Come to think of it - who has actually stated that her bigoted organization deserved to be shot?

Bryant

Can you? I have not seen a single post that expresses any love or adoration for Geller at all.

Certainly closer than the other attempt.

I followed this all day yesterday and things changed over time.

Early on, I think many people had no idea what this event was about or who had organized it.

There was an initial surge of support for the 1st amendment and support for those that had coordinated this event.

For those who knew more about Geller, it was somewhat alarming, but people began to post more information on her and her hate groups.

As DU became educated as to who she was, there was a sharp decline in the overall support for her and the event.

While the 1st amendment remained a primary issue and there was broad support for it in principle, there was a move towards separating that issue from Geller herself.

Overall, my sense at this time is that the bulk of people on this site support the 1st amendment and Geller's right to hold an event like this while simultaneously condemning her personally and her agenda.

That's a reasonable position, imo.

Deserved to be shot?

Bryant

One used the childish term, "cruisin' for a bruisin'" which was super charming.

"Cruising for a brusin" is pretty childish though.

Bryant

You, on the other hand, spoke explicitly of the "love" for Geller here and haven't backed that up so....

refusing to buy into the ridiculous argument that we shouldn't offend Muslims by mocking their pretend prophet is not the same as endorsing racism and bigotry.

Some people just like to argue.

I'm having a cream cheese and chive omelet for breakfast, so it looks to be an amazing day.

As for your breakfast. Seriously? Are you a troll?

but I realize who wants to come here simply to fight and argue, and who has an honest divergent opinion.

The Stalinists truly have taken over DU, nobody else would dare ruin an omelet with that stuff.

Just saying the opposite seems to be de rigueur around here lately. I couldn't resist.

You would just get shot.

Perhaps you should join these drawing exhibitions. The extreme right needs folks like you.

What an incredible insult to Rosa Parks.

...what the KKK is to African Americans. You laude her?

At least I hope that's the case.

Muslims are not a race, they are followers of Islam.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is an inherently hateful belief system that teaches, among other things, homophobia and misogyny.

African-Americans are a race, and not inherently hateful.

Therefore, criticism of Islam is warranted, criticism of African-Americans is racist.

I'm sure Geller is not motivated out of a desire to fight on behalf of homosexuals and women, yet she is still not quite on the same level as the KKK.

It is incitement. It is xenophobic bigotry.

She is on the same level of the KKK. She wanted to see people die, that was her goal.

Depends on the situation.

It is not inconsistent to say what Parks did was brave and a good thing for a good cause, while Gellar is doing a stupid thing for a useless cause.

What the holy hell are you talking about?

Is it your impression that there is some parallel between cartoonists who feel it is their God given right to draw images of Muhammed and the entire US Negro population in 1955? I will grant you that it is ridiculous to fear for your life because you draw that image, but not drawing that image is the only aspect of your entire life that is impacted by that. And you think that conjures up Rosa Parks?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I didn't learn anything about 'deserving'. 'Might' maybe.

It used to be common knowledge that when you know there are people around who will commit violence based on 'x', and you do 'x', you're risking your life. Not that you 'deserve' it, simply that it might happen.

Common Knowledge / Common Sense is in awfully short supply these days.

Just because I'm ALLOWED to do something without running afoul of the law, doesn't mean it's an awfully good idea to DO it, just to prove I can.

Here's what's been reinforced for me: Collectively, DU can be a bastion of shallow thought. I haven't seen one person who is denouncing Pamela Geller, hate group leader, saying "never make fun of Muhammed or "you deserve to be shot". And before you leap to point out someone who did, I'll gladly admit that I haven't read every post on the topic. But I have read quite a few, and the vast majority of DUers pointing out who Geller is and why she's not just reprehensible but demonstrably dangerous, are not condoning the actions of the dead gunmen or saying that one should never make fun of Muhammed. Like many others here, I defended Charlie Hebdo. Pamela Geller and the attack in Garland has little in common with the staffers of Charlie.

One more time: Pamela Geller is trying to initiate a war against Muslims. She supports genocide of Muslims. She advocates for the banning of Islam in the U.S. No, that's not going to happen, but her vile shtick (and it's hard to imagine hate more virulent than what she and her 2 organizations spew) does have a real world impact, and it's a damaging one; damaging to our society, damaging to individual Muslims and damaging to any dialogue.

So throw out the shallow one line ops to your heart's content. They say nothing of value. They distort. And they sure don't lead to discussion on this discussion board.

the hateful idiot sheep who attended her little gathering? I'll extend partial "victim status" to them, but Geller wants to start a war against Muslims in this country. She has been consistently clear about that for years.

Comparing her to a rape victim at a frat party is really low.

I understand that no one deserves violent retaliation for exercising their first amendment rights, but I truly believe that this event was not really about the 1st amendment at all.

Like you, I think she wants a war, blood in the streets. And I think this event went exactly as she anticipated.

That doesn't absolve the gunmen from responsibility at all, not one single bit.

I like the Rude Pundit's piece on this today and you have also been a strong voice in this debate.

your reply.

Generally speaking, do you think this is something that people should avoid doing?

I know this is a separate question from what is contained in your paragraphs here, but you are a person whose ideas I respect so I would be curious to get a sense of where you stand on this (I've been discussing it with many people out in the real world).

On the one hand, due to what happened with Charlie Hebdo and with Rushdie before that, part of me says that it is important to show solidarity with those folks and to go ahead and draw a cartoon of the prophet for that reason - to protect the values of satire and make the point that all religions ought to be able to be spoofed with equal impunity.

On the other hand, the motives of Geller are obviously laced with something other than solidarity with those victims and I would not want to be affiliated with her ilk.

Is drawing a cartoon of the prophet an act of bravery or an act of provocation (or both or neither)?

Do I think it's something people should avoid doing? In general, I don't think people should have to fear exercising their first amendment rights. That said, I come right back to context. If someone has advocated, as Geller has, an all out war on Muslims, it's clear to me that she is attempting to stir hate and incite violence with a thinly disguised "freedom of speech" event. It's fairly clever, but transparent to anyone aware of her history. The flimsiest and sheerest of excuses to gin up hate.

I agree it's important to show solidarity with thoughtful people like Rushdie who are expressing complex ideas and posing philosophical questions and with the folks at Charlie Hebdo who are attempting to poke holes in the conventional acceptance of religious beliefs and the overarching concept that we should all respect religion. Not exactly the same as Rushdie, but close enough.

Finally, back to context again: Drawing a cartoon of the prophet can be an act of bravery or it can be an act of provocation born out of hate. I suppose there could well be other motivations.

I kind of wish that a significantly less hateful person than PG had put together something like this event. I seem to recall in 2010 that there was a Draw Mohammed Day advocated by a more thoughtful person (I forget who it was) who was trying to make a statement of solidarity with those who received death threats for drawing the prophet. I believe that cartoonist ended up fearing for her life and going into hiding. This is the sort of thing that I feel like progressives ought to stand up for.

that Geller and her choice of location (hot bed of hate for Muslims and Islam) were a big piece of why these gunmen attacked the event. That in no way excuses them. (man, I get weary of having to say that).

At this point though, I'm not sure that sponsoring such a contest/event would bring more light than heat. Perhaps a contest that included Jesus, Buddha and other iconic figures of major religions, would seem to the Muslim community at large, less about attacking just Muslims.

I don't know.

But the drawing of other iconic figures of major religions such as Jesus and Buddha have not, as far as I know, led to the sort of violence that the drawing of the prophet has. Also, I do not believe that any prominent Christians or Buddhists have called for the drawing of their iconic figures to be punishable by death.

I do think it should be OK to say that this specific phenomenon that is particular to this faith is worth protesting all on its own.

Obviously if folks wanted to protest something about Christianity or Buddhism that they find objectionable, I would support that as well. I don't think that protesting something about one religion compels you to always include every other religion too.

For instance, the Book of Mormon is a satirical show that is directed mostly at just one religion, or the documentary about Scientology only focuses on the issues inherent in that world.

Another example is that there has been a growing movement to criticize orthodox Jewish men who refuse to sit next to women on airplanes. I think it would be fine to draw attention to this ridiculous practice without worrying about seeming like you are just attacking Jews.

I think people should feel like they can make fun of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc. with an equal degree of impunity.

Muslim response to mocking the prophet is so angry and too often violent, I'll just acknowledge that that is true.

I will say, however, that no I don't think that people should be able to "make fun" of religions with "impunity". Certainly they should be able to do without being physically attacked, but as we've discussed, all "making fun of" is not equal. And people who engage in hatred under the guise of "making fun", should not be immune to repercussions- think President Obama and racist jokes that have gotten some people fired. In other words, criticism of those criticizing is justifiable.

Good points. Lots to think about. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Just the differences in support of rights seems to be so out of whack but I have no idea how you came to that simplified logic. The consensus seems to be she has a right to say what she wants to say & no one has a right to kill her over it. \

The terrorists already won when she started preaching her Muslim hate all across the US, it helps with the fundamentalist recruiting. To me, the one event is symptomatic of a much larger problem & the lack of understanding of the variety of issues at play here.

Sometimes people are shot. Sometimes they are blown up. Others decapitated. It's reality.

"terrorists win." Another take home lesson for you? This one is a bit off. The two in Dallas lost.

Here's the lesson: when you tell someone, "Bring it!", they sometimes bring it. Be ready.

A lot of people also believe that the lesson taught by 2+2=? is Orange. Bless their little hearts...

If all the person wants to say can be contained in the title, it's easier for those using their phone than having to open it.

Just a theory.

I've always wondered about that.

YMMV

Who EXACTLY has learned that lesson? I want a link to the person who said anyone that makes fun of a prophet deserves to be shot - shouldn't be hard as you have quotation marks around those phrases - someone else MUST have used them. As far as tagging all of DU with that bullshit - shame on you.

If you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.

It comes with the territory. These people are not mere muslims, they are affiliated with ISIS.

X1000

sure you have free speech but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences....

if you attempt to incite violence (and they did) expect to get violence.

to run through Harlem yelling "Ni**ers" at the top of your lungs. Go ahead and try it out, we'll wait and see how that works out for you.

Being an asshole is not "brave" or impressive". People bite their tongues every day. Hell I'm doing it right now because what I really want to say will get my post deleted.

Is that you don't know the difference between the words deserve and expect.

I've seen several people on DU, myself included, say that if you use vile, extremist hate-filled language you shouldn't be surprised if you get that reaction in kind. That certainly doesn't me you deserve those repercussions but you'd be an idiot not to expect them. And apparently Geller did expect that response because she complained about having to spend an extra 50k on security.

is that the right-wing likes to use free speech as an excuse to glorify cultural bigotry, and apparently some posters on DU like to play along with that.

Why or why not?

Otherwise, please delete garbage.

I have seen people challenged (myself included) for stating we wouldn't defend her.

Do I believe she should be shot? Nope.

If I have the choice between saving Elijah Cummings or John Lewis - and Pamela Geller -


It's a no brainer. I'm going to jump in front of that bullet for the two darling inclusive of all American men on the right.


Let's someone who agrees with Geller take that bullet.

I also made the point - that even MLK knew first hand that kind and peaceful speech can lead to one being harmed. I care about his death - I care about his message.

I don't care about Geller and I wouldn't attend a candle light vigil in her death - just because I wouldn't want people thinking that I approve of her words or actions or agree with them in any way, shape or form. And I certainly wouldn't go to war for her.

No way - no how. She got herself into the public sphere with her beliefs - now she has to OWN HER WORDS good, bad, indifferent.

If you're willing to accept those consequences, then, fine.

My opinion is, this group may have had the right to have this contest, but what was the purpose of it? What were they trying to prove? What were they expecting?

But that doesn't mean they deserve my sympathy. If someone went to a black neighborhood and started yelling out racial slurs, I'd support their right to do so, but I'd be neither surprised nor sympathetic if that person were attacked.

Also, you have to watch yourself when criticizing a homophobic, misogynistic institution like the RCC because some Democratic voters are Catholic and also you are a hater and a bigot for pointing out that the RCC is hateful and bigoted.