The Media Research Center's Clay Waters has reported that the New York Times has repeatedly refused to publish any drawings of Muhammad.
The Times released a statement saying it avoids "material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities," after the deadly attack by Muslim militants on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's office in France.
The Washington Times' Valerie Richardson reported on June 3:
"Critics are crying double standard over the New York Times' decision to run an image last week of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung after refusing to print sketches of the Prophet Muhammad.
"The newspaper printed Friday an image in its Art & Design section of 'The Holy Virgin Mary,' a 1996 painting by the artist Chris Ofili."
This painting was described in the article as an "eight-foot-high depiction of the Virgin Mary encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms from pornographic magazines."
When this atrocious and religion-smearing porn was first unveiled at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999, it ignited a furor.
The Media Research Center's Waters has asked:
"So why does Ofili's dung-clotted Virgin Mary get a pass?"
The Washington Times reports:
"A request for comment late Monday to the New York Times was not immediately returned."
(And I would advise the requester not to hold his breath.)
The appearance of "The Holy Virgin Mary" in the Times touched off a rash of criticism from conservatives, who accused the newspaper of hypocrisy in its treatment of Christians versus Muslims.
The website Freedom Outposts' Walid Shoebat declared:
"The New York Times' hypocrisy regarding displays of offensive religious imagery runs unabated."
Then, in the Daily Caller, Jim Treacher wrote that the Times' "contradiction" boils down to cowardice.
"Nobody at the 'Newspaper of Record' cares about offending religious people. They just don't want to be killed for blasphemy,' said Mr. Treacher. 'They know that offended Christians are unlikely to attack them, so they don't give a second thought to publishing images like this."
Last month, in Garland, Texas, there was a "Draw Muhammad" art contest.
Two armed men with ties to Islam were killed by police as they attempted violence against this Muhammadan parody.
Many Muslims consider any drawing of Muhammad to be akin to idol worship. WND columnist Pamela Geller, the activist who sponsored the Texas contest, was accused of "an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom" – in a New York Times op-ed.
In Phoenix, Arizona, May 29, hundreds of protesters gathered outside a "Draw Muhammad" contest, but there were no arrests or violence at this even sponsored by ex-Marine Jon Ritzheimer.
In one of art history's more astounding statements, artist Ofili told the New York Times in 1999 that his decision to use elephant dung was – in his words:
"A way of raising the paintings up from the ground and giving them a feeling that they've come from the earth rather than simply being hung on a wall."
Does this incredible porn-artist recognize that most people consider his work disgusting? I doubt that he does.
But the New York Times' decision to publish the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung – while refusing to publish even sketches of the prophet Muhammad – is hypocrisy that is simply outrageous.
Media wishing to interview Les Kinsolving, please contact [email protected].