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.
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.