Pamela Geller: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

From Time:

Some are saying I provoked this attack. But to kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

Sunday in Garland, Texas, a police officer was wounded in a battle that is part of a longstanding war: the war against the freedom of speech. Some people are blaming me for the Garland shooting — so I want to address that here.

The shooting happened at my American Freedom Defense Initiative Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, when two Islamic jihadists armed with rifles and explosives drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and attempted to gain entry to our event, which was just ending. We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security — and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective of replicating the massacre at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine last January — and to go it one better in carnage. They were not able to kill anyone. We provided enormous security, in concert with the superb Garland police department. The men who took the aspiring killers down may have saved hundreds of lives.

And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.

So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?

Are the Jews responsible for the Nazis? Are the Christians in the Middle East responsible for being persecuted by Muslims?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

This is a war. 

The rest of it is here. 

Comments

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

There's a huge part of me Tim that finds Pam's point of view troubling. I'll see if I can articulate why.

Think about the idiots recently who were stomping on the flag. Freedom of speech would suggest that they have the right to do what they did, as offensive to the rest of us as it might be. But should they?

I think the answer is clearly no.

Think of the artist years ago who dropped a crucifix in a jar of urine, piss Christ I think is what the exhibit was called... the artist had every right to put this on display but... should he have?

Pam Geller has every right to do what she's done... but... should she have?

I have to believe... to be consistent... that she should not have.

And this is where she and I part ways.

I understand her intent... I disagree with her methods.

I would care very little for those who might desecrate the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ... so I can understand those who find problems with desecrating the prophet Muhammad.

I think there are better ways to get our points across.

Much better, more dignified, ways than the ways Ms. Geller is employing.

My two cents worth.

[Kathy Brents]

I think she not only provoked it, but was trying to provoke something. I am all for freedom of speech, along with the rest our rights (obviously). But with rights come responsibility. Putting up events to intentionally provoke and offend somebody(Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, really?) is not what free speech is about. It's purpose is not so that we can purposely antagonize. It's about being able to practice and speak about our own beliefs, not to attack others. If your beliefs happen to offend somebody, then you have the freedom of speech to protect you. Although what she did unfortunately does fall under what she is free to do, I resent her acting like she was doing it to protect freedom of speech and her event has done nothing to forward the legitimate protections the rest of us are fighting to hold onto.

[Lands’nGrooves]

Rick,

While you or anyone else may disagree with Mrs. Geller surely the more offensive and troubling aspect of that situation was the Muslim scum who attempted to murder hundreds of people because of a cartoon.

I appreciate Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and others who put their lives, literally, to expose the Muslim faith for what it truly is – a death cult.

Given your examples, nobody attempted to kill the artist of “Piss Christ”. Nobody has ever, and correct me if I’m wrong, as ever been violently attacked for burning an American flag. And by the way, I agree with the Supreme Court in regards to that being protected free speech.

Being offended is a personal belief, not something I or somebody else gets to decide what I, or you, should say, write or draw. And certainly let’s not be cowered by savages who hate us for be Americans, for you being a Christian. This wasn’t about drawing Mohammed, this about war, as Geller stated.

tim, aka The Godless Heathen

[Lands’nGrooves]

Kathy,

Geller provoked terrorists to attempt to murder people? You don’t think they already had enough hate in them, enough evil intent to kill you, me or anyone because of what they already believe? That America sucks, that we are all infidels who need to be slaughtered?

And I strongly disagree with your characterization of free speech “not so that we can purposely antagonize”. That is the very essence of it. Freedom of speech isn’t just for what is considered non-offensive. Who gets to decide what is and isn’t? Supporting free speech is easy when it’s something you, I or a majority of us agree upon. The whole reason for the right to say anything is to not be afraid to say, or do something that is against the norm. Yes, even provocative.

You stated yourself, “It's about being able to practice and speak about our own beliefs.” Which easily can be considered offensive by someone who disagrees with you. “Attacking others” as you also stated is completely subjective.

And lastly, Mrs. Geller is in fact protecting free speech. And much more importantly exposing those that wish to limit it. One only has to look at Europe to see the capitulation to Sharia Law and the cowardice of once, great free people. Who are afraid to speak and now confined by laws limiting their rights because of what Muslims find offensive. I’m proud to say I stand with Geller and against the stealth jihad that has been waged there and what now is being attempted here in America - to silence. Today its cartoons tomorrow it will be much more.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

tim, hoping you're seeing the follow-up post I put up this morning. In the update of Mr. McDonald's piece, he writes:

But bad taste isn’t a death sentence, at least not in America. The self-selecting elites like to pretend that it is, so we get a lot of sneering at Geller from the same people who applaud every juvenile anti-Christian work that comes down the pike. It’s sickening.

I think that excerpt, and the rest of his piece, would suggest that you, and I, and Kathy and Mr. McDonald have more in common than not and it's that commonality that ought to bind us as we move to fight what threatens Western culture.

[Lands’nGrooves]

But let us be clear on what exactly is being "offensive" A simple drawing of Mohammed.

And let us also consider what is that Muslims think should happen to those that "insult" Mo - death.

Be very careful what side you choose.

By the way, Rick, I sincerely appreciate you allowing me to post something like this. Especially considering you feelings about the subject. It speaks volumes of you and your ability to let free speech be exercised while not agreeing with the content.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[Kathy Brents]

I don't think that she had any interest in Mohammed cartoon art before it became an issue she could use to antagonize. I guess that's my point. If that was already her thing, then power to her. But reading the article on Time, it seems like she was just looking to push buttons for the sake of pushing them, which doesn't do the freedom of speech effort any good really. I am free to put my hand on a hot stove too, but it doesn't make much sense (or have any meaning) for me to do so. And if I do, I haven't really accomplished anything except for burning my own hand.

[Lands’nGrooves]

These people say it better than me -

http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28746-megyn-kelly-s-been-all-over-this-free-speech-issue-and-god-bless-her-for-it

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/in_praise_of_pamela_gelle.php

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Mark Shea weighs in with what I believe to be the quintessential Christian response to all of this:

I want to take things in a somewhat different direction from Tom’s argument and comment on the weird confusion of our time which concludes that the solution to Christ-hatred of our Chattering Class is to respond with some Islam-hatred instead. The confusion, of course, turns on the fact that Islam-bashing is, like Christian-bashing, protected free speech. And thanks be to God for the first amendment! One of the great paradoxes of the gospel, enshrined in the American tradition, is that freedom is so precious that God gives it to us even though it will mean we sometimes misuse it. Those who want to inflict speech codes and penalties for ungoodthink are menaces whose real itch, of course, is to crush the speech of those they wish to oppress while giving themselves carte blanche to say whatever they like. I thank God on my knees that the Founders enshrined in law an instrument that stops such people from having their way–at least for now. The trouble comes when people abuse their freedom. I don’t mean the classic “Shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre” form of abuse. For that you can and should get jail. Rather, I mean things that are perfectly legal, that should remain perfectly legal, yet which no decent person should do any anyway. St. Paul sums things up this in a passage from his first letter to the Corinthians where he first quotes a letter to him from the Corinthians (drunk on licentiousness they confuse with Christian liberty) and then rebuts the quote. The remark clearly sticks in Paul’s craw because he attacks it three different times in two separate places:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. (1 Co 6:12). All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. (1 Co 10:23–24).

This is is where Paul stays sane while Pam Geller and the cartoonists in Garland, and similar “thumb in the eye” mockers of Islam veer off into a false idea of freedom. Should they have the freedom to mock Mohammed? Absolutely! I will be the first one in line to argue that. It’s more important to have freedom than to try to stop the abuse of freedom. That’s why God allows us to sin even to the point of eternal damnation if that’s what we are stupidly bound and determined to do. But, though everything is (constitutionally speaking) lawful, not everything is helpful, not everything builds up. And the cartoons mocking Islam were among them. They were deliberately done in the hope of picking a fight and they achieved exactly that goal. Does that justify the shooters? Of course not. But the fact that the shooters were wrong does not mean Geller and Co. were right. They wanted violence and are delighted they got it.

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

By the way tim, Megyn Kelly herself allowed for the fact that there ought to be a debate, not on whether or not Geller has a right to do what she did, but on whether or not it was appropriate.

And that's the gist of what I'm attempting to articulate.

Geller was right to do what she did from a constitutional perspective. But was it appropriate?

I don't think so.

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

One more thought, after reading Vanderleun's piece.

I can state unequivocally that I think Geller's cartoon conference was inappropriate and ill-conceived without condemning her personally.

Gerard writes:

This is a war. A war that has come -- again -- to American soil, and one that will not go away. What happened in Garland was not a "provocative art show," it was another armed skirmish of a long terror campaign. ISIS in the last few days has confirmed it. Geller knows what it was and speaks the truth about Islam's aims in America. No "buts" about it.

When I look at and think about justifications for war, it's hard for me to believe that we've fallen so low as to confidently state that we would go to war over the right to offend Muslims with cartoons.

There's plenty I believe to justify going to war with radical Islamists... but the right to offend them AND non-radical Muslims with cartoons... I just don't see that to be an argument one can have with any integrity.