On the New York Times website on Monday morning, these stories were stacked on top of each other, dramatically underlining how the liberal editors there handle the issue of religious groups being associated with violence:
Mexican Church Starts Scrutinizing Donors By DAMIEN CAVE
A crime syndicate leader was a major donor to the church in Pachuca, Mexico, above. The Roman Catholic Church has been trying to confront its historic ties to traffickers.
White House Seeks to Allay Muslims’ Fears By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
As hearings approach on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism, the White House is trying to reassure Muslims.
Cave's story underlines a legitimate moral problem for Mexico's Catholic church -- taking large donations from violent drug lords (not exactly your repentant sinners) carries with it a stain of political and spiritual corruption. But notice how Muslims are the victims of reckless guilt by association, unlike the Catholics. Stolberg chronicled a White House aide sent to a mosque to reassure Muslims that “we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few.”
Question: is that what Damien Cave's story does? Or does it describe an actual problem? The Times says "the Roman Catholic Church" has "historic ties to traffickers," not the actions of a few priests or bishops.
Stolberg doesn't somehow locate the notion that when Obama aide Denis McDonough is pushing guilt by association when he suggests that critics of radicalized Islam are allegedly racist uber-patriots who don't like the way Muslims dress (or for many, their darker skin), and then can be blamed for "pushing" terrorists into radicalism.
“We have a choice,” Mr. McDonough said. “We can choose to send a message to certain Americans that they are somehow ‘less American’ because of their faith or how they look.”
“If we make that choice,” he added, “we risk feeding the very feelings of disenchantment that may push some members of that community to violent extremism.”
