I've changed my mind

[WVPATX]

My initial reaction to the Pamela Geller contest was opposition. I didn't like defaming a religious figure. But having watched both liberals and conservatives (O'Reilly, Van Susteren and Ingram) blasting Geller, I have changed my mind. Megyn Kelly convinced me that we cannot give radical Islamists a "heckler's veto." Free speech is too important and where does this veto stop? They essentially get to impose Sharia Law, at least related to blasphemy laws.

Liberals reaction is particularly interesting. Liberals were very much in favor of the government funded, Piss Christ, exhibit. They love the Book of Mormons show on Broadway. They are also the "champions" of women and gay rights (which obviously Islamists are 100% opposed to both and even kill when the mood strikes them). But they give Islam a very wide berth. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

Geller has received death threats from ISIS and neither Homeland Security or the FBI have contacted her. Atrocious. You may not like her or her methods, but we cannot let the radicals win on this issue. It's simply too important.

Btw, has any else noticed the stupidity of liberals that have called Geller's conference hate speech and a violation of the first amendment? Cuomo of CNN is a law school graduate and claimed her speech was unconstitutional. What an idiot. Other libs like Chrissy Mathews and the NY Times have also made claims along these lines. What is wrong with these people?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Christianity has been heckled throughout our recent history without a mere word about the morality nor hate speech implications to it. It's even been regarded as art.

I don't really have an opinion as to what she does nor the implications. I don't have a dog in the fight.

 

[moe]

Geller has received death threats from ISIS and neither Homeland Security or the FBI have contacted her. Atrocious. You may not like her or her methods, but we cannot let the radicals win on this issue. It's simply too important. Why should HS or the FBI be in charge of providing her with some kind of personal security team?

 

[countryroads89]

You're throwing around the word liberals an awful lot in your post and making broad generalizations about what they believe and don't believe. Call me a liberal if you want, call me a progressive, etc etc. Labels really don't bother me when they are slung at me personally. I consider myself a liberal but don't agree 100% with "other liberals" slamming free speech. On this particular issue, I personally would not have organized the event nor would I have attended it but I support 100% their right to free speech.

You are mistaken when you say liberals are hypocrites. I will agree with you on this isolated instance for the liberals that are condemning the free speech. However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live". Liberals are acting as a "counter-balance" to the hard-line right winger Christians in this country that want to burn every single Muslim alive. The liberals position is to let everyone practice their own faith without interference and at the same time don't force religion down the throats of those that don't want it. And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion.

 

[WVPATX]

Geller has received death threats from ISIS and neither Homeland Security or the FBI have contacted her. Atrocious. You may not like her or her methods, but we cannot let the radicals win on this issue. It's simply too important. Why should HS or the FBI be in charge of providing her with some kind of personal security team?

Are you serious? When a legitimate death threat is received, the police always get involved. Your logic is ridiculous.

 

[WVPATX]

You're throwing around the word liberals an awful lot in your post and making broad generalizations about what they believe and don't believe. Call me a liberal if you want, call me a progressive, etc etc. Labels really don't bother me when they are slung at me personally. I consider myself a liberal but don't agree 100% with "other liberals" slamming free speech. On this particular issue, I personally would not have organized the event nor would I have attended it but I support 100% their right to free speech.

You are mistaken when you say liberals are hypocrites. I will agree with you on this isolated instance for the liberals that are condemning the free speech. However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live". Liberals are acting as a "counter-balance" to the hard-line right winger Christians in this country that want to burn every single Muslim alive. The liberals position is to let everyone practice their own faith without interference and at the same time don't force religion down the throats of those that don't want it. And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion.

Liberals don't put their nose in the business of others' religion? Are you kidding me? Liberals are pushing Catholic and Christian institutions to fund birth control and abortion drugs. Liberals are pushing Christians to provide support for gay weddings. I could go on and on. Live and let live is the territory of libertarians. Liberalism is the territory of big government with lots and lots of rules and regulations to control the lives and actions of citizens.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It's interesting how you consistently proclaim liberals as hypocrites, but don't acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent in the event in the first place.

However, the American Freedom Defense Initiative claims to stand for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, and Equal Rights of All People. However, they apparently don't feel as if Muslims should have equal rights in this country, and this event was a direct response to a Muslim event the week before, so apparently they don't feel like that the Muslims in that community should have Freedom of Speech.

Having said all that ... the fault for what happened doesn't fall on the organizer or what they did or said, it falls squarely on those that pulled the trigger(s).

However, the organization, the event, and the motivation for the event are so drenched in hypocrisy as to be absurd.

I agree with you, that it's ridiculous to claim that this was a violation of the 1st Amendment, when the 1st Amendment protects this very thing. However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you always should. WBC has the right to protest at military funerals also, but it doesn't mean they should.

Lastly, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Fox News anchor influenced your opinion.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

lots and lots of rules and regulations to control the lives and actions of citizens.

Interesting ... that's how I feel about religions

 

[countryroads89]

Liberals are pushing Catholic and Christian institutions to fund birth control and abortion drugs. Liberals are pushing Christians to provide support for gay weddings..

You didn't read this part of my post: "And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion."
I seem to recall a Supreme Court decision in 1972 that made abortion legal. If you want to choose a fight, get that ruling overturned and make it illegal instead of whining when someone defends their right to a legal action and fights against employer discrimination. I suppose you want us liberals to keep our nose out of your business when you start up the lynchings again in the name of Christianity or the dunking of witches?

 

[WVPATX]

It's interesting how you consistently proclaim liberals as hypocrites, but don't acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent in the event in the first place.

However, the American Freedom Defense Initiative claims to stand for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, and Equal Rights of All People. However, they apparently don't feel as if Muslims should have equal rights in this country, and this event was a direct response to a Muslim event the week before, so apparently they don't feel like that the Muslims in that community should have Freedom of Speech.

Having said all that ... the fault for what happened doesn't fall on the organizer or what they did or said, it falls squarely on those that pulled the trigger(s).

However, the organization, the event, and the motivation for the event are so drenched in hypocrisy as to be absurd.

I agree with you, that it's ridiculous to claim that this was a violation of the 1st Amendment, when the 1st Amendment protects this very thing. However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you always should. WBC has the right to protest at military funerals also, but it doesn't mean they should.

Lastly, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Fox News anchor influenced your opinion.

You failed to acknowledge that three Fox News celebrities came out against Geller. And it is the height of hypocrisy for the NY Times to vilify Geller and laud Serrano (Piss Christ artist).

How is Geller denying Muslims equal rights? That makes zero sense. Is she not allowed to protest the Muslim convention with political speeech? That's lampooning the convention not taking away anyone's rights.

 

[moe]

Are you serious? When a legitimate death threat is received, the police always get involved. Your logic is ridiculous.

If I read about the FBI or HS providing her with a security detail in relation to the ISIS fatwas, then you're right. If I don't, then you're FOS as usual.

 

[moe]

You're throwing around the word liberals an awful lot in your post and making broad generalizations about what they believe and don't believe. Call me a liberal if you want, call me a progressive, etc etc. Labels really don't bother me when they are slung at me personally. I consider myself a liberal but don't agree 100% with "other liberals" slamming free speech. On this particular issue, I personally would not have organized the event nor would I have attended it but I support 100% their right to free speech.

You are mistaken when you say liberals are hypocrites. I will agree with you on this isolated instance for the liberals that are condemning the free speech. However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live". Liberals are acting as a "counter-balance" to the hard-line right winger Christians in this country that want to burn every single Muslim alive. The liberals position is to let everyone practice their own faith without interference and at the same time don't force religion down the throats of those that don't want it. And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion.

He likes to use labels and make meaningless broad generalizations to simplify the world for him, SSDD.

 

[WVPATX]

Interesting ... that's how I feel about religions

Yes, religions teach right from wrong. But they don't put you in jail if you don't comply. Huge difference. With each new rule, regulation and law, we are losing freedoms.

 

[WVPATX]

You didn't read this part of my post: "And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion."
I seem to recall a Supreme Court decision in 1972 that made abortion legal. If you want to choose a fight, get that ruling overturned and make it illegal instead of whining when someone defends their right to a legal action and fights against employer discrimination. I suppose you want us liberals to keep our nose out of your business when you start up the lynchings again in the name of Christianity or the dunking of witches?

Your ludicrous claim that liberals are live and let live is demonstrably false. Liberals are all about laws enforcing their views on our lives. Roe v. Wade is the classic example. Libs can't leave it up to democracy to decide important issues, so 5 unelected liberals decide that the "right to privacy" makes abortion legal throughout the U.S. Even a liberal justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognizes the falacy of that argument and the resulting tragedy. If you are truly live and let live, you would be a libertarian. And you don't seem to grasp the concept that the very FIRST and most important amendment gives us religious liberty.

 

[WVPATX]

If I read about the FBI or HS providing her with a security detail in relation to the ISIS fatwas, then you're right. If I don't, then you're FOS as usual.

Name calling seems to be the liberals calling card when they have lost the debate. The ISIS death threat has been published. The FBI nor Homeland security has talked with her. Those are the facts as of this morning. You seem to only want police protection for liberals that you agree with.

 

[countryroads89]

And you don't seem to grasp the concept that the very FIRST and most important amendment gives us religious liberty.

Here's the First Amendment, word for word: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's the very first part of the very first sentence that a lot people have a problem with and want this nation to be a theocratic nation (a nation that bases it's laws on religion, since you can't seem to grasp simple things sometimes). We don't have a problem with you practicing your religion, just don't discriminate or cause harm to anyone else in the name of your religion. (It's a sad commentary when you even have to make statements like this).

 

[moe]

Your ludicrous claim that liberals are live and let live is demonstrably false. Liberals are all about laws enforcing their views on our lives. Roe v. Wade is the classic example. Libs can't leave it up to democracy to decide important issues, so 5 unelected liberals decide that the "right to privacy" makes abortion legal throughout the U.S. Even a liberal justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognizes the falacy of that argument and the resulting tragedy. If you are truly live and let live, you would be a libertarian. And you don't seem to grasp the concept that the very FIRST and most important amendment gives us religious liberty.

But you'd be ok though if that court ruling went the other way, right? All groups use the courts in one way or the other to get the rulings that they seek.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

But they don't put you in jail if you don't comply. Huge difference.

In this country, yes, in other countries that's not true. And historically that hasn't exactly been true either, even for Christianity. Maybe not jail per se, but certainly punishment for not complying

 

[moe]

Name calling seems to be the liberals calling card when they have lost the debate. The ISIS death threat has been published. The FBI nor Homeland security has talked with her. Those are the facts as of this morning. You seem to only want police protection for liberals that you agree with.

Where did I call you a name? Saying you're FOS is merely descriptive and usually quite accurate. You're the one saying that they should provide her protection and I say that it's not their job. I don't care who the FBI or HS protects or doesn't protect. I agree with her but she's on her own and entitled to the same police protection as any other U.S. cititzen as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

But you'd be ok though if that court ruling went the other way, right? All groups use the courts in way or the other to get the rulings that they seek.

Hell yes he'd be OK with it ... Look at gay marriage. The religious right want to ban it because it goes against what the bible says.

 

[WVPATX]

Here's the First Amendment, word for word: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's the very first part of the very first sentence that a lot people have a problem with and want this nation to be a theocratic nation (a nation that bases it's laws on religion, since you can't seem to grasp simple things sometimes). We don't have a problem with you practicing your religion, just don't discriminate or cause harm to anyone else in the name of your religion. (It's a sad commentary when you even have to make statements like this).

The establisment of religion deals with a national chruch, like the church of England. The Free Exercise clause seems to be one that you can't grasp. The Supreme Court just ruled that Obama and the libs overstepped their authority when requiring religiously based businesses and institutions to force funding of contraceptives and abortion drugs. You claim that Christians want to force Christian laws on America. Clearly Christians want the laws to represent their values. Just as liberals want the laws to represent their secular values. There is zero difference as each sides tries to influence legislation.

 

[WVPATX]

Where did I call you a name? Saying you're FOS is merely descriptive and usually quite accurate. You're the one saying that they should provide her protection and I say that it's not their job. I don't care who the FBI or HS protects or doesn't protect. I agree with her but she's on her own as far as I'm concerned.

As usual, you're wrong. Police protection must be provided in the wake of legitimate death threats. Your cavalier attitude toward her life is appalling but consistent with liberal ideology against those with which they disagree.

 

[WVPATX]

Hell yes he'd be OK with it ... Look at gay marriage. The religious right want to ban it because it goes against what the bible says.

But you'd be ok though if that court ruling went the other way, right? All groups use the courts in one way or the other to get the rulings that they seek.

Wrong once again. The courts are not empowered to "create " law, only to interpret. Far too often, the courts have created new law which the Founders never intended. We have co-equal branches of government for a reason. The Supreme Court is unelected and should never create law, under any circumstance.

 

[WVPATX]

Hell yes he'd be OK with it ... Look at gay marriage. The religious right want to ban it because it goes against what the bible says.

Only one side is trying to change the definition of marriage and it is not the conservatives.

 

[moe]

As usual, you're wrong. Police protection must be provided in the wake of legitimate death threats. Your cavalier attitude toward her life is appalling but consistent with liberal ideology against those with which they disagree.

So why hasn't she received the protection that you say the police must provide? Maybe they don't consider it a "legitimate" threat? or maybe you don't have a clue about what you're talking about (quite likely).

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Only one side is trying to change the definition of marriage and it is not the conservatives.

What definition would that be and where did it come from?

The conservatives are just trying to change the definition of "equal rights"

 

[WVPATX]

So why hasn't she received the protection that you say the police must provide? Maybe they don't consider it a "legitimate" threat? or maybe you don't have a clue about what you're talking about (quite likely).

Like I said , you are one callous individual. They have already tried to kill once and you are dismissing this threat. Does Charlie Hebdo ring a bell? My very strong guess is that if Geller were a liberal you would feel very differently.

 

[WVPATX]

What definition would that be and where did it come from?

If you don't know, then I can't help you.

 

[countryroads89]

If you don't know, then I can't help you.

It's a very simple and straightforward question....

 

[WVPATX]

It's a very simple and straightforward question....

And you don't know? Very interesting.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

If you don't know, then I can't help you.

It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer, you just don't want to answer it. Why would that be?

 

[eerfan58]

You're throwing around the word liberals an awful lot in your post and making broad generalizations about what they believe and don't believe. Call me a liberal if you want, call me a progressive, etc etc. Labels really don't bother me when they are slung at me personally. I consider myself a liberal but don't agree 100% with "other liberals" slamming free speech. On this particular issue, I personally would not have organized the event nor would I have attended it but I support 100% their right to free speech.

You are mistaken when you say liberals are hypocrites. I will agree with you on this isolated instance for the liberals that are condemning the free speech. However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live". Liberals are acting as a "counter-balance" to the hard-line right winger Christians in this country that want to burn every single Muslim alive. The liberals position is to let everyone practice their own faith without interference and at the same time don't force religion down the throats of those that don't want it. And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion.

"However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live" You're a few years behind.

 

[moe]

Like I said , you are one callous individual. They have already tried to kill once and you are dismissing this threat. Does Charlie Hebdo ring a bell? My very strong guess is that if Geller were a liberal you would feel very differently.

Plead your case to the FBI or HS, not me. I'm not in charge of her security. I have no idea whether she's a liberal or conservative or somewhere in between. It has no bearing for me which is in stark contrast to you who needs to put a label on everyone.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Interesting ... that's how I feel about religions

That's completely backwards for Christianity.

 

[TarHeelEer]

It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer, you just don't want to answer it. Why would that be?

It shouldn't be rhetorical. It gets to the root of the issue. It is defined from within religion, all 3 main branches of religion, to be specific.

Government has hijacked the word. They need to find their own.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It shouldn't be rhetorical. It gets to the root of the issue. It is defined from within religion, all 3 main branches of religion, to be specific.

Government has hijacked the word. They need to find their own.

Totally agree.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

That's completely backwards for Christianity.

Well, you are totally right as far as the teachings and the message. I'm going to leave it at that because 1)I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, and 2) I don't want to come across as insulting to you or your beliefs because as near as I can tell you do epitomize what I feel Christians should be and how they should behave. As much as you can tell anything about anybody from these boards anyway.

I have a hard time articulating my view in this forum and have it come out in a way that is completely consistent with my stance.

 

[bornaneer]

You're throwing around the word liberals an awful lot in your post and making broad generalizations about what they believe and don't believe. Call me a liberal if you want, call me a progressive, etc etc. Labels really don't bother me when they are slung at me personally. I consider myself a liberal but don't agree 100% with "other liberals" slamming free speech. On this particular issue, I personally would not have organized the event nor would I have attended it but I support 100% their right to free speech.

You are mistaken when you say liberals are hypocrites. I will agree with you on this isolated instance for the liberals that are condemning the free speech. However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live". Liberals are acting as a "counter-balance" to the hard-line right winger Christians in this country that want to burn every single Muslim alive. The liberals position is to let everyone practice their own faith without interference and at the same time don't force religion down the throats of those that don't want it. And we are definitely against discrimination in general. It's a very tricky situation when someone says they want to discriminate in the name of their religion.

However, I must point out that liberals generally don't make it a point to put their nose in the business of others' religion. The general philosophy is "live and let live".

Are you really serious? I consider myself a moderate to conservative. Based on your posts, I believe in "live and let live" a lot more than you do. You have NEVER EVER seen me question anyones religious beliefs ,that goes for ALL religions, OR non religious beliefs. It did not take you long to spout your "hard-line right winger Christians" bullshit. What a hypocrite you are.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

So, to get back to the original point of the post and not get bogged down in who is and isn't a liberal, what the definition of a liberal is, and the religion bullshit aspect of the discussion.

@WhiteTailEER

However, they apparently don't feel as if Muslims should have equal rights in this country, and this event was a direct response to a Muslim event the week before, so apparently they don't feel like that the Muslims in that community should have Freedom of Speech.

This event was a direct response but not as you are portraying. The previous event by Muslims was to raise money to help combat the message of Islam being radical and violent. The event being held by Gellar was to portray Islam as what many feel it is. They were not trying to stop Muslims from promoting their anti-defamation cause.

Further, did you see where the imam on Greta basically calling out Gellar and said she should be tried in a Sharia court and face capital punishment? He essentially said the actions of the Jihadis were justified.

To @WVPATX's point, those who are condemning the actions of Gellar are sickening to me. She has every right to do what she was doing. Why are we afraid to offend Islam but not other religions? If you say it's because of the fear of what they might do and it being irresponsible, IMO that is tantamount to submitting to the terrorists objectives. They have created a fear in our society by their actions. Their methods are working essentially. I'm all for what she was doing. It reminds me of 2 incidents. 1 was back in 2004/2005 where a dutch newspaper was going to run a cartoon caricature of Mohammaed with his beard or turban as a bomb. Under fear of reprisal, they cancelled it. The other was Southpark planning to do something similar and it was also blocked from airing. Now that I think about it, Scientology did the same thing to Southpark.

While obviously offensive to Islam, who gives a shit? She was well within her rights to express their beliefs and perceptions on what Islam represents and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I'm appalled that anyone in this country would be against it regardless of whether it was in poor taste or not. For the record, I supported "piss Christ" and "shit Christ" when those were done as well.

 

[bornaneer]

Hell yes he'd be OK with it ... Look at gay marriage. The religious right want to ban it because it goes against what the bible says.

Look at gay marriage. The religious right want to ban it because it goes against what the bible says.

What about the religious left? When my wife was working as an adoption social worker in the Maryland, she would be invited to speak to many church congregations. I sat thru many two to three hour services at African American churches. I promise you that 99.9% of the parishioners voted for Democrats. Funny though, how they riled against subjects like gay marriage and abortion. I certainly would not classify them as the " religious right".