NYT’s ‘conservative columnist’ David Brooks: I Am Not #CharlieHebdo

“Left, ‘No Woman, No Cry,’ (1998); right, ‘The Holy Virgin Mary’ (1996), which caused outrage with its depiction of a black Madonna with her right breast replaced by a clump of elephant dung, surrounded by putti formed by images from pornographic magazines.”—photo caption, New York Times website, Oct. 31, 2014 (screen shot of photo above)

Brooks’ column is apparently syndicated and this copy is at another (free) news site. His basic explanation of why he does not support Charlie Hebdo: they’re childish:

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page last week, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that newspaper specializes in.

We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to épater le bourgeois, to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

But after a while most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.)

So why are Piss Christ and the elephant dung Virgin Mary (shown above) considered “art”? And by your own newspaper, I might add.

The critics cannot have it both ways.  For decades, making fun of Christianity has been socially acceptable and no one calls it “childish.”

There are no enraged Christians threatening to commit violence over these pieces of “art”.   So either the newspapers are rank cowards or Islam is intrinsically violent.  Or both.


  • DVult

    Imbecile. People are not critiquing their cartoons. They are objecting to them being killed.

    • Frau Katze

      He doesn’t get it. NYT keeps drifting further and further left.

  • Xavier

    The fact is that the NYT and most of the media are bullies. Who does a bully pick on? Those who do not fight back – like Jews and Christians. When their nose is bloodied (or worse) they retreat and look for weaker victims. If there were ever a time to stand against Islamic terrorism, it is now – yet they continue to rationalize being both bullies and cowards.

  • Alain

    More smoke and mirrors is my view. Anyone who seriously states ‘Je suis Charlie” and has the courage to reprint the or some of the cartoons is doing so in support of freedom of expression. It has absolutely nothing to do with liking or even reading Charlie Hebdo. So where does he stand on the issue of freedom of expression? He sounds like just another free speech for me but not for thee.

  • Minicapt

    Remember: David Brooks was born in Toronto …


  • David Murrell

    “His basic explanation of why he does not support Charlie Hebdo: they’re childish:”

    No, David Brooks. They’re dead. Another mindless diatribe from another forgettable, pro-Islamist, anti-Semitic NYT writer. We can only pray that this sordid, mean-spirited newspaper continues to decline and disappear.