ actions here speak volumes. It shows where the Times’ loyalties are. Sadly, The New York Times is eagerly in favor of the destruction of Christianity but not as zealous about ridding the world of radical Islam.