Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/05/muhammad-cartoon-contest-organizer-pamela-geller-has-tense-exchange-with-fox-news-host-youre-looking-to-restrict-my-speech/
[/url]
The woman who created the tasteless Mohammed cartoon event is nuts.

People are not trying to "abridge her rights". They are saying that there are better ways to make your point than to deliberately incite them with an offense against their religion. The point is that yes, you have the right to make such cartoons. However the freedom of speech only states that the government shall not abridge your right to speech. It does not say that you can say anything you want and not bear the consequences of your action. I'm not saying that violence was an acceptable consequence, but public outrage at her crass and tasteless gesture was a truly acceptable consequence. Also, just because you make a political statement, the media and journalists are not required to print or document what you do. There is no guaranteed right to a public media platform for every political jerk out there. And because the media will not reprint your offensive cartoon does not mean they are censoring you. You are welcome to use other media besides television and newspapers to publish your cartoon. Heck, these days, you'll probably reach more people putting it on the Internet than you would on television or newspapers (certainly newspapers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/05/muhammad-cartoon-contest-organizer-pamela-geller-has-tense-exchange-with-fox-news-host-youre-looking-to-restrict-my-speech/
[/url]
The woman who created the tasteless Mohammed cartoon event is nuts.

People are not trying to "abridge her rights". They are saying that there are better ways to make your point than to deliberately incite them with an offense against their religion. The point is that yes, you have the right to make such cartoons. However the freedom of speech only states that the government shall not abridge your right to speech. It does not say that you can say anything you want and not bear the consequences of your action. I'm not saying that violence was an acceptable consequence, but public outrage at her crass and tasteless gesture was a truly acceptable consequence. Also, just because you make a political statement, the media and journalists are not required to print or document what you do. There is no guaranteed right to a public media platform for every political jerk out there. And because the media will not reprint your offensive cartoon does not mean they are censoring you. You are welcome to use other media besides television and newspapers to publish your cartoon. Heck, these days, you'll probably reach more people putting it on the Internet than you would on television or newspapers (certainly newspapers).

Just curious..... Did you have the same opinion regarding the artist who created “Piss Christ,” the crucifix submerged in urine?

[Anonymous]

And in this case, the consequence was to draw two radical Muslim sympathizers out of the woodwork to be taken out by one of our finest in blue.

Pamela Gellar might seem outrageous to you, but that's only because the liberal media conveniently forgets to use the word "Radical" in front of Muslim, when speaking about her. If you listen to Ms. Gellar, she is quite clear about the fact that she is talking about Radical Muslims, not Muslims as a whole.

I respect her for not cowering in fear, despite these monsters.

[Anonymous]

She is extremely brave.

She also correct.

There is a drawing on the net of all of the major deities of the world's religions having a very graphic orgy. (Mohammed is not included.)

No one has been killed or threatened over this drawing.

Christians may find things like this offensive, but know it is free speech.

[Anonymous]

She's running a pretty negative organization whose only purpose seems to be to degrade, demean and provoke believers of Islam. Protected speech in the USA? Sure.

She got the reaction she wanted and she gets on national TV as much as she wants for a while and her organization gains many more supporters. She wins.

As a Christian, I do agree that her actions are offensive, are free speech and are unChristian.

[Anonymous]

Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

Radical Muslims are throwing homosexual men off of buildings and stoning them to death at the bottom if they survive the fall- but Pam Geller is nuts, right?

Scratch a Lib, find a hypocrite. Every single time.

[Anonymous]

Taxpayer-subsidized Brooklyn Museum of Art ran an exhibit in which a portrait of the Virgin Mary was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.

Christians didn’t try to murder these artists. Nor did Christian organizations ask their members to do so.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

[Anonymous]

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-29553

WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

Link NSFW

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

If Muslims want to live in the USA, the have to learn to roll their eyes if someone insults their prophet and go on with their day.

Insulting their prophet isn't alienating them, it is protected free speech. They can find it distasteful, it can sicken and anger them, but they can't limit another American's speech because of those feelings.

Ms. Geller is pointing out that some Muslims will kill in the name of their religion and not adhere to our laws.

The non-radical Muslims should understand that and not be offended.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

If Muslims want to live in the USA, the have to learn to roll their eyes if someone insults their prophet and go on with their day.

Insulting their prophet isn't alienating them, it is protected free speech. They can find it distasteful, it can sicken and anger them, but they can't limit another American's speech because of those feelings.

Ms. Geller is pointing out that some Muslims will kill in the name of their religion and not adhere to our laws.

The non-radical Muslims should understand that and not be offended.

Muslims have every right to be offended. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it cannot be offensive. I am sure there are any number of legal activities that offend you. I agree that Muslims should channel their anger in more productive ways -- violence only increases the problems they face -- and the vast majority of Muslims do exactly that. But, I ask again, wouldn't you want to encourage a strategy that was more productive? Don't you think there are ways to support the 1st Amendment that have less collateral damage?

My issue with Geller is that she is more focused on opposing "radical" Islam than actually protecting free expression (and acting in ways that insult most Muslims rather than just "radical" ones). Geller opposed the Times Square Mosque citing the "message" such a mosque would send. Isn't that a type of expression? Shouldn't a Mosque that insults people (I actually don't believe this Mosque was meant to do that) be exactly the sort of 1st Amendment activity she should support?

[Anonymous]

Legal activities that offend me = smh, go about my day. Deal with it, we all do.

Who needs a "strategy?" Free speech is free speech. Do you have any advice on strategies for people who insult Christianity?

Pam Geller is correct for opposing radical Islam. We all should. I have lived and worked in muslim countries for years.

They treat women terribly, kids terribly, animals terribly. It is the worst possible life, brutal and disgusting. They kill homosexual men routinely.

And Pam Geller is being counseled for her "craziness?"

Pure insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is extremely brave.

She also correct.

There is a drawing on the net of all of the major deities of the world's religions having a very graphic orgy. (Mohammed is not included.)

No one has been killed or threatened over this drawing.

Christians may find things like this offensive, but know it is free speech.

You forgot to add "reckless" and "drama-obsessed."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.