Garland: A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare

 

bill-of-rights-hero-lgThis past Sunday, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its president, Pamela Geller, held a Muhammad art exhibit in a Garland, Texas community center. Two radical Islamists — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — drove up to the entrance, got out of their car, and started shooting, wounding a security guard before a Garland Police officer shot and killed them both. This is a terrible story for obvious reasons. In many ways, it’s an even worse story for liberals. Here are just a few examples of why.

The First Amendment: From efforts to stifle debates and cancel “American Sniper” on college campuses, to calling “thug” the new n-word, liberals are constantly trying to shut down and/or chill free speech. Every day, more words and ideas are offensive to them and, therefore, cannot be used. Cartoons and drawings of Muhammad are a grave insult to Muslims, so liberals feel that they should not be shown. Whereas many of us feel that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, even inflammatory speech, people like New York Times writer Rukmini Callimachi, take a very different view:

After “Free speech aside,” the rest of her tweet is meaningless.

The Second Amendment: The vast majority of liberals do not like guns and would prefer more stringent gun control. Many would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms altogether. In “Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris,” Breitbart News writer AWR Hawkins wrote:

There was no prolonged, two-day pursuit of attackers, nor were there unarmed police officers dodging bullets on their bicycles. But there were plenty of guns in the hands of good guys who were keeping watch over the cartoon contest and who were charged with stopping any bad guys with guns who might show up.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne Lapierre famously said “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” (Full disclosure: I work for NRA News). He was excoriated by the Left at the time, and many times since. Events like Garland continue to prove him correct.

School Security: Wayne LaPierre delivered that statement at a press conference after the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He added:

“When it comes to our most beloved and vulnerable members of the American family – our children – we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,” LaPierre said, adding that [placing armed security at schools] will immediately make America’s schools safer.

Liberals tend to not want any armed presence on school grounds, be it by security or teachers. The Muhammad art exhibit was held on Garland school district property, and local police ended what could have been a mass slaughter of innocents. While the Garland, Texas officer was unarmed, in Argyle, Texas, they are armed:

argyle-isd-guns

If I had children, I would want them protected by people with guns on school grounds. This includes college campuses as well, something liberals are also currently fighting in states nationwide.

ISIS: President Obama infamously called them “The JV team.” A February “DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat,” which led to this from CNN:

biggerthreatthanisisunalteredscreencap

Strangely, our federal government, as well as many liberals, have gone to great lengths to dissuade those (like me) who think ISIS is a real threat to our country. I contend that they are already here, and our open border does nothing to stem the flow of people who are bent on our destruction. Why does the Left seem so invested in trying to have us ignore this danger?

As I write this early on Tuesday morning, stories are just now coming out that ISIS has claimed responsibility for Garland.  From FOX News:

The Islamic State terror group (ISIS) Tuesday issued a claim of responsibility for Sunday’s attack on a Texas cartoon contest featuring images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The claim was made in an audio message on the group’s Al Bayan radio station, based in the Syria city of Raqqa, which ISIS has proclaimed to be the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. It is the first time ISIS has taken credit for an attack on U.S. soil, though it was not immediately clear whether the group’s claim was an opportunistic co-opting of a so-called “lone wolf” attack as its own.

The message described the shooting suspects as “two soldiers of the caliphate” and added “We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you.”

Texas: Let’s be honest, liberals hate Texas (not you, Austin). It represents so many things they despise: Freedom, guns, oil, the defeat of Wendy Davis, and so on. To that point, and as the perfect way to end this article, the (as usual) wise words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett:

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Cameron Gray:The Second Amendment: The vast majority liberals do not like guns, prefer gun control, and many would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms altogether. In “Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris,” Breitbart News writer AWR Hawkins wrote:

    While I think this story is definitely one that favors armed defense, I’m not sure it works as a good 2A story. Few liberals object to police carrying weapon, and they might point out that Arizona’s strong gun rights might have made it easier for these Jihadis to acquire weapons. That argument would be wrong for other reasons, but…

    Cameron Gray:argyle-isd-guns

    If I had children, I would want them protected by people with guns on school grounds. This includes college campuses as well, something liberals are also currently fighting in states nationwide.

    I love this.

    • #1
  2. Johnny Dubya Member
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    I saw a newspaper headline this morning that said something to the effect of, “Organizer Refuses to Apologize for Event”.

    This is along the lines of “Woman Wearing Short Skirt Refuses to Apologize for Rape”.

    I disagree that the second part of Callimachi’s tweet was meaningless.  “…[W]hy would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest?'” has an important meaning: It means that she is clueless about why anyone would hold an event promoting free speech and expressing opposition to voluntary dhimmitude.  This is telling.  Liberals are viewing the event in the wrong way.  They see it as hate speech by a hate group.  I saw the participants on the news last night.  They did not look or talk like KKK members or skinheads.  They looked like my neighbors.  The event was a form of protest – righteous protest in favor of liberal principles.  Liberals should understand that.  That they do not demonstrates how far they have strayed from the ideas on which the country was founded.

    I have some questions for Callimachi:  Why would anyone do something as provocative as displaying a crucifix in a container of urine?  How many violent attacks were there on the “Piss Christ” exhibition, or on the “Hunky Jesus Contest”?

    • #2
  3. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    Callimachi’s tweet is mind-numbingly stupid. It’s like asking  “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, How was the theater?”

    • #3
  4. user_451895 Member
    user_451895
    @CynthiaBelisle

    I contemplated carrying to this event but ultimately decided against it.  I knew that bringing a firearm into a school district facility would be a problem.  And, I was correct.  We had to pass through metal detectors before we entered the building.  Might have been handy to have when I drove away from the facility and heard the gunshots…

    • #4
  5. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Metalheaddoc:Callimachi’s tweet is mind-numbingly stupid. It’s like asking “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, How was the theater?”

    Sure, but other than that, Callimachi is a great name!

    • #5
  6. Walker Member
    Walker
    @Walker

    Did Pamela Geller have the right of free speech and assembly to hold her event? ABSOLUTELY! Was she also irresponsible and deliberately provocative putting hundreds at risk, including the officers who shot down the radical Islamists? Yes she certainly was. I am reminded of cases that come before the Supreme Court in which the plaintiff is clearly flawed, and yet the Court rules in his/her favor because of Constitutional reasons, not because of their ethical or self-righteous positions. Likewise here, Ms. Geller is no hero and should not be hoisted up as one. Instead, she is a woman clearly hungering for media attention and spewing hate in much the same way that race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do. It was clear Ms. Geller was hoping for a confrontation (perhaps relatively peaceful with a few people shouting Allah Akbar) since she knew there would be armed security at the event. She just didn’t know how serious that threat would be. She should be an object of abject scorn. The media needs to shun her and stop encouraging her thru more TV time.

    • #6
  7. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Walker: Instead, she is a woman clearly hungering for media attention and spewing hate in much the same way that race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do.

    I think you need to think this up again–isn’t Mr. Sharpton connected with instigating murder rather than risking being murdered?

    Perhaps there is more than one kind of hungering for media attention…

    It was clear Ms. Geller was hoping for a confrontation (perhaps relatively peaceful with a few people shouting Allah Akbar) since she knew there would be armed security at the event.

    Of course–her entire point is that people like you, not just liberals, refuse to see the problem with savage violence.

    She just didn’t know how serious that threat would be.She should be an object of abject scorn. The media needs to shun her and stop encouraging her thru more TV time.

    Tell me something, would you say the same about Mr. Steyn? In fact, is there anyone who has been threatened with Islamic violence about whom you would not say this?

    How do you feel about Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or Theo van Gogh?

    • #7
  8. user_138562 Moderator
    user_138562
    @RandyWeivoda

    If a Jewish community in some city decided to have a rally to show their support for Israel, that is going to incite anger among some intolerant Muslims.  Some might call it provocative.  Does that make it wrong or irresponsible?  Maybe those Jews should just quietly support Israel within their own heads, so as not to offend anyone.

    • #8
  9. Layla Member
    Layla
    @Layla

    “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

    I think that Pamela Gellar is a publicity hound. I think that she holds some reprehensible views. The fact that these jihadists agree with me doesn’t mitigate the evil of their attempt to shut her up.

    Journalists who cover or editorialize about this attack who follow the statement “I believe in free speech” with “but” fundamentally misunderstand the importance of the First Amendment protection (to the detriment of all of us).

    Speech that doesn’t offend anyone…doesn’t offend anyone. It is precisely speech that is provocative that requires protection.

    • #9
  10. 1967mustangman Member
    1967mustangman
    @1967mustangman

    What metalheaddoc said.

    • #10
  11. Pilli Member
    Pilli
    @Pilli

    Re Walker’s comment in #6 to wit: “Did Pamela Geller have the right of free speech and assembly to hold her event? ABSOLUTELY! Was she also irresponsible and deliberately provocative putting hundreds at risk, including the officers who shot down the radical Islamists? Yes she certainly was.”

    No, she certainly was not irresponsible and did not put hundreds at risk.  She held an event.  Period.  The two gunmen put others at risk by choosing to shoot at the attendees.  This is how bullies operate.  They threaten, they are violent.

    If a person tempts a wild lion with a hunk of meat and then gets hurt, it is not the lion’s fault.  The lion cannot change its nature.  If a person tempts a member of ISIS and gets hurt by ISIS, it is definitely ISIS fault.  Man is in charge of his nature and can make decisions.  Unless you saying that ISIS and terrorists are no better than animals.

    • #11
  12. Cameron Gray Contributor
    Cameron Gray
    @CameronGray

    Cynthia Belisle:I contemplated carrying to this event but ultimately decided against it. I knew that bringing a firearm into a school district facility would be a problem. And, I was correct. We had to pass through metal detectors before we entered the building. Might have been handy to have when I drove away from the facility and heard the gunshots…

    Thank you, Cynthia, it’s very cool have someone who was actually at the Garland event read my piece.

    Cameron

    • #12
  13. Byron Horatio Member
    Byron Horatio
    @ByronHoratio

    Ms Geller did nothing irresponsible. She did something courageous compared to the slavish media’s refusal to ever have published the cartoons. We’re not talking about a hate group calling for the death of people. We’re talking about people hand-drawing a picture of someone who has been dead for 1400 years. If you are part of a culture that murders people over something so trivial, then your culture frankly sucks and you should find a better one.

    If anything, the whole event has been positive for inadvertently luring two wolves into the sunlight to be killed.

    • #13
  14. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Not an argument, but an honest question:

    Is what Geller did here substantively different than if I were to walk around South Central Los Angeles carrying a sign that reads “I hate niggers!”?

    One could argue that I have a right to do so, and that I have an important point to make about free speech. One could also argue that I lack wisdom and that there are more constructive (and safer) ways to make that point.

    I find myself in agreement with both perspectives and don’t find them mutually exclusive.

    I’m not ready to call Geller either a hero or a hate monger (I was only vaguely aware of her before this incident). Perhaps she is both, or neither. I do wonder whether her approach is winning minds and, if so, if there are wiser ways to go about it.

    • #14
  15. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Freeven:Not an argument, but an honest question:

    Is what Geller did here substantively different than if I were to walk around South Central Los Angeles carrying a sign that reads “I hate niggers!”?

    If you think of Texas or America or the world as similarly lawless, yeah it’s not substantively different, as you like to say. If you think that as blacks dominate South Central so do Muslims Texas, America or the world, sure, it is the same thing or nearly-

    • #15
  16. Wylee Coyote Member
    Wylee Coyote
    @WyleeCoyote

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:While I think this story is definitely one that favors armed defense, I’m not sure it works as a good 2A story. Few liberals object to police carrying weapon, and they might point out that Arizona’s strong gun rights might have made it easier for these Jihadis to acquire weapons. That argument would be wrong for other reasons, but…

    Actually, the fact that the gunmen were killed by a police officer is also problematic for liberals.  Sure, they can use that fact to bat away 2nd Amendment arguments, but that requires them to at least tacitly approve of a police officer (in Texas!) shooting two men from identifiable minorities.

    • #16
  17. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Two radical Islamists — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — drove up to the entrance, got out of their car, and started shooting, wounding a security guard before a Garland Police officer shot and killed them both. This is a terrible story for obvious reasons.

    Those reasons aren’t obvious to me.  Sounds like a nice story with a happy ending (with all due respect to the security guard who was wounded, and to whom I wish a speedy recovery).

    • #17
  18. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Freeven:Not an argument, but an honest question:

    Is what Geller did here substantively different than if I were to walk around South Central Los Angeles carrying a sign that reads “I hate niggers!”?

    One could argue that I have a right to do so, and that I have an important point to make about free speech. One could also argue that I lack wisdom and that there are more constructive (and safer) ways to make that point.

    (quoting seems to be messed up again)

    A better analogy would be to compare the “draw Mohammed” events to eating a ham sandwich in the presence of a Jew.  I’m not aware of any Jews shooting up sandwich shops.

    Muslims have every right to believe that images of Mohammed are against their religion.  But they have no right to impose their religious beliefs on others who don’t share them.

    • #18
  19. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @LunaticRex

    I don’t see that there is another way to go about it. The point, to me, is that Islam (specifically Shari’a) does not tolerate free speech. Which means it is incompatible with the Constitution and our way of life. To make that point, one must say something which is perfectly acceptable in America, but that will get you killed in the 7th century where Islam resides. Point made.

    • #19
  20. user_8847 Member
    user_8847
    @FordPenney

    Why does this cause such equivocating? If a black american walks through a white suburb with a sign that says ‘I hate white crackers’ would the media condemn this persons right to free speech?

    These kinds of presumptives are designed to change the dialog about free speech to ‘who’s offended most’. And should these words be the cause of violence?

    But as has already been addressed the only ones who appear to be creating violence are the same people that Pamela Geller points out are behind a legion of deaths everyday around the world.

    Its not Christians, or Mormons, or Jews, but if we change the narrative then what? We don’t address the issue that this group of religious fanatics killed, with due purpose, almost 3000 people on 9/11. That Colonel Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people at Fort Hood and wounded more than 30 others. That just in the last week 300 more Christians were killed for… wait for it… being Christians.

    So where’s the real outrage? Not the Canadian version that wanted to sue Mark Steyn for hurting their feelings, real moral outrage that murder is somehow religiously acceptable behavior!

    People wish to compare a cartoon drawing on a piece of paper with religious fanatics with guns? Enough already, time to put on adult pants and call it like it really is.

    • #20
  21. Walker Member
    Walker
    @Walker

    Titus Techera:

    Walker: Instead, she is a woman clearly hungering for media attention and spewing hate in much the same way that race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do.

    I think you need to think this up again–isn’t Mr. Sharpton connected with instigating murder rather than risking being murdered?

    Perhaps there is more than one kind of hungering for media attention…

    It was clear Ms. Geller was hoping for a confrontation (perhaps relatively peaceful with a few people shouting Allah Akbar) since she knew there would be armed security at the event.

    Of course–her entire point is that people like you, not just liberals, refuse to see the problem with savage violence.

    She just didn’t know how serious that threat would be.She should be an object of abject scorn. The media needs to shun her and stop encouraging her thru more TV time.

    Tell me something, would you say the same about Mr. Steyn? In fact, is there anyone who has been threatened with Islamic violence about whom you would not say this?

    How do you feel about Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or Theo van Gogh?

    Titus,

    You’re somewhat off-base here.  “people like me”?  Sorry, I don’t know you and vice versa.  I thought that paying for this site meant we kept personal invective out of the conversation.  I prefer that you point the malice toward an inanimate object instead of me.

    To one of your points, yes, I do admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has spoken out against the terrible and real injustice and violence that has been placed on her and people close to her.  She has put her own life at risk to fight this injustice and criminality.  What Pamela Geller has done is put OTHER lives at risk.  The two are fundamentally different and need to be pointed out.

    My point is that there’s enough violence in this country without deliberately inciting it through the USE of innocent folks and then risking their well-being all to make a media spectacle that could have gone horribly bad.  Case in point:  yesterday on Fox News, although well-intentioned, Mike Tobin and Shep Smith made an almost tragic mistake by stating that a police officer had shot a black man in the back.  If not clarified immediately, it could have resulted in more violence and even death.  What good would that free speech have done to address police “abuse”?  Instead, it would likely have provoked more violence.  Likewise, what good does it do to express your free speech on a pointless cartoon competition that would only bring out the crazies.  Yes, the Constitution is there to protect the minority position, but not to act irresponsibly or to put others in harms way.

    • #21
  22. Byron Horatio Member
    Byron Horatio
    @ByronHoratio

    A little context is in order. The AFDI is not advocating for racial or religious hatred. So the comparisons to this effect are unjust. What they are promoting is freedom of expression, real gender equality, and a hard, skeptical evaluation of Islam’s violent doctrines. And they are engaging in what is a harmless exercise in satire. And I mean harmless. The fact that people will literally kill themselves and others over it seems proof positive that they are basically correct in their appraisal of how mainstream intolerance is in Islam.

    Would there be so much throat clearing if Christians had gunned down dozens of people over Piss Christ? Would you same commenters, after denouncing the killings, also wag your fingers at the artists for putting other peoples’ lives at stake for partaking in blasphemy? If not, why not? Or is this just the soft bigotry of low expectations?

    • #22
  23. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy
    @LimestoneCowboy

    Layla:I think that Pamela Gellar is a publicity hound. I think that she holds some reprehensible views. The fact that these jihadists agree with me doesn’t mitigate the evil of their attempt to shut her up.

    Layla, can you be specific on these views which you find  reprehensible? I’d appreciate direct quotes if possible, or links.

    Pamella Geller  may indeed be a publicity hound.. after all she is campaigning in the public square and needs public attention to argue of merits of her views.

    In this particular case, I think that Pamella Gellar’s show demonstrates the there is a significant percentage of the Muslim world whose worldview is incompatible with western values and who are dangerously ready to act on their retrograde worldviews.
    And by the way, by significant percentage I don’t mean 50% , 20% or even 5%. Just enough to create significant destruction. Two guys.. Boston Marathon.

    • #23
  24. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Walker:

    By people like you, I mean ‘yes, but’ defenders of free speech. It’s not personal, it’s politics. There have been several just in the few threads on Ricochet, to say nothing of the press…

    There is no difference: Miss Ali did not just endanger herself, but the people with whom she was working. One very publicly was slaughtered. I wish you would reckon with that.

    As for Mrs. Geller–who was endangered who did not put himself in danger by standing with her–knowing what has happened to others who mock the jihadi craze? Her reputation precedes her by this point. She did not deceive anyone about this event.

    The keynote speaker is a politician who needs round the clock protection because of crazy jihadis in a country where people. politicians included, who have spoken against the jihadi craze have been threatened or just assassinated. What more evidence that this is really about courageous people facing death could you or anyone else possibly need? Happily, Texans are better armed than the Dutch–who just told Miss Ali to leave…

    These pointless exercises in free speech serve not only to defend pointless free speech, but to let everyone know that free speech is under attack–if America had a lot of free speech defenders, this violence would not be happening in the first place. So long as the only people who have the courage to face the violence are treated with contempt or hatred, this violence will continue.

    • #24
  25. Layla Member
    Layla
    @Layla

    Limestone Cowboy:

    Layla:I think that Pamela Gellar is a publicity hound. I think that she holds some reprehensible views. The fact that these jihadists agree with me doesn’t mitigate the evil of their attempt to shut her up.

    Layla, can you be specific on these views which you find reprehensible? I’d appreciate direct quotes if possible, or links.

    Yes, Limestone. Thanks for asking. I have *no problem* whatsoever with Ms. Geller. I was just trying to make a point (rather provocatively, I guess) that what she believes is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. :)

    I based what I said on her recent CNN interview. The host read out a portion of Geert Wilders’ speech:

    “Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one. I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one. We’ve got humor and they don’t. Islam does not allow free speech because free speech shows how evil and wrong Islam is. And Islam does not allow humor because humor shows how foolish and ridiculous it is.”

    (cont’d cuz I’m almost at word limit…)

    • #25
  26. Layla Member
    Layla
    @Layla

    (cont’d from above)

    The CNN host then asked Geller if that wasn’t inflammatory because Wilders wasn’t commenting on extremism but rather on Islam itself. Geller responded, quite rightly, that Wilder is “entitled to his opinion, end of story.”

    If only that HAD been the end of the story. She was “exactly right*, and I so wish that she had stopped there, because I think she confused the issue by continuing on to say, “And frankly what he said is true.”

    Now, I think she meant that it is true that there is “no humor in Islam” (which in itself is a pretty mushy and meaningless statement; humorlessness is really NOT the problem with Islam…). But it was rash of her to jump at the raw meat the host had laid out for her. I think it really undercut her initial response, which was dead on: Some guy said something you disagree with. Yeah? So? Is this or is this not the United States of America? THAT is the point. Know what I mean?

    Bottom line: I totally agree that there are tenets of Islam (and particularly of Sharia) that are incompatible with the Western way of life, and that a worrisome number of Muslims subscribe to those tenets. But I also think that it was supremely unhelpful of Geller to take the focus off of the clear-cut free speech issue at hand and put it (inadvertently or otherwise) on Wilders’ “evil, wrong, foolish, ridiculous” routine.

    • #26
  27. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy
    @LimestoneCowboy

    Layla:The CNN host then asked Geller if that wasn’t inflammatory because Wilders wasn’t commenting on extremism but rather on Islam itself. Geller responded, quite rightly, that Wilder is “entitled to his opinion, end of story.”

    If only that HAD been the end of the story. She was “exactly right*, and I so wish that she had stopped there, because I think she confused the issue by continuing on to say, “And frankly what he said is true.”

    Now, I think she meant that it is true that there is “no humor in Islam” (which in itself is a pretty mushy and meaningless statement; humorlessness is really NOT the problem with Islam…). But it was rash of her to jump at the raw meat the host had laid out for her. I think it really undercut her initial response, which was dead on: Some guy said something you disagree with. Yeah? So? Is this or is this not the United States of America? THAT is the point. Know what I mean?

    Bottom line: I totally agree that there are tenets of Islam (and particularly of Sharia) that are incompatible with the Western way of life, and that a worrisome number of Muslims subscribe to those tenets. But I also think that it was supremely unhelpful of Geller to take the focus off of the clear-cut free speech issue at hand and put it (inadvertently or otherwise) on Wilders’ “evil, wrong, foolish, ridiculous” routine.

    Layla, thank you for your clarification.

    The comment about “no humor in Islam” comes directly from a quote from the Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. 

    [source: Meeting in Qom “Broadcast by radio Iran from Qom on 20 August 1979.” quoted in Taheri, The Spirit of Allah (1985) p.25

    I think this actually is entirely relevant to Ms. Gellers main point about freedom of speech, because humor and parody are essential tools in political discourse.. indeed, in normal human relationships.. and Ms. Geller’s show after all, featured cartoons.

    As for her endorsement of Geert Wilders’s comments on Islam, Wilders has lived under constant police protection since 2004, following an armed attack because of his role in producing the film “Fitna”. 

    “Fitna” argues that the Koran sanctions, among other things, antsemitism, forceful subjugation of infidels and women, violence against homosexuals, death for apostates etc. Irrespective of whether Wilder’s film is overstated I can certainly understand why Wilder’s views of canonical Islam are unfavorable, and why Ms. Geller might share them.

    • #27
  28. Layla Member
    Layla
    @Layla

    Limestone Cowboy:

    “Fitna” argues that the Koran sanctions, among other things, antsemitism, forceful subjugation of infidels and women, violence against homosexuals, death for apostates etc. Irrespective of whether Wilder’s film is overstated I can certainly understand why Wilder’s views of canonical Islam are unfavorable, and why Ms. Geller might share them.

    Indeed. So can I. My metaphorical hat is off to the both of them; they have more courage in their little fingers than I have in my whole body.

    • #28
  29. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy
    @LimestoneCowboy

    Layla:

    Limestone Cowboy:

    “Fitna” argues that the Koran sanctions, among other things, antsemitism, forceful subjugation of infidels and women, violence against homosexuals, death for apostates etc. Irrespective of whether Wilder’s film is overstated I can certainly understand why Wilder’s views of canonical Islam are unfavorable, and why Ms. Geller might share them.

    Indeed. So can I. My metaphorical hat is off to the both of them; they have more courage in their little fingers than I have in my whole body.

    The same for me. It takes real character to be either a Muslim reformer, or a Muslim critic.

    • #29

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.