Okay, just one more time about Pamela Geller. I read an Op/Ed piece this morning in the New York Daily News written by Linda Stasi titled "With Pamela Geller's Prophet Muhammad cartoon stunt in Texas, hate rears its ugly face again". Oh, you can pretty much guess what she had to say. Shame on Pamela Geller for inciting Islamic terrorists to commit murder. She got what she wanted - dead terrorists. [In my mind, that is actually the big plus. But that's just me...]. Oh, yeah, Stasi was very careful to reiterate that trying to murder people over cartoons is really, really bad, BUT [there is always the "but" with liberals], Pam was asking for it.
In the middle of her long-winded indictment of Pamela Geller, this one statement jumped out at me.
Frankly, I am confused and mighty frustrated in trying to gleen when it is that our liberal friends believe that our rights should and shouldn't be impinged and when our Bill of Rights are absolute these days. Is it just me or are they just a bit schizophrenic. If I were a bettin' man, I would think that liberals are scared witless about Islamic terrorism and will do anything to "be safe" including compromising our rights but only when it's convenient to their narrative. It just reminds me of the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin - Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
As an aside, this video by Steven Crowder for his blog Louder by Crowder should really put liberals into a major quandry. But interestingly enough, this was completely ignored in the Gay Weddings v. Religious Bakers, Florists et al. controversy -
In the middle of her long-winded indictment of Pamela Geller, this one statement jumped out at me.
"While we have freedom of speech, we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon."It made me go "Hmmmm". I wonder what those Christian florists and bakers who refused to participate in gay wedding ceremonies would think of this? You know, the ones that are being protested against, sued and fined out of business. I wonder if all of those religious organizations and businesses that want to exercise their religious freedom right to protest their objection to being forced by the government to pay for abortificients, would be interested in knowing that Stasi thinks their rights should not be "impinged" as well. The florists, bakers, and nuns haven't tried to kill anyone. They were and are just politely trying exercised their freedom of religion as afforded to them by our Bill of Rights.
Frankly, I am confused and mighty frustrated in trying to gleen when it is that our liberal friends believe that our rights should and shouldn't be impinged and when our Bill of Rights are absolute these days. Is it just me or are they just a bit schizophrenic. If I were a bettin' man, I would think that liberals are scared witless about Islamic terrorism and will do anything to "be safe" including compromising our rights but only when it's convenient to their narrative. It just reminds me of the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin - Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
As an aside, this video by Steven Crowder for his blog Louder by Crowder should really put liberals into a major quandry. But interestingly enough, this was completely ignored in the Gay Weddings v. Religious Bakers, Florists et al. controversy -
I wonder what she thought of "Piss Christ"?
ReplyDeleteWell written and reasoned.
ReplyDeleteI think our side should start quoting some of the founders (in today's idiom) and ask these talking head idiots what they think of that statement?
ReplyDeleteI wish I was as eloquent as you are. A liberal I work with said, "Well, they were asking for trouble by pushing the Muslims." My terribly backwoods, redneck, you can tell I was raised in the Ozarks remark to them was, "Are you a chickens--t when it comes to freedom, it sure looks that way."
ReplyDeleteI said my piece on Gellar yesterday. I'll add that a private citizen criticizing a religion doesn't imperil anyone's freedom to worship, not does another private citizen criticizing that activist imperil freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting gay activists haven't gone after Muslim bakeries. Some gay conservative ought to force the issue by filing a lawsuit.
Kit - When the usual memes of "Well, just wait until someone does something like this to Jesus! Then, boy howdy, you'll see murderous Christians everywhere!" And the usual response is citing Piss Christ". Yeah, Christians didn't like it at all and were highly insulted and very vocal in their displeasure, Yet Andre Serrano gets to walk amongst us free of murderous thugs trying to murder him. I am not even sure whether anyone really CARES about him enough. Their displeasure was specifically directed at public funding (NEA grant money) being used for to produce such drivel.
ReplyDeleteThanks, LL!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I think we need to start questioning ANYONE who adds a "But" when explaining why we should subordinate our freedoms to placate a specific murderous global entity.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is fun - Imam v. Pamela Geller on Hannity - He actually approves of executing Pam for crimes against "the Prophet". LINK
ReplyDeleteCritch - There goes another "But-head" liberal. The next time you hear someone say that whole "she had it coming to her", ask them what other rights they are willing to give up for their safety or expediency. How about that "Freedom of the Press".
ReplyDeleteFYI - I am kind of a Bill of Rights absolutist. I will not stand by and have my Constitutional rights eroded just to be safe. Not being rude is my choice, but I will NOT stand for someone to tell me I don't have the RIGHT to be rude.
I guess we incited the Nazis and Japanese in WWII with all those really great political satires...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtlcrIkIbI
ReplyDeleteWe are starting a new series called Summer of Marvel, with an introduction over on the Film page.
ReplyDeleteKit
Here is the introduction: LINK
ReplyDeleteBev, I'll comment soon. Sorry for the delay. Long day.
ReplyDeleteFrom the AP's twitter feed: "PHOTO: Pamela Geller at AP headquarters, where she said she had no regrets over TX cartoon contest that left 2 dead"
ReplyDeleteLINK
Bev, So using this fool's logic, I can start a religion that believes we should murder Jews and her argument says it would violate my freedom of religion if you Jews continue to exist... or if anyone calls me out on it. How retarded is that?
ReplyDeleteBTW, This was how we spent the day around here!
ReplyDeleteFirst, we got 8 inches of hail. They even got out the snow plows and they shut down I-25 to remove the hail. Then it all melted at once and things looked a bit like Atlantis around here. What a day! :D
Here's a link: LINK
ReplyDeleteThe photos don't do it justice.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThose photos remind me of the line from the opening number of South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut.
"The sun is shining and the grass is green
Under the three feet of snow I mean."
Kit, This was amazing. It hailed for over an hour and a half in my neighborhood. We were buried under ice. And then it all melted and it just couldn't run off fast enough. There was standing water even at the tops of hills!!
ReplyDeleteI'm traveling so I may not be able to make a quick reply.
ReplyDeleteCrowder's a hack. That's all I had.
:-)
The truth is, as a secular Jew living in America, no one should want to see Mohammed mocked more than I. I'm all for it! And I agree re: freedom of speech.
I guess the thing that kinda sorta bothers me is the person who purposely goes out of their way to celebrate it. And at the end of the day, I'm forced to ask, "What's the joke? Where's the satire?" Simply saying "America = good, Islam = bad" isn't good enough.
"I'm forced to ask, "What's the joke? Where's the satire?" Simply saying "America = good, Islam = bad" isn't good enough"
ReplyDeleteScott that is kind of Geller's point in a ham-handed way. One can't DO satire about Mohammed...it get's the satirist killed (see Charlie Hebdo). Remember when Trey Parker and Matt Stone had Mohammed on "South Park" broadcast across the world? No, you don't. The broadcasters were so afraid of pissing off Islam that they pulled it. Of course, you can find it on the web if you look, but not on FB, Twitter etc. because they ban this kind of stuff.
Thank goodness our predecessors were not so afraid of upsetting Nazis otherwise Hitler would have won the war...remember Charlie Chaplin and "The Great Dictator"???
Bev -
ReplyDeleteOf course I remember! But at the same time, Chaplin didn't make lampooning Hitler his entire life's work, which personally makes it hard for me to sympathize with Geller. While I might agree with her thesis, I have no use for sanctimonious true believers. :-)