Posted on 05/19/2015 6:46:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dennis Prager, “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph”
Nice succinct summary of the situation.
Evil hates truth.
Pamela Geller is a gem!
Here’s where I think our side trips up a bit.
We allow the Left to define the discussion on an emotional, right vs wrong, basis.
When it’s really a logical, RIGHTS based discussion.
The fact is we shouldn’t have to defend whether she’s right or wrong, whether she’s an Islamophobe, a hater, etc.
The Left needs to defend why it wants to strip her rights from her. Regardless of anyone’s beliefs on how she choses to exercise them.
The most effective rebuttal I’ve found to the Left on Geller and her beliefs is to ask why, if Geller exercising her rights to be artistically and ideologically provocative makes her a legitimate target for violence, a woman exercising her rights to dress provocatively isn’t therefore under the Lefts own reasoning also a legitimate target for sexual assault and rape?
I generally agree with you that it isn’t decent or moral to mock someone’s religion.
But it’s also immoral to force your religious beliefs onto others.
So the question becomes how best to challenge the notion put forward by a religion that it is not allowed to be mocked? Under threat of state sanction and/or violent reprisal?
IOW when is acting in an immoral way to challenge something immoral acceptable?
How do you FEEL about mocking the worshipers of Baal who threw their firstborn into the fiery furnace?
Perhaps you consider the Aztecs or whichever of South and Central America who sacrificed thousands on their Sun temples as worthy of respect?
You mean the “stupid” Americans. SARC.
Exactly so. And the more directly it's confronted, the more hate.
I like this part:
“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?”
That is just factual. That’s not mocking. He was a child rapist.
It’s easy to demonstrate that the left’s ideology
exactly aligns with what Satan proposed as an
“alternative” to God in Genesis 3.
YOU will be as gods, knowing [defining] good and evil.
So the question becomes how best to challenge the notion put forward by a religion that it is not allowed to be mocked? Under threat of state sanction and/or violent reprisal?
IOW when is acting in an immoral way to challenge something immoral acceptable?
To the first paragraph, I’d say to write articles, maybe with visuals of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, piss christ, and lines from the Book of Mormon, and challenge people to choose which are protected by free speech, which are offensive, etc. There are creative ways to do it without making a contest to mock a religion.
To your second paragraph, it would never be moral to be immoral. What’s is the meaning of the word “acceptable” here? It’s legal to be immoral. Geller had a GREAT point to make. Maybe I’m going back to Mom’s old saying, Two Wrongs don’t make a Right.
She could have chosen a strong, creative way to make her point without having to be a formal official mock against a religion. I defend to my death her right to speak freely but I don’t believe it was right.
(And Mohammad raped a a child).
So if you draw a picture of a middle-aged Arab man in traditional clothes, and caption it: “Mohammed, a child rapist,” is that mocking, or a fact statement with an illustration?
Maybe throw in that cartoon showing the burning of women and children with acid and you could have a winner.
Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump aren't conservatives.
She’s hated because she refuses to quit pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy of the American Left.
Just ask Sarah Palin.
Believe it or not, good people follow islam. there is a bad leader at the head of America but I don’t want to be killed for that. It gets complicated.
So if you draw a picture of a middle-aged Arab man in traditional clothes, and caption it: “Mohammed, a child rapist,” is that mocking, or a fact statement with an illustration?
Whether it is moral or not may depend on the intent. And I am not cardboard; I have prejudices that might make me quite fallible in deciding morality. That’s why they didn’t make me Gd.
Filtered through my humble prejudiced moral sense, I see the cartoons Charlie Hebdo printed as not immoral because they were taking a political stand and mocking everyone with no shame. They were equal opportunity insulters of the three big religions. It doesn’t trip my morality-dar.
Deliberately trying to insult and provoke should be and is legal here, but I find making a contest solely to insult and provoke, though legal, not a great moral choice. As I feel about the Book of Mormon musical even while recognizing the talent. And as I feel about the purely for scatalogical shock Piss Christ.
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.