Posted on 05/11/2015 10:34:23 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I love Pamela Geller. However, when Bill O'Reilly and conservative Laura Ingraham said it was foolish of Pam to insult over a billion Muslims by hosting a “Draw Muhammad” contest, I thought perhaps they were right.
Muslims live under an Islamic legal system called sharia law, which prohibits drawing any image of their prophet, Muhammad.
Rush Limbaugh sided with Pamela. Rush pointed out that while the mainstream media and pundits want us to be sensitive to this rule of sharia, that same media flaunts and promotes homosexual marriage, which offends Muslims. Muslims put homosexuals to death.
My feisty part-Cherokee, mostly Irish wife Mary chimed in, “Aren't you the guy always writing about how frustrated you are with people on our side walking on eggshells, not pushing back against the evil that is threatening to overtake our country?”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I feel pretty much the same, and Sharia law is already in effect in Dearborn MI. Anyway, I sure hope they served BBQ’ed pork at her contest.
Folish to do it anywhere shitrria law applies, but not in the USA.
when Bill O’Reilly and conservative Laura Ingraham said it was foolish of Pam to insult over a billion Muslims by hosting a “Draw Muhammad” contest
In war it is normal business to insult the enemy
OK, so I had to bug out before Rush finished his point,
but I assumed his conclusion, and it was BRILLIANT.
Don’t refuse to make a homo “wedding” cake on the basis of your own faith,
but refuse to make it because it’s offensive to Muslims.
I’m really tempted to try this line of reasoning on a libinlaw just to watch her spin.
Yes, it's normal to insult the enemy during war.
So Laura and bill think it is “wise” to gradually, or maybe rapidly succumb to shariah - even before formally adopting it - in the face of a billion Moslems?
But I am very surprised, and very disappointed, in Laura Ingraham. I thought she had a more grounded understanding of the word “freedom”.
I don't have cable anymore (free at least). Can someone tell me, was Ingraham really that much against Geller?
I seem to remember some of the critics being all for that movie bashing the North Korean leader no matter how much of a threat he could potentially be. I thought that was in poor taste mainly because it was intended to be a ridiculing of a world leader and the movie itself was offensive in content to even me (having nothing to do with Jung). But pretty much everyone was good with that. This was a private contest with the intended audience just themselves, or at least very limited.
Yeah, since not drawing Mad Mo is complying with Sharia,
what part do they want to comply with next?
Good to hear, O'Reilly is way wrong on this and keeps digging his hole deeper.
I like the idea of using the “it’s offensive to Muslims” argument when it comes to not agreeing to do something for most ANYTHING that liberals have taken up as a favored cause.
Don’t just limit it to the Homosexual First agenda, use it on female “rights” to abortion or any form of free expression of femininity, on declarations that ALL religions are essentially superstitions, and on the definition of “free speech” as essentially limited to “free APPROVED speech”.
Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Scolds Pamela Geller.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3287139/posts
Don’t get your hopes up too, high, though,
that liberals will recognize the hypocrisy and actually think about it.
I haven’t met one yet that wasn’t impervious to logic.
O’Reilly and Inghrahm were TOTALLY wrong on this one. JMHO!
I really appreciate where Lloyd Marcus was coming from initially. He heard O’Reilly and Ingraham and then he finds himself going wobbly, thinking he is wrong and perhaps they are right about not offending a billion Muslims.
It seems to me that most of us Christians do try to restrain ourselves, particularly in public venues, from unnecessarily offending people (Muslims) who have been mostly silent towards us even though they have a contingency among them who has proven to be vicious and deadly. They still say nothing, so there is an element of restraint we have been practicing with regard to the “silent majority”.
Geller blew all that up. She was right to do so. She said something that resonates with me. She said about Garland, that it was an act of “defiance”. Geller showed the world what defiance reaps, among even conservatives. Yes, it places small town peace officers at mortal risk, while the citizens are safely tucked away in their houses oblivious to what is going on. O’Reilly said that Jesus would not have provoked the Muslims. Think about that. Actually, wasn’t Jesus provocative? The approach may be quite different, of course, but the end is the same— to provoke.
Geller gave ISIS a teachable moment. No one else has. How in the face of evil does shaping us toward utter tolerance teach us a shred of resistance? Without defiance there is no resistance.
This is a big “thinking” deal. We need to defy those here who would nefariously reshape the thinking of America, to have us instead tolerate evil rather than muster courage and fight it with our voice.
We must find our voice.
From Sir Winston:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
So far as Jesus being “provocative”, was that not just exactly what He did in regards to the Pharisees? And the money changers at the temple?
The Biblical Pharisees were in all likelihood the same people who became the ancestors of the Farsi, or Iranians, today. They were not Muslims then (Islam still not being existence), but they were still contentious people, overly concerned with maintaining the absolute letter of the law.
Pretty reasonable example I’d say!
Being polite has its limits in war and peace. We really are at war, but we are refusing to show up. AWOL. We have to take a look at all those whom that AWOL vacuum advantages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.