Posted on 05/19/2015 6:46:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Pamela Geller -- the woman whose group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, organized the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas -- may be the most hated person in America right now. She is certainly the left's chief villain. And, sad to say, though few conservatives hate her, more than a few have condemned her.
The question is why?
Here are three reasons.
Reason One: The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil
The first and most important reason is a rule of life that I wrote about in a recent column explaining the left's hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
Those who don't fight evil hate those who do.
This is a defining characteristic of the American left. That is why the left loathed President Ronald Reagan for labeling the Soviet Union an "evil empire:" He judged and confronted Communism, the greatest evil in the world after World War II.
Today, the world's greatest evil is Islamism (the movement to impose Islam and its Sharia on society). Just as the left loathed anti-Communists, it loathes anti-Islamists, chief among whom is Netanyahu, the prime minister of the country that the Islamists most hate, the country that most confronts violent Islam -- and not coincidentally the country the international left most hates.
But the left hates anti-Islamists generally, not just Netanyahu. They have successfully demonized anti-Islamists and even critics of Islam as "Islamophobes," meaning anti-Muslim "bigots" and "haters." Pamela Geller is now chief among them.
Reason Two: Moral Confusion
Geller and her group are widely labelled as "haters" and "Islamophobes" for caricaturing Muhammad. But the highly successful producers of the hit Broadway show that mocks Mormonism, "The Book of Mormon," are not labelled "haters," let alone "Mormon-phobes". Similarly, the "artist" who created "Piss Christ," the infamous photograph of a crucifix in a jar of his urine, is also not labeled a hater or a "Christiano-phobe."
Why is that? Because neither Christianity nor Mormonism produces evil that needs to be fought. The Muslim world, however, is producing tens of thousands of murderers and millions more sympathizers; and those who criticize Islam and confront Islamism are hated because those who don't fight evil hate those who do.
Another example of moral confusion is that Geller is accused of "provoking" Islamists to murder people. Even some conservatives have taken this position.
To best show this poorly reasoned logic, let's imagine that some Mormons murdered members of the audience and some of the actors at a performance of "The Book of Mormon." Who do you think The New York Times editorial page would have blamed -- the producers of the show that mocked Mormonism (for "provoking" the murderers) or the Mormon murderers? The murderers, of course. Again, imagine that some Christians had murdered museum curators at whose museums "Piss Christ" had been displayed. Would the Times editorial page have blamed the "artist," Andres Serrano, and the museum curators (for "provoking" the Christian murderers) or the Christian murderers?
Reason Three: Lack of Courage
America calls itself, in the final words of the National Anthem, "the land of the free and the home of the brave." This description no longer applies -- not only to the left-wing intellectual and media elite but also to the increasingly large segment of the American people that the left has influenced. Many Americans no longer cherish freedom as Americans always have and too many exhibit little courage.
Contrast American reactions to Pamela Geller with European reactions to Charlie Hebdo. After Islamists murdered 12 editors and writers of the Charlie Hebdo staff, millions of French citizens gathered to protest the murders and announce "Je suis Charlie." There were very few French voices blaming Charlie Hebdo for "provoking" the murderers, or for being "haters." And, it is worth noting, some of the caricatures of Muhammad published in the French magazine were truly obscene -- unlike the caricatures produced by Pamela Geller's contest which, so far as I've seen, were only caricatures and cartoons.
Likewise the month after the Charlie murders, courageous Danes organized a public event called "Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression" to show support for Charlie Hebdo and for freedom of speech. That "provoked" an Islamist to murder two people and wound five police officers that day and the next. But Danes supported the organizers of the event.
And a German newspaper was firebombed after republishing some of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons.
But in America, there were no comparable demonstrations on behalf of Pamela Geller. Instead, there were widespread condemnations. The New York Times editorial page even denied that her cartoon contest was done on behalf of freedom of speech. And hundreds of left-wing members of PEN, the worldwide writers' organization dedicated to freedom of speech, vehemently protested the decision of the American chapter of PEN to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to Charlie Hebdo.
This combination -- of the steep moral decline of the American left; the inability of too many Americans to reason morally; and the greater value increasingly placed on protecting (certain) people's feelings than on protecting freedom of speech -- is why a woman who did nothing more than organize a contest to draw cartoons of Muhammad may be the most reviled American alive.
Excellen analysis.
Nail on the head - “Reason One: The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil,
Excellen analysis.
Nail on the head - “Reason One: The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil”
Who else hates that? Satan. Explains much.
Only they, the enlightened, can judge.
Pamela Geller has more scroti than any liberal.
“Reason One: The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil”
Even more simple, the left hates GOD and truth. Let’s see, who else hates GOD and truth?
Exactly. Let’s keep it simple.
"The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil" (as directed by God's Word in the Holy Bible)
It is because they must feel subconscious internal guilt (which they reject and deny as they lie to themselves) for not being courageous enough to do this themselves. It is a huge stumbling block to them, which calls them out on their own hypocrisy and cowardice. Yes, morally confused, but only because they desperately seek to support a world view that all faiths or religion are made equal, and especially those that reject a world that is based upon Judeo/Christian values and belief.
The remnant "bitter-clingers" [to our Bibles!] are an affront and outrage to them, just as Jesus Christ was to the Pharisees of his day.
73% of low-info Americans respond: “That blonde chick who played Buffy the Vampire Slayer”.
I started disliking her in 2003-2004 when I caught her posting something from some else’s blog and putting it out as her own.
Maybe its because they support evil and are evil themselves?
Subjectivism: subjectivism like its evil twin, relativism is much in vogue with the left because it unfastens core values from timeless objective standards thus providing leftists like those who inhabit the New York Times fullscope to rewrite the First Amendment. If the test free speech is whether or not it offends anyone, there is no free speech and the left has succeeded in erasing the first amendment. In this case, the subjective reaction of offended Muslims becomes the test whether speech should be permitted and thus would have substituted rank subjectivism for the Bill of Rights.
Relativism: relativism seeks to detach values from any objective standard and to justify one evil because there are other evils. If one wades into the swamps of relativism one will be hard-pressed to find firm ground where virtue lives.
Critical theory: an attack on what we can know and trust; evolving from Frankfurt School this is an assault on our epistemology and gives The New York Times editorial board, for example, real running room. Also serves as a wonderful tonic to the liberal ego.
I postulate these symptoms are actually tools, although the New York Times would never conceive of them as such, they are nevertheless weapons in the arsenal of leftists for whom the ends always justify the means.
I agree with the great moral leader Dennis except for one thing and I wish I could ask him about it. In my mind all three are morally wrong: the contest to mock Islam, Piss Christ, and the play the Book of Mormon.
All three are against the Golden Rule, deliberately.
All three artists/doers would say they have a “point to make.” All three should be perfectly legal. No one should get violent over any of them, and everyone should be free to protest them.
But they all fall under what no one would want done to themselves. No Mormon liked the musical. No Christian enjoyed seeing Jesus in urine. So I’m glad Geller could do this and she should be allowed to do it daily, but I don’t agree that mocking someone’s religion is ever a decent moral thing to do.
Simpler:
Islam and the Left both first require the destruction of western civilization before they can implement their respective dystopias.
She is a hero in this corner of the internet.
<If the test free speech is whether or not it offends anyone, there is no free speech and the left has succeeded in erasing the first amendment.
Bam! Like a bolt of lightening. The truth right there.
I won’t mock islam.
I’ll just point out:
mohamed was a child rapist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.