Ouch! Charles M. Blow is a New York Times columnist and the single dad of three 'amazing' children. When Mr. Blow watched the GOP debates Thursday, he got pretty pissed off at Mitt Romney talking about single-parent families having a higher risk of social problems (which is a fact, not his opinion). He was so pissed off that he tweeted a bigoted comment about Romney's religion. On Friday morning, Blow tweeted an apology of sorts, but is it enough?
Blow's tweet said, "Let me just say this Mitt "Muddle Mouth": I'm a single parent and my kids are *amazing*! Stick that in your magic underwear. #CNNdebate". There is no excuse for this. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), their garments are a covenant with God. There is nothing 'magic' about it. Just as Jews wear a yarmulke, Sikhs wear a dastaar and more, members of the LDS Church wear sacred garments. If Mr. Blow had tweeted that a Sikh presidential candidate could 'stick it in his magic turban,' a half-hearted apology would not be accepted.
There is a fine line between not agreeing with someone's religion and being a bigot. There is a large population in America that feels that religion should be banned and they attack people and groups that do not agree with them. When those people attack others in a vicious way, it should be addressed. When an ESPN writer used the phrase "chink in the armor" and got fired for it, it was all over the news. Where's all the news on this? Is it because the writer is black, because he works for the New York Times, because it was said against a Mormon or maybe because Romney is a Republican? There are some very serious mixed messages going on here.
Charles M. Blow tweeted what was supposed to be an apology, "Btw, the comment I made about Mormonism during Wed.'s debate was inappropriate, and I regret it. I'm willing to admit that with no caveats." This is not an apology. The New York Times has no plans do address Blow's conduct. No surprise there. More and more, behavior that would put a conservative out of work is totally acceptable when it comes from the left. He doesn't deserve to lose his job, but more should be done.
© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39
It would seem that our Society has become very "selective" where bigotry is concerned.
And, Leftist outlets like 'The New York Times,' and ESPN, are some of the prime movers...
With them, it's fine to demean anything 'Religion;' but don't dare go near the Lefts Sacred Cows...
Just because someone is a part of the media doesn't mean they're not entitled to speak their mind and it doesn't mean they don't have the same rights as the rest of us to speak their opinions on their personal social networking sites. He didn't do it at work. NYT probably sees it the same way - - and probably isn't too interested in punishing one of their people for expressing his freedom of speech on his own time.
I know, I know.. it's an outrage.
Consider this: We write for Gather News, and while many of the writers here do so under fake names and only write for page view money, some of us actually develop a following on here.
Who's to say neither one of us or other determined writers for Gather couldn't be "punished" however our content managers see fit if *we* speak our opinions on our personal networking profiles?
(luckily Gather wouldn't do that kind of thing, but you get my point right? We're in the media too. Our stuff shows up in News results and gets read by thousands of people (sometimes hundreds of thousands in a month) .... Does that mean we should be completely dead as far as personality goes so as not to "offend" others who may expect our publishing platforms to "punish" us?
I'm sure we've all spoken our opinions on Twitter, FB and G+ in a way that would be insensitive to others. But that's the thing. It's our personal networking profiles and we have the rights to our opinions.
No, Gather wouldn't do "that kind of thing" to a Leftist, here, or to Leftist blatherings like yours. However, they are quite efficient, as are you, with that 'Comment Delete' button.
And, they are also quite adept at issuing countless warnings to those that you constantly report for disagreeing with you.
Which way would you have it, Hoffman?
Free Speech for ALL...or simply for you, and those who think as YOU do???
Mark, don't ugly up Margie's post with your personality. I'm sure she doesn't appreciate it.
As for comparing it to the ESPN "Chink in the Armor" headline, I think the difference might be that the person who wrote it did it as part of his job, and the headline appeared on an ESPN website. As far as I know, Charles Blow's Twitter account is his personal account, not one controlled and managed by the NYT. If so, that would be like them firing him for saying something inappropriate at a dinner party.
In addition, the incident raises the question of whether it's actually inappropriate to ridicule a person's beliefs or behavior if they are religious in nature. Does an idea or action become automatically exempted from criticism or even ridicule simply because it is, to some extent other, somehow associated with religion? I don't think so.
IIRC Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder was canned under these exact circumstances.
There are many more cases like this and not suprisingly the circumstance was a private comment and the subject was a brittle minority.
The lesson from this is it is okay to openly and publicly mock and be derisive of Catholics, men, white people in general, former Alaskan Govenors, Mormons, Conservatives in general, job providers, etc. but not ever privately comment about brittle minorities or crimnals or lazy parasites or ignorant enablers.
Funny... that's what I do every day for a living publicly....
I think it is yet another example of extreme political correctness. It just makes me lose respect for him, like I would with anyone who mocks another's religion, but does he deserve to be fired? No, I don't think so.
To me, the difference is intent.
to say 'chink in the armor' is somehow a reference to a players race is ludicrous! it is an expression, and the contents show that the words definition is dent, or weak spot.
eee gawd!
now yes, blow has a right to say what he wants on his personal time/place - but with that comes more responsibility as a jounalist, with possible repurcussions another person may not have. would not doubt that there is a clause in his contract that covers public behavior on and off the timeclock.
i dont know if 'magic underwear' relates to being mormon or not - on the surface it seems to me simply a dumb, nonsensical comment.
as to the poiint of this post - yes it is highly hypocritical to look for ways to invent an insult one person made and dwell on it, then make excuses for, and ignore another.
lol - yea who would think her actually meant, what the phrase means huh?
next i will hear that saying 'good old days' is code for insulting young people, 'give me a break' is code for inciting violence, 'mans gotta do what a mans gotta do' is code speak for mysogeny, and 'go fly a kite' is code speak using mis-spellings to secretly promote anti-semitism.
we done lost our freakin minds (being no offense and in no way a reference single people (we), those that procrastinate (done), those that forget where they out things (lost), anyone different from me (our), to the mentally or physically handicapped (freakin minds).
This has been a public service announcement beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
I don't know about exact, but certainly close enough. Snyder's comments were considered racist, which I think isn't likely to be viewed in the same way as ridiculing someone's actions or beliefs.
But it relates to this particular issue in another way, too. Racism and racial supremacist beliefs are generally considered open to criticism and ridicule. Yet for many people, apparently, religious beliefs aren't. It gets complicated when the racism is based on religious beliefs -- think Christian Identity, Nation of Yahweh, the LDS Church before the "revelation" in '78, etc.
Wearing a tinfoil hat as protection from mind-control rays used by beings from another planet is a behavior generally considered open to criticism and/or ridicule. Yet wearing special underwear as a form of spiritual and/or physical protection is considered by some (many?) to be off-limits to all criticism and/or ridicule due to the religious aspect.
2. Hank Williams Jr.'s comment (Hitler/Obama) was not racist.
3. Juan Williams' comment was not racist.
4. Rush Limbaugh's comment (McNabb) was not racist.
5. Trent Lott's comment (Thurmond) was not racist.
6. Bill Bennett's comment was not racist.
These guys all lost their gig because of over reaction by brittle idiots.
1. Harry Reids comment was not racist?
2. Joe Bidens comment was not racist?
3. Bill Clinton's comment was not racist?
4. Hillary Clinton's comment was not racist?
5. Al Sharpton's comment was not racist?
Not one of these people suffered any consequence for their comment. These comments weren't even mentioned in the media but live on in internet search engines. Google "when democrats get racist".
It's such an immediate forum, but really, a guy can think a couple seconds before hitting post. He's displaying ineptitude in his chosen craft.
Just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I must have missed that poll, the last one I saw said the largest part of the population was religious, minus a tiny minority.
I believe they ARE persecuted, they are mocked in the states, elsewhere they are actually being murdered and churches are being burned to the ground in this Arab spring.
If you do not think Christians are marginalized by the media, do you have example(s) of when they have inflated claims of being persecuted?
Yes, Reginald. I'd love to hear about them... ;)