The Washington Post's double standard on religious cartoons

Clarice Feldman
Yesterday the Washington Post ran this Oliphant cartoon, insulting to Pentecostals (and Palin):
Some time ago when asked why the paper refused to print the Mohammed cartoons the paper responded:
Philip Kennicott [WaPo staff writer]: I think the Post has remained consistent to its values throughout this. I asked Len Downie, our executive editor, about why we haven't run them [the Danish cartoons]. He sent me this message:
"It would violate our standards for taste to publish them. We keep many things out of the paper on those grounds, including gratuitous nudity, violence, obscenity and racial, ethnic and religious slurs."
That seems right to me. It's not paternalism, but the basic values of the institution. And one of those rules that, while it's not always possible to live by it 100 percent, if you constantly aim for it, you're better off.
h/t: DebinNC

Do you suppose  Pentecostals would fare better if they threaten to behead the Post's editors. Just asking.
Yesterday the Washington Post ran this Oliphant cartoon, insulting to Pentecostals (and Palin):
Some time ago when asked why the paper refused to print the Mohammed cartoons the paper responded:
Philip Kennicott [WaPo staff writer]: I think the Post has remained consistent to its values throughout this. I asked Len Downie, our executive editor, about why we haven't run them [the Danish cartoons]. He sent me this message:
"It would violate our standards for taste to publish them. We keep many things out of the paper on those grounds, including gratuitous nudity, violence, obscenity and racial, ethnic and religious slurs."
That seems right to me. It's not paternalism, but the basic values of the institution. And one of those rules that, while it's not always possible to live by it 100 percent, if you constantly aim for it, you're better off.
h/t: DebinNC

Do you suppose  Pentecostals would fare better if they threaten to behead the Post's editors. Just asking.