The Left hates those who confront evil. “Why Pamela Geller is hated,” by Dennis Prager, May 19, 2015:
Pamela Geller – the woman whose group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, organized the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas – may be the most hated person in America right now. She is certainly the left’s chief villain. And, sad to say, though few conservatives hate her, more than a few have condemned her.
The question is why?
Here are three reasons.
Reason One: The left hates those who confront evil
The first and most important reason is a rule of life that I wrote about in a recent column explaining the left’s hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:Those who don’t fight evil hate those who do.
This is a defining characteristic of the American left. That is why the left loathed President Ronald Reagan for labeling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”: He judged and confronted communism, the greatest evil in the world after World War II.
Today, the world’s greatest evil is Islamism (the movement to impose Islam and its Shariah on society). Just as the left loathed anti-Communists, it loathes anti-Islamists, chief among whom is Netanyahu, the prime minister of the country that the Islamists most hate, the country that most confronts violent Islam – and not coincidentally the country the international left most hates.
But the left hates anti-Islamists generally, not just Netanyahu. They have successfully demonized anti-Islamists and even critics of Islam as “Islamophobes,” meaning anti-Muslim “bigots” and “haters.” Pamela Geller is now chief among them.
Reason Two: Moral confusion
Geller and her group are widely labeled as “haters” and “Islamophobes” for caricaturing Muhammad. But the highly successful producers of the hit Broadway show that mocks Mormonism, “The Book of Mormon,” are not labeled “haters,” let alone “Mormonphobes.” Similarly, the “artist” who created “Pi– Christ,” the infamous photograph of a crucifix in a jar of his urine, is also not labeled a hater or a “Christianophobe.”
Why is that? Because neither Christianity nor Mormonism produces evil that needs to be fought. The Muslim world, however, is producing tens of thousands of murderers and millions more sympathizers; and those who criticize Islam and confront Islamism are hated because those who don’t fight evil hate those who do.
Another example of moral confusion is that Geller is accused of “provoking” Islamists to murder people. Even some conservatives have taken this position.
To best show this poorly reasoned logic, let’s imagine that some Mormons murdered members of the audience and some of the actors at a performance of “The Book of Mormon.” Who do you think the New York Times editorial page would have blamed – the producers of the show that mocked Mormonism (for “provoking” the murderers) or the Mormon murderers? The murderers, of course. Again, imagine that some Christians had murdered museum curators at whose museums “Pi– Christ” had been displayed. Would the Times editorial page have blamed the “artist,” Andres Serrano, and the museum curators (for “provoking” the Christian murderers) or the Christian murderers?
Reason Three: Lack of courage
America calls itself, in the final words of the National Anthem, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” This description no longer applies – not only to the left-wing intellectual and media elite but also to the increasingly large segment of the American people that the left has influenced. Many Americans no longer cherish freedom as Americans always have and too many exhibit little courage.Contrast American reactions to Pamela Geller with European reactions to Charlie Hebdo. After Islamists murdered 12 editors and writers of the Charlie Hebdo staff, millions of French citizens gathered to protest the murders and announce “Je suis Charlie.” There were very few French voices blaming Charlie Hebdo for “provoking” the murderers, or for being “haters.” And, it is worth noting, some of the caricatures of Muhammad published in the French magazine were truly obscene – unlike the caricatures produced by Pamela Geller’s contest which, so far as I’ve seen, were only caricatures and cartoons.
Likewise the month after the Charlie murders, courageous Danes organized a public event called “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” to show support for Charlie Hebdo and for freedom of speech. That “provoked” an Islamist to murder two people and wound five police officers that day and the next. But Danes supported the organizers of the event.
And a German newspaper was firebombed after republishing some of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons.
But in America, there were no comparable demonstrations on behalf of Pamela Geller. Instead, there were widespread condemnations. The New York Times editorial page even denied that her cartoon contest was done on behalf of freedom of speech. And hundreds of left-wing members of PEN, the worldwide writers’ organization dedicated to freedom of speech, vehemently protested the decision of the American chapter of PEN to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to Charlie Hebdo.
This combination – of the steep moral decline of the American left; the inability of too many Americans to reason morally; and the greater value increasingly placed on protecting (certain) people’s feelings than on protecting freedom of speech – is why a woman who did nothing more than organize a contest to draw cartoons of Muhammad may be the most reviled American alive.
Victor Redlick says
If you condemn Pamela Geller you should have vehemently condemned Rosa Paarks for not putting up with the same intolerant nonsense. Isn’t it ironic that a focal point for both of these women liberators had to do with buses? The bus is mightier than the sword.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Actually, last week the repugnant Howie Kurtz on Fox RINO sneeringly mentioned that he’d grown tired of seeing Geller all over the TV dial “making like she’s a Rosa Parks.” So the mainstream media has already nailed the point that Geller is a publicity seeking phony who would self-aggrandize by comparing resistance to Islamization as if that were somehow equivalent to fighting for equal rights in the 1960s.
mortimer says
Leftards are so eager to grovel before Sharia law that they hate anyone who is still on their feet! It casts a shadow over them.
Pamela is a giant compared with surrenderist, prostrate Leftards who criticize her behind the shield of jihadists.
mortimer says
If journalists believe that the pen is mightier than the sword, they MUST be on the side of Pamela Geller.
Otherwise, they are doubletalking hypocrites.
Angemon says
Victor Redlick posted:
“If you condemn Pamela Geller you should have vehemently condemned Rosa Paarks for not putting up with the same intolerant nonsense.”
Nicely put.
duh_swami says
The only reason Pam is ‘reviled’ is because the ignorant know nothings outnumber the knowledgeable, and intelligent.
The cowards outnumber the brave…The traitors outnumber the patriots. But so what if you are outnumbered by cowards, Sampson whipped a whole army of them with the jawbone of an ass…Cowards are noisy and full of hate, but when the chips are down, they run away.
mortimer says
“Cowards outnumber patriots?’
Not now…60% of Americans now disapprove of Obama.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Today, the world’s greatest evil is Islamism (the movement to impose Islam and its Shariah on society).
This is the first definition of the word I’ve seen in all my reading and watching since it debuted about ten years ago. I may have missed a definition being given, but I doubt it, it seemed that “Islamist” was brought into the national discourse without explanation, as so many key concepts over the past few decades. Two of my personal favorites are “gay” and “Hispanic”, the first a self-promotion of group innocence, worth and superiority, the second a flat out lie put forth as a kind of shorthand used by those interested in bringing in tens of millions of native Americans as cheap compliant labor, and as clients of gubmint welfare programs centrally administered by socialist bureaucrats .
But the term Islamist falls short because it for some reason does not confer the notion that, as shorthand for Islamic fundamentalist, the fundamentals are aligned with the Islamists, including all the horrors included in the Holy Ko-Ran, Hah-Deaths and Sira. Thus the unbroken hymen that conceals the facts of Islam from the Infidel public. Nobody says or asks fundamental of what. This is why the contract murders of Abu Afak and Asma Marwan for criticizing Islam were never mentioned during the “debate” surrounding the attempted mass murder against those who were criticizing Islam.
My suggestion is a clearer, more explanatory term that points directly to the facts of Islam: Islamic activist.
mortimer says
‘Islamic activist’ sounds too tame…as though they are community health workers: they are ‘Islamic SUPREMACISTS’.
We want to raise awareness of Islam’s POLITICAL SUPREMACISM, its misogyny, and its opposition to pluralism and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Any label imputes something, and Islamic activists implies the question “act on what?” That’s more direct than “fundamental” to what?” which would hopefully make it more likely for the news entertainment consumer to ask questions about what all the commotion around Moslems is about.
Fundamental implies some fancy theory internal to a belief system; act is something a guy can understand because it is external in direction.
American says
I tend to favor “Islamic fascist”, although it’s a bit redundant…
mortimer says
Muslims are the exotic pets of the Leftards…the ‘noble savages’ they have imported to act as their surrogate vandals to destroy European civilization.
The Leftards are riding the political Islamist tiger…they have not considered what will happen when they dismount a tiger!
Plutarchus7 says
THE LEFT’S CHIEF VILLAIN IS ISRAEL
with Pam moving up to second place replacing George W. Bush. These three constitute the Left’s main scapegoats for their failure to butt kiss the jihad out of Moslem supremacists and create New Age harmony, peace and understanding with them.
mortimer says
Pamela has the three qualities pious Muslims hate the most: Jewish, female, criticizes Mohammed.
Who are the real bigots here?
Lioness says
One more: she is beautiful. Muslim women must hate her for that. After all they have to cover their faces for a reason: you may not want to see what’s under the burqa.
PRCS says
A good article, of course–after all, it by Prager.
But, given his assertion that the NYT editorial page would have blamed Mormon and Christian murderers in the scenarios he describes, he then labels the 12 Charlie Hebdo murders as being conducted by Islamists.
Why doesn’t he just call them Muslims?
Mo says
@ PRCS
“But, given his assertion that the NYT editorial page would have blamed Mormon and Christian murderers in the scenarios he describes, he then labels the 12 Charlie Hebdo murders as being conducted by Islamists.
Why doesn’t he just call them Muslims?”
Yes, this use of “Islamism” or “Islamists” aggravated me as well. But I guess public speakers like Prager still feel the need to distinguish between Muslim individuals who are violent and/or wish to implement sharia from the ones who are not violent/wanting to implement sharia.
I do understand the distinction. But those Muslims who don’t do or support these things are the ones not following Islam! I guess that’s too hot for even Prager to handle.
Islam is Islam is Islam. Let’s just say it, people!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… public speakers like Prager still feel the need to distinguish between Muslim individuals who are violent and/or wish to implement sharia from the ones who are not violent/wanting to implement sharia.
That distinction being that the former group is acting on Islam. But not acting, i.e., not perpetrating religious violence doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with it tacitly. In any case, the non-Islamist Moslem is still responsible for what’s inside of Islam, its nature.
The term Islamist implies that the majority of Moslems are ok, just like your normal Infidel. But that’s false, the non-Islamist Moslem is part and party to a belief system that calls for the destruction of all other belief systems, and calls for the forced conversion of Infidels or at least subjugation of them.
This is why for years now we’ve heard our news entertainers on Fox RINO lapse into the inevitable question, the mystery of why don’t the vast majority of Moslems, the so-called Moderates, rise up and quash the Islamists among them. The answer is, of course, that they are *not* moderates, they are not ok, they are Unicorns.
Mo says
@Alarmed Pig Farmer says
“That distinction being that the former group is acting on Islam. But not acting, i.e., not perpetrating religious violence doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with it tacitly. In any case, the non-Islamist Moslem is still responsible for what’s inside of Islam, its nature.”
Oh, I agree. It’s just hard to explain all of that in a quick word or phrase. So I do somewhat understand with the use of the term. But I still hate it. If I want to be very specific, I’ll say jihadists. But I never use descriptors for Islam like “fundamentalist” or “extreme” or “radical”.
Islam is Islam. And it is evil.
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
During the 20rh Century WW2, there were the “Nazi’s – they attempted to hide their murderous World Domination deeds.
NOW in the 21st Century, there are the “Islamo Nazi’s” – essentially the same type of Bloody Butchering “Animals” – except THEY openly boast about their murderous World Domination deeds.
Peter Buckley says
Geert Wilders latest on Freedom of Speech:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5796/wilders-freedom-of-speech
pongidae rex says
It is called cultural decline. Like dry rot, there is no easy fix beyond a certain point short of tearing it down and rebuilding it.
cranky.white.woman says
The Left is waging a REAL War on Women.
cranky.white.woman says
Oops, posted that in the wrong spot. Wasn’t meant as a reply to you.
Bezelel says
The revilers are the ones being heard the most thanks to the enemedia. trump was on fox news again with his moronic opinion of Pamela and he thinks himself president material. The cartoons drew out more than a couple of isis stooges. Now the lights are on and we can see who’s who.
Champ says
Stick to the TRUTH: islam is our #1 enemy!
Walter Sieruk says
Pamela Geller just might be very must disliked by those of the left. One reason for this is that the left wing mindset is in a state of denial about the violent essence of the nature of Islam and its deadly militant jihad.They prefer to view Islam with rose colored glasses. One of the sad things is many on the left would not be tolerated in a card car Islamic country. The other people who even hate Pamela Geller are the jihad minded Muslims. Be they the subtle stealth jihad workers or the brutal violent jihad terrorists. For Pamela Geller exposes both those two different methods of jihad that have the same end goal. As in the agenda is to the same end .only it’s achieved in different way. Once again, with all this it might be a good idea to apply the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson who taught “Our part then is to pursue with steadiness what is right…assured that the public approbation will in the end be with us.” Likewise, Jefferson had a good and valid point when he stated Fortitude…teaches us to meet ans surmount difficulties; not to fly from them.”
cranky.white.woman says
The Left is waging a REAL War on Women.
Maryann Young says
Robert I agree with the article whole heartedly. It’s predictable that the Left will attack her because of their agenda. However why does the Right also reject, ridicule, minimise and loathe her? For example there were certain news reporters from Fox news who interviewed her after the incident in Texas and one woman suggested that there may have been a better way of dealing with the situation. Donald Trump was interviewed by Fox immediately after Pamela and he was extremely scathing of her and questioned her motives as did Bill O’Reilly. Why has she alienated the Right as well and why are they not defending her?
Julia says
It’s not as left/right as depicted here. I’ve heard a lot of the Christian right like Bill O’Reilly condemn Pamela Geller because they are trying to be “sensitive” to the “moderate” Muslims. And, I’ve heard a lot of people on the left say some rude things about Pamela Geller for reasons that make no sense when you try to talk to them about it. I don’t think this is is a political party issue, I think it is a patriotic issue.
Sharon Theoodre says
A lo of people admire Pamela Geller for her strong character and clear stand on Islam. All acts of violence and political uncertainties are being generated by the advocates of Islam. So why should there be moral confusion? In my own capacity, I suis Pamela Geller because I want to tell everyone I can that Islam is bad and that our freedom is worth protecting.