Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(^^I'm the one who posted this^^)

So the laws do exist and are sometimes not enforced or people break the law and do it anyway. But the laws are there.

How aggressively does government pursue prosecution?

Probably as aggressively as any government pursues any violations against women. But what does this have to do with Islam?

You maintain the U.S. and Arab countries treat women the same from a legislative standpoint?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Re Geller:

If you think a prohibition on behavior X is dumb, the most logical and best way to challenge the prohibition is to do X. And do it again and again until the stigma of doing X is gone and the prohibition looks silly. If certain Muslims want to not draw their prophet, they don't have to, but they don't get to tell non-muslims who don't hold that belief what they can and cannot draw. I like what Geller did.

The anti-Geller posters all begin by assuming that a prohibition on drawing Mohammed is a good and defensible belief of all or most muslims, but it's not. It is of relatively recent origin and isn't universally accepted. Imagine you were a muslim who disagreed that this prohibition was scriptural but was seeing it become a commonplace (mis)interpretation of the Koran/Hadith. What might you do to oppose it become settled doctrine? Draw Mohammed...

I doubt that you have read any of this thread given that you post doesn't reflect any of the discussion. Nobody has suggest that there should be a prohibition on drawing Muhammed or that Geller was not within her rights to sponsor such drawing. The issue is how the public responds to Geller. Given that Geller is engaged in a long-running anti-Islam campaign, she should be treated no differently than a run-of-the-mill racist or anti-Semite. As you know, racists and anti-Semites are within their rights to hold racist and anti-Semitic events. But, such people are shunned by the general public. Indeed, the mere suggestion that Representative Steve Scalise might have appeared before a racist organization was a significant controversy. Why would someone treat an Islamaphobe differently than they would treat a racist or anti-Semite?

[Anonymous]

How is vehemently opposing Radical Islam phobic?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:How is vehemently opposing Radical Islam phobic?

She opposes more than "radical" Islam. She opposed the Ground Zero mosque because it would be insulting -- this from someone who hosts conferences for insulting drawings. She opposed an Arabic-language school in New York, calling it a "madrassa" even though it had no religious component. Earlier, I quoted a New York Times editorial about her that said:

"Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism."
...

"As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is vehemently opposing Radical Islam phobic?

It isn't. But regrettably, she also opposes nice little school kids who happen to study Arabic. And she opposes mosques in Lower Manhattan.

[Anonymous]

Hate speech is protected. I hate nazis and Islamo Faschists . Nothin wrong with it either.

[Anonymous]

Nothing wrong with opposing mosques on the 911 site or public schools teaching religion .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with opposing mosques on the 911 site or public schools teaching religion .

Yet neither of those things was true. The mosque was blocks away, next to an off-track betting parlor. And the public school did not teach religion. It taught the Arabic language.

[Anonymous]

How many blocks away? Are there any Hebrew language public schools?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Geller:

If you think a prohibition on behavior X is dumb, the most logical and best way to challenge the prohibition is to do X. And do it again and again until the stigma of doing X is gone and the prohibition looks silly. If certain Muslims want to not draw their prophet, they don't have to, but they don't get to tell non-muslims who don't hold that belief what they can and cannot draw. I like what Geller did.

The anti-Geller posters all begin by assuming that a prohibition on drawing Mohammed is a good and defensible belief of all or most muslims, but it's not. It is of relatively recent origin and isn't universally accepted. Imagine you were a muslim who disagreed that this prohibition was scriptural but was seeing it become a commonplace (mis)interpretation of the Koran/Hadith. What might you do to oppose it become settled doctrine? Draw Mohammed...

I doubt that you have read any of this thread given that you post doesn't reflect any of the discussion. Nobody has suggest that there should be a prohibition on drawing Muhammed or that Geller was not within her rights to sponsor such drawing. The issue is how the public responds to Geller. Given that Geller is engaged in a long-running anti-Islam campaign, she should be treated no differently than a run-of-the-mill racist or anti-Semite. As you know, racists and anti-Semites are within their rights to hold racist and anti-Semitic events. But, such people are shunned by the general public. Indeed, the mere suggestion that Representative Steve Scalise might have appeared before a racist organization was a significant controversy. Why would someone treat an Islamaphobe differently than they would treat a racist or anti-Semite?

I doubt that you read any of my post given that your post doesn't reflect any of what I said. The people who suggest that there should be a (social) prohibition on drawing Mohammed are the muslims you are defending. Obviously Geller was within her First Amendment rights to violate that prohibition. My point is that the event she hosted was (socially) fine, and she shouldn't be shunned or whatever, because it is okay for her to believe that that (social) prohibition is dumb and to challenge it directly. Some muslims aren't entitled to pressure the rest of the world into abstaining from depicting Mohammed because it offends their sensibilities. Are gentiles who work on the Sabbath antisemitic because they are disobeying Jewish scripture? Do you people who eat at steakhouses because they know that vegetarians/vegans/etc. are terribly offended by the killing and eating of animals? Muslim sensibilities don't deserve special treatment.

And bringing up other supposed racist things Geller has done does not justify your disapproval of her drawing contest. I didn't agree with her opposition to the NYC mosque, but that's another discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many blocks away? Are there any Hebrew language public schools?

There's a Hebrew language immersion public school right here in DC. Called Sela.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Geller:

If you think a prohibition on behavior X is dumb, the most logical and best way to challenge the prohibition is to do X. And do it again and again until the stigma of doing X is gone and the prohibition looks silly. If certain Muslims want to not draw their prophet, they don't have to, but they don't get to tell non-muslims who don't hold that belief what they can and cannot draw. I like what Geller did.

The anti-Geller posters all begin by assuming that a prohibition on drawing Mohammed is a good and defensible belief of all or most muslims, but it's not. It is of relatively recent origin and isn't universally accepted. Imagine you were a muslim who disagreed that this prohibition was scriptural but was seeing it become a commonplace (mis)interpretation of the Koran/Hadith. What might you do to oppose it become settled doctrine? Draw Mohammed...

I doubt that you have read any of this thread given that you post doesn't reflect any of the discussion. Nobody has suggest that there should be a prohibition on drawing Muhammed or that Geller was not within her rights to sponsor such drawing. The issue is how the public responds to Geller. Given that Geller is engaged in a long-running anti-Islam campaign, she should be treated no differently than a run-of-the-mill racist or anti-Semite. As you know, racists and anti-Semites are within their rights to hold racist and anti-Semitic events. But, such people are shunned by the general public. Indeed, the mere suggestion that Representative Steve Scalise might have appeared before a racist organization was a significant controversy. Why would someone treat an Islamaphobe differently than they would treat a racist or anti-Semite?

I doubt that you read any of my post given that your post doesn't reflect any of what I said. The people who suggest that there should be a (social) prohibition on drawing Mohammed are the muslims you are defending. Obviously Geller was within her First Amendment rights to violate that prohibition. My point is that the event she hosted was (socially) fine, and she shouldn't be shunned or whatever, because it is okay for her to believe that that (social) prohibition is dumb and to challenge it directly. Some muslims aren't entitled to pressure the rest of the world into abstaining from depicting Mohammed because it offends their sensibilities. Are gentiles who work on the Sabbath antisemitic because they are disobeying Jewish scripture? Do you people who eat at steakhouses because they know that vegetarians/vegans/etc. are terribly offended by the killing and eating of animals? Muslim sensibilities don't deserve special treatment.

And bringing up other supposed racist things Geller has done does not justify your disapproval of her drawing contest. I didn't agree with her opposition to the NYC mosque, but that's another discussion.

Again, it would have been nice for you to read this thread because your entire post has been covered already. You want to act as if the drawing contest took place in a vacuum and nothing about Geller matters. But, life is not that simple. As I said in a previous post, if a group of art majors held a conference to display classical nude paintings and Hustler Magazine held a contest of nude photos, they both could accurately be described as displays of artwork. Yet, the way the public would react is very different. Weller is an Islamophobe who held her event as part of her campaign of hatred. If Geller had a history of advocating for the 1st Amendment, I might judge her differently. But, the opposite is true. She has a history of attempting to interfere with the rights of expression of others. You want to divorce Geller's drawing event from the baggage she carries, but you likely wouldn't do that with racists or anti-Semites. Unfortunately, that suggests a certain amount of anti-Islamism on your own part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many blocks away? Are there any Hebrew language public schools?

The Islamic Cultural Center proposal (it was not an actual mosque, but an intercultural center to promote inter-faith dialogue and had a prayer space for Muslims inside) was 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

There is a public charter school in Brooklyn called Hebrew Language Academy Charter School.

Really, why are people so lazy? I found both of these "facts" with about 30 seconds on Google.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
...

"As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

This article has perhaps the stupidest line I've ever seen in the NY Times.

"Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. "

Really?? Millions of Muslims suffer anguish because some non-believers in a small Texas town drew a cartoon of Muhammed crying at the atrocities of ISIS?? The families of the Charlie Hebdo or 9-11 victims suffered anguish -- please don't use the same word to describe reactions to a cartoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many blocks away? Are there any Hebrew language public schools?

The Islamic Cultural Center proposal (it was not an actual mosque, but an intercultural center to promote inter-faith dialogue and had a prayer space for Muslims inside) was 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

There is a public charter school in Brooklyn called Hebrew Language Academy Charter School.

Really, why are people so lazy? I found both of these "facts" with about 30 seconds on Google.

2 blocks away from ground zero is insensitive to the victims . Be normal , pick a less controversial location. I'm against Hebrew and Arab public schools. Until the 90 percent of crap public schools teach math and English at a much higher level .. Wtf ?