Convert to Islam or die: the NYT’s strange definition of “unharmed”
NYT on the release of Fox Correspondent Steve Centanni, 60, of Washington, D.C., and cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, of New Zealand, a subject we have previously discussed:
Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed on Sunday after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam.
How are you “unharmed” if you are forced to give up your own religion and adopt another one — especially if the penalty for leaving that new religion is death? If the publisher of the NYT or managing editor, or other executives, editors or reporters found themselves in similar straits, would they consider themselves “unharmed”? Is being under a lifelong death sentence for apostasy a definition of “unharmed”?
UPDATE
Is it proper to call a thing a “religion” if there is no belief involved, but simply submission to some blah-blah to avoid having your throat cut?
August 28th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
The NY Times coming to the defense of free will and personal property in the fundamental form of ones body? Ha! Well, maybe for abortion, or Gitmo prisoners, but these where white males working for right wing FOX. So, fugehaboutit!
August 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
[...] the link is here. [...]
August 29th, 2006 at 3:35 am
This can hardly be called a “conversion”. It’s just a tactical maneuver to avoid being killed by fanatics. Why not babble whatever their magic words are to get away?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:58 am
As somebody smarter than I has suggested, does anybody think that the NYT would shrug it off if we offered the goblins we have down in Gitmo the choice of death or Christianity?