Related articles and links |  1 of 16

New York Times, Los Angeles Times lash out against Boykin 'bigotry'
The third- and fourth-largest newspapers in the country agree: Lt. Gen. William Boykin is a "bigot" who should be immediately kicked out of his post. A New York Times editorial today condemns his "grossly offensive gospel" as "brimstone bigotry." A Los Angeles Times editorial yesterday said his remarks were "unforgivable," "anti-Muslim," and pure "bigotry."

Do these newspaper editorial boards actually read the newspapers? The first Los Angeles Times article about Boykin, back in October, was clearly based in the bias of William M. Arkin, but it at least noted that one of Boykin's main points was that radical Islamic terrorists are as different from most Muslims as the KKK is from most Christians. The Los Angeles Times also reported, "In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith." Those details have long been purged from vitriolic screeds against the Army general, as both Times newspapers have screamed that he's "anti-Muslim."

The newspapers have so far not published a single in-context quote where Boykin disparaged Islam as a whole. The best they've got is his remarks to Somali warlord Osman Atto, who had claimed that Allah would protect him from American troops. "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Boykin said. If you're going to say that this comment disparages all Muslims, then you're going to have to say that Atto was a true Muslim, and that his God really is the Allah of Islam. The New York Times says Boykin's Atto comment is a "walking contradiction" of claims that the war against terror is "not a crusade against Islam." The Los Angeles Times likewise says the Atto comment is incompatible with Bush's statement that Islam "teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women." (It's interesting that the Times here is praising Bush's promotion of a religion.)

The Timeses perfectly miss the point. Why is Bush saying the Islam is a religion of peace? To separate "true" Islam from the terrorists' brand, which is a religion of hatred and violence. Both newspapers are not siding with Islam—they're siding with a terrorist who uses Islam.

Maybe Boykin did disparage Islam as a whole. But if he did, you'd think the papers would have shown us the quote by now. It seems probable that the Los Angeles Times has full transcripts of Boykin's speeches. And given that media reports have repeatedly conflated Boykin's statements about Christians' spiritual warfare against Satan with the war on terrorism, it seems like full transcripts would help to inform the public on something that these newspapers think is such an important public issue. Why not tell us what Boykin really said, instead of giving us a few out-of-context snippets?

To Weblog, it sure sounds like Boykin was making speeches about spiritual warfare, not the war on terror. But let's say that the few Boykin quote snippets that keep getting quoted are in the context that the newspapers say they are. Here's what Boykin said: America is engaged in a spiritual war, Satan is more of a threat than Osama bin Laden, Islamic terrorists are idolaters, America is grounded in a Judeo-Christian heritage, terrorists have targeted the U.S. because of that heritage.

Those beliefs are unacceptable for a man in uniform, say these editorials. Weblog can't help but wonder: Who's displaying bigotry?

next page... |  1 of 16

August (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48