Reply to Pamela Geller is nuts

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Pamela Geller is nuts"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"? 
[/quote] You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.

Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative.  I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic.  Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech.  Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists,  flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc.  On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely  find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion?   I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech.  You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.[/quote]

So.., are you saying the rest of us do not support the first amendment, merely because we think her event was provocation?  [/quote] That was neither stated nor implied. The distinction drawn was that supporting free speech in this instance (no matter how hate filled) does not make one Islamaphobic.

Similarly, you can hate the actions of Westboro. You can support their right to spew their hatred without yourself supporting that hatred. You can point out their perversion of Christianity without yourself being anti-Christian or Christian-phobic.  This logic follows both for Geller and other offensive, provocative or hateful people or groups, but we must hold the 1st amendment protection for them and not just for those with whom we agree. If we do not it weakens the protection for all of us.  This isn't something many of us are willing to do, even if it means we have to be offended, disgusted, or angered from time to time.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics