Here are the basic facts: Pam Geller of Stop the Islamization of America, was scheduled to give a speech at the Great Neck Synagogue in Long Island, New York. That sparked opposition from the left and certain so-called Islamic leaders like Habeeb Ahmed of the Nassau Human Rights Commission, whom Geller calls an Islamic supremacist. The below post by Geller's Atlas Shrugs has links into the background of this controversy including e-mails sent by Ahmed in his efforts to stop Geller (a Jew) from speaking at a synagogue.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/pamela-geller-event-at-great-neck-synagogue-cancelled-the-synagogue-is-unable-to-bear-the-burden.html
During the controversy, a couple of rabbis wrote an article in Jewish Week decrying Geller's appearance.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/hate-speech-has-no-place-synagogue?page=1#comment-177574
I don't know Pam Geller. I have heard her speak twice in California. I do not consider her to be someone who hates Muslims. She rightly points out the extremism in the Islamic world that anyone who follows world events knows. She also rightly points out the attempts to silence her, such as this latest example.
The interfaith movement, though well-intentioned on the part of rabbis and pastors such as the above, is all too often used by certain Muslim leaders to spread disinformation as to the more troublesome tenets of Islam and the intentions of those who envision a world-wide caliphate under sharia law. Geller is not attempting to demonize all Muslims, but to deny the threats that we face from Islamism is insane.
The case of Geller is similar to that of Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, based in Boston. When Jacobs, a Jew, exposed the truth about the Islamic Center of Boston (Roxbury), he was met with fierce resistance from the establishment rabbis of the Boston area who were heavily invested in interfaith events with the Islamic Center. They ostracized Jacobs and attempted to make him an outcast within the Jewish community.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-is-going-on-in-boston-jewish.html
In closing, let me quote the words of the Great Neck Synagogue as they explain the reasons for the cancellation.
"As the notoriety and media exposure of the planned program this Sunday have increased, so has the legal liability and potential security exposure of our institution and it's [sic] member families. In an era of heightened security concerns it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of those who call Great Neck Synagogue home, especially our children, even at the risk of diverting attention from a potentially important voice in the ongoing debate. Accordingly, the Great Neck Synagogue Men's Club will no longer be sponsoring the appearance of Pamela Geller this coming Sunday, and no event will be taking place in our facility."
Executive Board
Great Neck Synagogue
(emphasis mine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has a point not been made here? They are afraid of violence. That shows that Geller's arguments have merit.
Update: Good news. Two other synagogues have invited Geller to speak.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/pamela-geller-to-speak-at-synagogue-on-sunday-.htmlUpdate: Good news. Two other synagogues have invited Geller to speak.
Geller has as much place in a synagogue as George Lincoln Rockwell.
ReplyDeleteCute line, Siarlys. (I use a few of them myself), but Geller is a Jew who is not afraid to talk about Islamic anti-Semitism. I have heard her speak twice and I know from my own experience and knowledge that what she says is true. But she does not go after all Muslims-just the Islamists (I trust you know the difference. If not, I will explain.)
ReplyDeleteGeller is obsessed with Islam and/or she has found a lucrative way to support herself, and it doesn't matter a whit whether she is Jewish or not. You always stick on the caveat about just going after the Islamists, but Geller is part of the crowd ready to explain that the most despicable acts committed in the name of Islam are inherent in the faith's most basic precepts, therefore in fact going after all Muslims. You do a bit of that yourself -- and the post hoc denial is not credible.
ReplyDelete"...but Geller is part of the crowd ready to explain that the most despicable acts committed in the name of Islam are inherent in the faith's most basic precepts,"
ReplyDeleteBut Siarlys, is that not a legitimate topic for discussion? Take a look at hudud sharia (apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, homo-sexuality)and the statements about Jews and killing infidels. They are in the texts (Koran, Hadith, etc.) Read the life of the Prophet, then look at what is happening today. I try to do this myself in a responsible (I hope) way and make it clear that most Muslims are OK. The problem is that people are trying to silence Geller and others. Yes, it offends the sensitivities of people, but damn it, people are dying every day and we can't even discuss it and ask why? Have you ever stopped to consider that this is about defending human rights-including the human rights of Muslims?
One controversy at a time Gary... ANY position anyone wants to put forward is a legitimate position to OFFER. I'm not suggesting she be imprisoned, I'm suggesting that what she offers is unworthy of being taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteNow, IF it is your position that jihadism as we have seen it in recent decades IS inherent in Islam, you are going to have to forsake the pious fig leaf that you don't hate Islam or Muslims, only jihadis.
On the other hand, IF you stick to the line that you're not against good Muslims and peaceful practice of Islam by law-abiding citizens... then obviously you can't maintain that the practice of Islam inherently violates our constitutional and cultural norms.
Make up your mind.
As for whether its true that you can't be a practicing Muslim and a citizen of a democratic republic... I have a good English rendition of the Qu'ran myself, and while some texts are troubling, they have a historical context, as do the equally troubling passages of the Tanach (aka Old Testament).
The problem is, any Muslim who explains these passages in a manner that is consistent with modern life in a republic, you write off as wrong, and any who demand full literal implementation with several layers of additional interpretation of the most violent nature, you uphold as Authentic.
There's not a lot we need to figure out. The Supreme Court has done an excellent job figuring it out, over the last two centuries. Intimidating another person in the exercise of constitutionally protected rights is a crime. There is no exception for a co-religionist. That's why the Amish preacher who went around cutting off beards is getting a long prison sentence. The state has no position at all to settle doctrinal disputes within a religion. Viewpoint neutral laws apply to all, whether it conforms to your faith or not.
ReplyDeleteIts none of my business which brand of Islam is authentic, any more than its my business if the Episcopal Church chooses to annoint a gay man as bishop.