Pamela Geller: Heroine or Hateful Islamaphobe?

[DCPatriot]

Billy Graham was asked about this last week and his response made me think that there are two main lines of opinion on this, and that they are both correct.

Graham said that it was wrong to mock or insult a person's religion on purpose, and that he didn't like it when people deliberately insulted his Lord and Savior and that while he knew that Jesus was Lord and Savior he understood how others who had not come to Him would feel the same way as he did about their beliefs.

He blamed it all on the death of respect and civility.

I get what Graham said, however Graham was addressing the question of whether or not Geller was right in doing what she did and not whether she had a right to do it.

She has every right to do it and no one has a right to try and kill her for doing it. However I agree with Graham on the idea that it is wrong to do it as a matter of general principle. Certainly it is as wrong to do it as it is putting a crucifix in a jar of urine or defacing an American flag.

So I think Geller was wrong in doing what she did but I also know that she has every right to do it, and I'll defend her right to do it, just as I think that the guy who put the crucifix in the jar of urine was wrong in doing that but I'll equally defend his right to do it.

Hold on, Luis.

Drawing a rendering of Mohammed is in NO WAY, the same as placing a Jesus, crucified into a jar of urine and calling it "Piss Christ".

Just because Islam forbids pictures of Mohammed is no reason to equate them.

For example, let's assume the sketches were all beautifully rendered, and not caricatures or cartoon characters.   Would that have made a difference?

"Insane" is insane.  They're insane.  And they needed to be drawn out into the open here in America.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hold on, Luis.

Drawing a rendering of Mohammed is in NO WAY, the same as placing a Jesus, crucified into a jar of urine and calling it "Piss Christ".

Just because Islam forbids pictures of Mohammed is no reason to equate them.

For example, let's assume the sketches were all beautifully rendered, and not caricatures or cartoon characters.   Would that have made a difference?

"Insane" is insane.  They're insane.  And they needed to be drawn out into the open here in America.

Drawing pictures of Muhammed are offensive to all Muslims, even to those Muslims who are actively fighting Islamic extremists.

You are trying to define the parameters of other people's religious beliefs based on what you find acceptable and proper. I wouldn't allow Muslims to do that to me and my religious beliefs.

Would you?

[aligncare]

Some don't see value in Geller's event. Fair point.

However, I agree with first amendment scholar Eugene Sokokh. What Geller did was more than just an exercise in free speech; yes, it was provocative, but it was important that she and others do the same. It's necessary speech. She drew a bold line defending our values. That's what you do with a bully.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Some don't see value in Geller's event. Fair point.

However, I agree with first amendment scholar Eugene Sokokh. What Geller did was more than just an exercise in free speech; yes, it was provocative, but it was important that she and others do the same. It's necessary speech. She drew a bold line defending our values. That's what you do with a bully.

There were no Muslims (or progressives) arguing in favor of enacting hate speech laws to stop Geller from doing what she did before her exhibition and the consequent shootings. There are many voices now making that argument in the aftermath of it.

Drawing Mohamed is still blasphemy to Muslims today and will continue to be blasphemy irrespective of whatever Geller does.

In other words, her actions may have put our freedom of speech at play and will have zero impact on the subject of her exhibition. 

Value?

[aligncare]

You could have a point if Geller had tried to stage the event in say, Syria.

But She did it in a Judeo Christian country, under the American flag. Engaged in protected speech in full view and defiance of a foreign enemy, a global force that toppled three towers – symbols of Western civilization – killing over three thousand; with a love note saying we will bury your culture.

So what if Geller thumbed her nose at ISIS – let's call it a love note with the suggestion they clean up their act and reform their religion and learn how to play nice with Buddhists and others. As far as I'm concerned, she did it for all civilized people – and it had value. It's up to you whether you choose to recognize it or not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You could have a point if Geller had tried to stage the event in say, Syria.

But She did it in a Judeo Christian country, under the American flag. Engaged in protected speech in full view and defiance of a foreign enemy, a global force that toppled three towers – symbols of Western civilization – killing over three thousand; with a love note saying we will bury your culture.

So what if Geller thumbed her nose at ISIS – let's call it a love note with the suggestion they clean up their act and reform their religion and learn how to play nice with Buddhists and others. As far as I'm concerned, she did it for all civilized people – and it had value. It's up to you whether you choose to recognize it or not.

There are more Muslims fighting Islamic extremests right now than there are Christians fighting them.

She thumbed her nose at them too because they all believe that pictures of Mohammed are blasphemous.

What did she accomplish, other than perhaps adding fuel to a move by CAIR and progressives to enact "hate speech" laws?
 

[Paladin]

Well said, Aligncare: 

As far as I'm concerned, she did it for all civilized people – and it had value. It's up to you whether you choose to recognize it or not.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Drawing pictures of Muhammed are offensive to all Muslims, even to those Muslims who are actively fighting Islamic extremists.  ]]

Quite frankly, Luis, that's just too g**d***ed bad.
If islamics don't like it, tough. Let them go back to dar al-islam and stay there.

[[ You are trying to define the parameters of other people's religious beliefs based on what you find acceptable and proper. I wouldn't allow Muslims to do that to me and my religious beliefs.  ]]

Again, if muslims have religious beliefs that are so sensitive that they cannot tolerate the precepts of Western Civilization -- with the most precious of those precepts being the concept of free speech -- they don't belong here and WE shouldn't tolerate their presence here.

The problem with islam is that it consists of a system of "beliefs" and enforced behaviors that extend far beyond those that can be quantified as [simply] "religious". islam is a political system of control cloaked behind a burqha of "religion".

As such, it should be the duty of those in The West to literally "pull off the burqha", and reveal islam for its true nature.

I don't have any qualms about insulting islam.
I find it disgusting and degenerate.
As Winston Churchill once wrote:
======
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.“
======

Why should we respect something that wants to destroy us?

[Charlespg]

There were no Muslims (or progressives) arguing in favor of enacting hate speech laws to stop Geller from doing what she did before her exhibition and the consequent shootings. There are many voices now making that argument in the aftermath of it.

Drawing Mohamed is still blasphemy to Muslims today and will continue to be blasphemy irrespective of whatever Geller does.

In other words, her actions may have put our freedom of speech at play and will have zero impact on the subject of her exhibition. 

Value?

Hate speech laws are for liberal fascists
and those who cant tolerate criticism

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hate speech laws are for liberal fascists
and those who cant tolerate criticism

Not FOR Charles, FROM.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Drawing pictures of Muhammed are offensive to all Muslims, even to those Muslims who are actively fighting Islamic extremists.  ]]

Quite frankly, Luis, that's just too g**d***ed bad.
If islamics don't like it, tough. Let them go back to dar al-islam and stay there.

[[ You are trying to define the parameters of other people's religious beliefs based on what you find acceptable and proper. I wouldn't allow Muslims to do that to me and my religious beliefs.  ]]

Again, if muslims have religious beliefs that are so sensitive that they cannot tolerate the precepts of Western Civilization -- with the most precious of those precepts being the concept of free speech -- they don't belong here and WE shouldn't tolerate their presence here.

The problem with islam is that it consists of a system of "beliefs" and enforced behaviors that extend far beyond those that can be quantified as [simply] "religious". islam is a political system of control cloaked behind a burqha of "religion".

As such, it should be the duty of those in The West to literally "pull off the burqha", and reveal islam for its true nature.

I don't have any qualms about insulting islam.
I find it disgusting and degenerate.
As Winston Churchill once wrote:
======
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.“
======

Why should we respect something that wants to destroy us?

You're not going to defeat Islam. Not now, not ever.

I know that you don't care, but that's simply the truth, so "not caring" about offending those Muslims with whom we share a bit of common ground with, and sending the signal that even as they fight Iskamists we don't think they are different from Islamists is simply stupid, and generally speaking bad military tactics.

You get off on empty,  meaningless gestures with no thought for the possible future unintended gestures because it "feels good" to do it right now?

Not smart, but not atypical of our side.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well said, Aligncare:

There are many who disagree with aligncare's statement and Geller's actions.

Are they now marginalized as not civilized?

How Islamic.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ You're not going to defeat Islam. Not now, not ever. ]]

Would you (as a Brit) have said the same thing about the Nazis in 1940?
Would you (as an American) have said the same thing about the Soviets, in 1980?
(it was the left back then that was telling us we had no choice but to accept communism and the Soviets as a co-equal force in the world)

If you are such a defeatist (well, that figures, you call yourself a libertarian, right?), why are you even posting about this?

Why aren't you telling us to shut up and accept sharia?
I sense that perhaps you already do.

Again, the words of Churchill (who I'm sure would have made mincemeat of you):
 "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Addendum:
In previous posts, I have outlined the actions that I believe The West must take in response to islam.
Primary among them is the forced return of all muslims on earth, from dar al-harb to dar al-islam.
Once they are there, The West must confine them (and their beliefs) -to- dar al-islam, as if it were a giant sarcophagus, and let their hateful fires burn until either muslims -- or their ideas -- have consumed themselves into ashes...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ You're not going to defeat Islam. Not now, not ever. ]]

Would you (as a Brit) have said the same thing about the Nazis in 1940?
Would you (as an American) have said the same thing about the Soviets, in 1980?
(it was the left back then that was telling us we had no choice but to accept communism and the Soviets as a co-equal force in the world)

If you are such a defeatist (well, that figures, you call yourself a libertarian, right?), why are you even posting about this?

Why aren't you telling us to shut up and accept sharia?
I sense that perhaps you already do.

Again, the words of Churchill (who I'm sure would have made mincemeat of you):
 "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Addendum:
In previous posts, I have outlined the actions that I believe The West must take in response to islam.
Primary among them is the forced return of all muslims on earth, from dar al-harb to dar al-islam.
Once they are there, The West must confine them (and their beliefs) -to- dar al-islam, as if it were a giant sarcophagus, and let their hateful fires burn until either muslims -- or their ideas -- have consumed themselves into ashes...

Islam is a religion, not a ruling political party.

We can't "beat" Islam any more than Islam can "beat" Christianity. You don't "beat" millennium old religions.

You can however beat ISIS and Al Qaida and maybe even Islamic radicalism, but you need Muslims fighting Muslims to do that. You DON'T want to insult potential allies by mocking their religion.

Islam must change from within and join the world community.

I'm not a defeatists. I'm a realist with an understanding of history.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW Fishrrman, let me prove a point to you.

You've now descended to the level of personal attacks as a substitute to debate. You're mocking me, insulting me and generally acting like a jerk.

You haven't, in spite of all that, been able to move me one inch from my thoughts and ideas on this subject.

What makes you think then that mocking, insulting and acting like a jerk toward one of the world's largest religions will be any more effective changing them?

[DCPatriot]

BTW Fishrrman, let me prove a point to you.

You've now descended to the level of personal attacks as a substitute to debate. You're mocking me, insulting me and generally acting like a jerk.

You haven't, in spite of all that, been able to move me one inch from my thoughts and ideas on this subject.

What makes you think then that mocking, insulting and acting like a jerk toward one of the world's largest religions will be any more effective changing them?

Perhaps seeing you 'outnumbered' on the topical argument gives one new found courage.   

BTW, I hope you brought more to the argument here than claiming it's because we need Muslims to help us kill Jihadists.

Are you claiming that because of that, Geller should not have conducted the rally?  Seriously?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Perhaps seeing you 'outnumbered' on the topical argument gives one new found courage.   

BTW, I hope you brought more to the argument here than claiming it's because we need Muslims to help us kill Jihadists.

Are you claiming that because of that, Geller should not have conducted the rally?  Seriously?

There are people in the ME having their heads cut off by radicals for being Christians living in Muslim countries.

You and others call Geller a "heroine" and laud her for putting on an exhibition (behind a wall of armed security) in a country where her right to do it is enshrined in the highest law of the land, where her actions are protected by every level of law enforcement and where anyone wishing to bring her harm for doing so will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

So then, what makes my argument any more absurd than yours?

[DCPatriot]

There are people in the ME having their heads cut off by radicals for being Christians living in Muslim countries.

And that has exactly what to do with Pamela Geller pissing off Muslims?  Muslims, btw, who can't control their own radical wing....because they are terrified into silence.

You and others call Geller a "heroine" and laud her for putting on an exhibition (behind a wall of armed security) in a country where her right to do it is enshrined in the highest law of the land, where her actions are protected by every level of law enforcement and where anyone wishing to bring her harm for doing so will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

So then, what makes my argument any more absurd than yours?

Besmirching her efforts and effectiveness because she did it in a country that won't decapitate her is the point.  Yet, two nuts were compelled to attack her.

I call her a ''heroine" because she's been doing this for 10 years.  Only now, are panties being wadded.   

Furthermore, despite all the so-called built-in protections Ms. Geller is/was afforded, it took a good guy with a pistol to stop two with AK-47s.

Hope that's another lesson learned somewhere.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And that has exactly what to do with Pamela Geller pissing off Muslims?  Muslims, btw, who can't control their own radical wing....because they are terrified into silence.

There are more Muslims fighting radical Islam today than there are non-Muslims fighting them, but don't let facts sway your sloganeering. Yes there are not enough of them yet, but Geller is not doing anything to change that in a positive manner.

Besmirching her efforts and effectiveness because she did it in a country that won't decapitate her is the point.  Yet, two nuts were compelled to attack her.

Two nuts with sympathies toward radical Islam but no known connections to any terrorist organizations. She was lucky

I call her a ''heroine" because she's been doing this for 10 years.  Only now, are panties being wadded.   

Furthermore, despite all the so-called built-in protections Ms. Geller is/was afforded, it took a good guy with a pistol to stop two with AK-47s.

Hope that's another lesson learned somewhere.

I am brave enough to stand and yell "HOW 'BOUT DEM COBOYS" loudly and proudly, with no fear or apprehension from the cheap seats in Cowboys Stadium in Arlington.

Maybe not so much in FedExField.

[DCPatriot]

I am brave enough to stand and yell "HOW 'BOUT DEM COBOYS" loudly and proudly, with no fear or apprehension from the cheap seats in Cowboys Stadium in Arlington.

Maybe not so much in FedExField.

Point taken, Luis.       

[Lando Lincoln]

Well... I guess Luis and I are in the minority. Except for:

She was within her Constitutional rights.
Those rights were not abridged, compromised or restricted.
No one here is calling for new limitations to those rights.
We agree fanatical, extreme Islam is a danger and must be destroyed.

So, where might the disagreement come in?

Well, what did she accomplish?  I tend to think not much of value. Who here didn't know about the issues involving Islam? I know of no one who said, "I didn't know that!"  What it did do is galvanize certain sympathizers to emerge to "do something" that is, to place restrictions on her rights which were freely exercised.

Brave?  Well not as much if she had just stood on a corner drawing her pictures. Nor was she as brave as the LEOs challenged to respond. Any innocent bystanders (thankfully none were hurt) didn't know they needed any bravery.

[EC]

Any innocent bystanders (thankfully none were hurt) didn't know they needed any bravery.

That is what is pissing me off about it.

To equate it - a person has (to my mind) an absolute right to kill themselves. They have exactly zero right to involve anyone else unwittingly. So - overdose on pills at home - fine. Get someone to pull the plug when you are totally incapacitated with no chance of recovery - fine. Stepping in front of a speeding truck and involving the driver - bleep off.

[truth_seeker]

American "conservatives" like simplistic, black and white paradigms.  To a great extent, our history is built on popular themes along those lines.

Like WWII whereby Nazis and Jap fanatics were evil, and our boys were the saviors of the free world. Like the Cold War whereby the USSR and communists were evil, and we were the saviors of the free world.

Baseball and apple pie. And for much of history we fell on the "good" side, fighting evil.

But as a nation we tend to easily fall into self-serving denial, when we have acted in questionable ways. Take slavery and the Native Americans as examples.

We want the Islamic world to fall into a simplistic black or white model, but it does not. As hard as it is to grasp, they have internal conflicts like Shiite vs. Sunni. Democracy is almost unheard of among them. They are accustomed to brutal dictators.

To survive in lands of brutal dictators and religious edicts, one keeps quiet. Freedom of speech is about the very last thing coming to Islamic minds across the globe today.

We cannot force islam to fall into our simplistic black or white, good or evil worldview, no matter how much we hold our breath and wish it to do so.

Very simply stated, choices in the Islamic world today are often between two sides, both evil. Evil vs. Evil.

And we favor one of those Evil sides. It is our best interest that Evil prevail; our preferred Evil.

I see the dilemma over Pamela Geller and her intentional incitement of predictable violence as one of those cases of Americans wanting complex issues to fall into simplistic black-white options.

I wonder what public opinion would be today, if the two gunman had mowed down the two security officers, gone inside and murdered say 15 people before being felled?

Is it good public policy for cities to host such events, given the possible harm that can arise?

And finally why is nobody asking WHY THE FBI HAD A CONCERN ABOUT ONE OF THEM, BUT DID NOTHING?

American Law Enforcement on one hand stopped the terrorists, but on the other hand let it take place.

I would like to see all the energy applauding Geller, instead go to urging and enabling law enforcement and national security with the means to identify and prevent the terrorists in our midst, not protecting their "civil rights" and proclaiming Snowden a hero of some kind.

Pragmatism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Maybe not so outnumbered.

[DCPatriot]

Maybe not so outnumbered.

Cute.