Ran out here in the “Peoples Republic of Portland”.
The conservative Spokane Spokesman-Review also ran it.
The Calgary Herald didn’t run it. (Not American, but I thought it was worth mentioning.)
Well it looks to me that the majority of papers ran the strip. And since we all know that the OVERWHELMING majority of the media is composed of dirty hippy liberals, there is only one conclusion: it was the cowardly, hypocritical, gutless conservative papers that pulled it while crying like a little girl in quivering pants-wetting terror of offending some middle-eastern terrorists. Go figure…
The Fremont Argus ran it, and we have a large population of Afghanis here. Its editorial stance is fairly liberal also.
Uhhh… I really thought this was in the pit. I retract the above. Sorry all.
Christianity represents the conservative “establishment” or “the powers that be” in the US to a large extent. Muslims are a small minority group, so there is no comparison. Liberals and the media usaully bend over backwards to avoid criticizing Christianity and the backlash that would ensue. Conservatives frequently emphasize their religious faith in order to portray themselves as automatically Good and to deflect criticism. The only hypocrisy here is conservatives playing the politically correct, I’m-a-victim card.
As for the charge of cowardice, well, maybe.
What I wanna know is did it get printed in the Bloom Picayune?
To that end, we have contacted the editor, one William T. “Bill” Cat. His comment, in its entirety, was “Aaaack!”. We are perplexed as to interpretations.
Ran as a massive full-page strip in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle.
Not exactly your bastion of conservativeness.
The strip ran in the (centrist) Columbus (OH) Dispatch. I glanced at it but saw nothing to suggest the likelihood of major outraged reactions, or for that matter much reaction at all.
Still, no doubt our local hyperventilating CAIR* representative has sent a fulminating letter to the editor.
*Complaining Arabs In Rage
The Washington Post, however, which is the home newspaper for the strip (it is syndicated by the Washington Post Writer’s Group) did not run the strip. This is in contrast to the strip making fun of the recently deceased Jerry Falwell, which was run without any discussion at all.
I guess the editors at the WaPo are more confident that the Moral Majority will not respond to satire with violence. The radicals in Islam, perhaps, not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
Alternatively, they figured that no member of the so-called Moral Majority would actually read the WaPo. 
Has anyone yet found a statement from the Washington Post that gives their reason for choosing to not run it?
Read my cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Jerry Falwell is not a world religion and did not represent a world religion. The Falwell strip wasn’t even insulting or offensive to Christians. It just had a punchline that Falwell must be annoyed that liberals were in heaven with him. How is that a shot at Christians? Your Fox News link draws a completely idiotic comparison between the two strips when they are utterly un-analogous.
WAPO also doesn’t say they pulled the strip because they feared violence but because it bothered Muslim staffers at the paper and because they were uncomfortable with the sexual innuendo of the punchline.
That’s not to say that I think the strip should have been pulled, but the comparison to the Falwell strip is retarded, as is your smug insinuation that WAPO feared violent reprisals.
It should also be said that even if they did fear violence, you would be in no moral position to make any judgements about them since you are in no danger yourself. It’s easy to be brave with other people’s lives. Conservatives excel at that.
It’s still a pretty weak reason to pull a strip. Humor should tweak people’s sensibilities.
This is, at least partially, the topic of today’s Chatalogical Humor with Gene Weingarten, humor columnist for the Post. He also disagrees with the decision to hold the strips.
Read my question.
From your citation:
Despite speculation from the Writer’s Group subsidiary, I would still be interested to see an actual comment by WaPo management.
I don’t understand the standards of the Washington Post. The also ran this cartoon which left a really bad taste in my mouth. I can sort of, kind of, rationalize it by thinking that perhaps the cartoonist is trying to lampoon the sentiments expressed in the cartoon. But I get the feeling that’s not the case.
In case you can’t see the link, a figure of Uncle Sam is pushing a small boat full of men labelled “Cuban-Americans”, in the direction of Cuba. Uncle Sam is saying “Mr. Obama has made the excellent suggestion that you nuisances be allowed to freely visit Cuba…which I think is a Dam’ fine idea. Bon Voyage!” The men in the boat are saying “Outrageous! We demand a chance to interfere with the '08 election!”. In the water a small worm(?) is saying “Say hello to Batista!”
There are so many thing offensive in that cartoon I simply can not imagine what it is trying to say. Is it implying that by voting in the 08 election Cuban-Americans would interfere with it? Is it saying that the USA would be well rid of Cuban-Americans? Is it implying that all Cuban-Americans are Batista supporters? Like with most instances of prejudice I am at a loss to explain it.
By the way, the cartoonist name is Pat Oliphant, for what it is worth.
I repeat, read the cite.
From my cite;
How hard do you need your nose rubbed in this?
The head of the organization that syndicates the strip from its home newspaper, the Washington Post, sends out an alert. The Washington Post, its home newspaper, declines to run the strip, because it made a joke about Islam and contained a sex joke.
If you’re looking for a quote from the editors saying, “By golly, we shit our pants at the thought of pissing off the Muslims, but Jerry Falwell’s followers can go fuck themselves”, you are probably not going to find it. Those who make big noises about how sacrosanct the role of a free press but then cave instantly at the thought of not being politically incorrect are not likely to admit their hypocrisy.
Sometimes you need to make inferences. Especially when you are dealing with hypocrites. If you prefer to stay in denial over it, even a direct admission isn’t going to help.
Remember the denial fest over the Halperin memo? Same shit.
Sheesh.
Regards,
Shodan