23

Bear Growls: Pamela Geller

dt_common_streams_StreamServer_cls

 

Saint Corbinian’s Bear is bemused about the hysteria regarding Geller’s Draw Mohammed contest:

See the picture above. Does anything strike you as odd? Muslims attack us, and we are the ones who have to be reminded to be nice? This is a standard tactic: play the victim card. Close down discussion. You don’t want to be a hater, do you?

The condemnation of Pamela Geller’s free speech exercise in Garland, Texas by L’Osservatore Romano was unintentionally hilarious, as were thousands across the globe. They might as well have said that Muslims are mad dogs who can’t control themselves when something (Muhammad drawing, accidental Quran burning, the historical fact of First Crusade, Friday) triggers their irresistible urge to kill. Because in their warnings not to do anything that might offend our delicate Muslim cousins, they not only damn free speech, but could not be more condescending to the very people they’re trying to protect. They’re like Bear Safety Tips.

The Bear would not be the first to draw a comparison to someone blaming rape on the way women dress. “Geller had it coming.” Oh, come to think of it, the last person the Bear remembers doing that was Chief Australian Muslim cleric Taj al-Din al-Hilawi in 2006.

Sheik Hilawi was quoted as saying: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” Yep, ladies, better keep that cat-meat covered!

Pope Francis, who never saw a religion he didn’t like — except some elements of Catholicism — has said you cannot make fun of another religion.

Drawing a picture of a supposedly historical figure is not making fun of any religion. Giving some group advance veto power over speech is the end of free speech in principle.

Go here to read the rest.  As a matter of good manners I am normally opposed to offending the religious sensibilities of anyone.  However, in the case of Islam I will make an exception.  Why?  Because some of the acolytes of Islam are all too willing to use murder as a weapon to cause non-Muslims to censor their comments regarding Islam.  This is intolerable in a free society.  Rather than be angry at Geller, people in the West should be angry about Western elites who cowardly are willing to jettison what they supposedly hold dear, freedom of speech, once the subject is Islam.  They might also show some ire towards insane immigration laws throughout the West that are ensuring that the risk of murder by fanatical Muslims when anyone has the courage to speak the truth about the defects in Islam and its founder, will be a new fact of life in the West from now on.

islamprotest5

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

23 Comments

  1. So we had a high school girls tennis tournament this past Friday; the weather was fairly hot and humid, and the concrete courts in the full sun, well, they were at least 10F hotter. Still, it wasn’t that bad in standard high school tennis attire, and any teen age girl who plays tennis regularly should have been able to handle it well.
    .
    Most of them anyway. One (two?) the the teams had a number of girls who were dressed head-to-toe in headscarves, large shades, long athletic type pants, jackets even. One of the coaches had to come into the building to grab a Ziploc-ed bag of ice that was to be placed on the head of one of the girls with a headscarf so she wouldn’t get heat stroke.
    .
    I shook my head. He shook his head. Neither of us could say anything.

  2. DJ Hesselius.

    Thank goodness their not on the dive team. Headscarves could cause serious injury when entering the pool from the high dive.

    All kidding aside, the girls may want to switch disciplines. Just a thought.

  3. As a matter of good manners I am normally opposed to offending the religious sensibilities of anyone.

    A much neglected aspect of good manners is knowing when you should be rude, to keep someone from spiraling ever-ruder. Not usually taught to children and avoided by the adult but hot-headed because it’s a temptation to justify bad impulses by it, but it does exist.
    Not sure about other folks, but “do something you know some modern sects will find offensive in response to death threats and previous murders on suspicion” is a rather grossly exaggerated example of a minor rudeness to let someone know they are being rude.
    ****
    I must wonder– what do these folks think the extremists do to their neighbors who share 99.9% of their religious positions, but not that additional one?
    For that matter, do they realize that the sects that think Mohammad should never be shown got more popular because they killed those who disagreed? (There are historical pictures of Mohammad, a search will bring them up.)

  4. I am not personally brave. I admire those who do step up to right wrongs even despite mortal danger. Sometimes, besides not being brave, I also am held back from action because I have to really think things over…and over.. (Like when I first read Geo Weigel about pre-emptive strike) Maybe I am one of today’s nabobs, disabled by what-ifs and what-abouts. Anyway, God bless Pamela Geller.

  5. The poster is right – Jesus’ message is love and faith, not fear and hate.

    Fear and hate is Mohammed’s message.

  6. I admire Geller’s courage, but her tactics are not admirable. Gratuitously insulting other faiths is simply wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists, and Geller’s stunt wounded them just as the gratuitous molestation of a consecrated host wounds us. Of course, such acts, whoever reprehensible, cannot justify a violent response. And it would be imprudent beyond measure to try to criminalize such infantile behavior. Geller was within her legal rights and deserves the protection of the law. She is still a jerk.

  7. Philip: I agree, they shouldn’t be playing tennis if they aren’t wearing the right gear, but alas, not my call. And no, one does not need to wear revealing Lululemon to play tennis well. Most tennis uniforms I’ve seen are pretty basic and not skanky. More “conservative” districts can always find 14 inch skirts, or skirts with capris, and a looser fitting dry-fit top. It isn’t that hard nor that expensive.
    .
    I’m not even sure it is the coach’s call on who plays and what they wear. (They were out of town folk.) If the girl can swing a racket and hit the ball, it is my impression she is on at least the JV team no matter what she is wearing and might hit heat stroke.

  8. Mike, The First Amendment is operative.
    .
    Someone needs to tell those people that Almighty God doesn’t need them to punsih blasphemers.
    .

    Not sure she is a jerk. I think she’s “diablical.” Maybe Ms. Geller set a trap and tallied a body count. It could have gone differently.

  9. T,
    Of course the 1st Amendment is operative. So what? All kinds of odious conduct is protected by the 1st Amendment, and that is as it should be, just as the violent response is unprotected andunlawful as it should be. But none of that rescues her behavior from its odious nature.

  10. gratuitous
    [gruh-too-i-tuh s, -tyoo-]
    Spell Syllables
    Synonyms Examples Word Origin
    adjective
    1. given, done, bestowed, or obtained without charge or payment; free; voluntary.
    2. being without apparent reason, cause, or justification:
    a gratuitous insult.

    Would you like to make the case that “do not make an image of Mohammad, or we will kill you” is without reason, cause or justification in people responding negatively, or are you sticking with blaming those who do not fold under to threats of death?
    Please keep in mind that land which was once under Muslim control and currently is not is also an extreme insult, not to mention the issue of those who convert away from Islam– even if they were only members because their father was.
    .
    The vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists,

    The vast majority of the US has never served in the armed forces, either; it does not follow that thus only a fraction support the actions of the US armed forces.
    .
    and Geller’s stunt wounded them just as the gratuitous molestation of a consecrated host wounds us.

    No, it doesn’t.
    Mohammad is not God, his image is not his body, and those who are objecting are basically the homicidal version of those Christians who object to statues and paintings of saints and the Christ.
    The Islamic tradition against the images also forbids images of Allah and all the Prophets– including Jesus and Abraham. To prevent idolatry.
    .
    If you want an analogous situation to drawing Mohammad, there’s this:
    It is as if someone, in response to wide-spread threats of violence over a lack of respect to images of Christ, and after many murders, drew an image of Christ on the Cross doing something that was offensive to those committing the murders.

  11. Is this a terrible thought?

    The police killed terrorist that evening.
    Two men died that were armed and dangerous. They died because of their hatred.

    So be it.

    CAIR can call Geller a hate speech enthusiast all they want. The fact is two terrorist will not be planting a smart bomb tomorrow or next month. They are forever with their satanic idol.
    Geller a jerk? No. She is exposing the threat.

  12. Gratuitously insulting other faiths is simply wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists, and Geller’s stunt wounded them just as the gratuitous molestation of a consecrated host wounds us. Of course, such acts, whoever reprehensible, cannot justify a violent response. And it would be imprudent beyond measure to try to criminalize such infantile behavior.

    I attended a legal seminar the other day where the instructor noted that a surplus of adjectives and adverbs, particularly in a legal brief, was a sign that the person writing was unconvinced by their own arguments. It is perhaps, at the least, a sign of a weaker argument. Just saying.

  13. I was going to say Gellar’s “insult” was too calculated to be gratuitious, but foxfier beat me to it.

  14. If we care so much about the delicate sensitivities of Muslims, why are we offending them by tolerating, say, homosexual marriage?

  15. Mike, the last time I can recall you offering an emphatic opinion, it was to tell us that it was intolerable that a nun offered a group of students at a “Catholic” high school a precis of a literature review in The Linacre Quarterly. Now you’re telling us that Pamela Geller’s Mo’toons contest is as well. Personally, I doubt I’d have to travel far from my home to find perfectly gruesome displays. Somehow, I get through the day and I do not think the local police would be all that impressed if I shot up the nearest community theatre offering a performance of Angels in America.

    Some people make exhibits of themselves. Cannot pay too much attention or you just get more exhibits.

  16. To find out why you are wrong Mike Petrik- google “peaceful majorities irrelevant”-eg those now in Muslim-controlled countries and that in Germany in 1938-and do not miss Brigitte Gabriel’s speech about this. And also, note that there was once here a “peaceful majority” that did not want to upset the “blacks are sub-human property” applecart and that there is a “peaceful majority” here now in the US while 3500-4000 human beings PER DAY are murdered, some simply because they are Black, some simply because they are Hispanic, and thousands simply because they are girls. Mike, moral peaceful majorities must come out loudly and publicly against the murderous minority or their assumed Pollyanna “peace” will destroy even them. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  17. Take a chill pill, Mike.
    .

    Let us not surrender in to savages.

    .
    In other news: “Blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh, third this year.”

  18. The problem with Islam is that anyone (I mean man), can grow a beard, slap on a tunic and take a vacation to Mecca- and come back and declare themselves a “sheikh”. Any “sheikh” can declare themselves an “expert” in interpreting the Koran- just like Hilawi. Who mind you, even though holding the position of the highest Muslim in English speaking Australia, needed himself an interpreter because he couldn’t speak English. Hilawi was a convicted thief who was jailed for theft in Egypt. And he was charged for driving an unregistered car and his offensive behaviour to police officers when they stopped him. Yep! The highest cleric in Australia. The senior expert on cat meat and women.

    Muslims twist the Koran to their advantage- thats how they can shut down a logical argument. Don’t draw Mohammad. Don’t criticise. Don’t trust a non- Muslim.

    Plus, their religion thrives on fear and suspicion. That’s probably the common thing that unites them. It’s unfortunate to the intelligent, and good- intentioned Muslim person that they get bundled in with the scum.

    Blame Mohammad- he should have thought ahead when crafting his Islam.

Comments are closed.