So which is it? Is the liberal media Islamophobic? Or homophobic?
If drawing cartoons of The Prophet is - as the New York Times insists - an “exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom”? And - again from the Times - a “blatantly Islamophobic provocation”? All because drawing cartoons of the Prophet violates the Islamic faith? Then what, exactly, is gay marriage? Like drawing an image of The Prophet, homosexuality is a “blatantly Islamophobic provocation” all by itself - long before you even get to the idea of gay marriage.
Does this make the Times - and every other supporter of same sex marriage - Islamophobic? Apparently so. By applying the very same liberal standards that are being applied to Pamela Geller, isn’t gay marriage a hate crime? As with drawing The Prophet, homosexuality is specifically against Islamic law. It is forbidden. Punishable by death. Yet here is gay marriage as one of today’s favorite causes among liberals and even some Republicans, which puzzles if the goal is not to be “taunting” and "inciting" every Muslim not just in America but around the world.
In the wake of the Garland, Texas incident, Rush Limbaugh threw the spotlight on just this question. The issue of the treatment of gays by Muslims has been around, but the searing media spotlight on Pamela Geller’s “Draw the Prophet” event in Garland has now raised the question of “taunting” and “provoking” Muslims to an entirely new level. Something Rush was quick to recognize.
Said Rush this week:
And I have been thinking even more about this Garland, Texas, incident. Now, yesterday I made a point about the selective application of religious belief that we are going to accept.
For example, the militant Islamists command us not to draw cartoons or any other kind of picture of the prophet Mohammed, and our Drive-By Media and Democrat Party readily agree, "Ain't no way that should happen! It offends them, and we shouldn't do it. And when anybody does, and they get shot at, it's their fault." To which I ask, "Well, now, wait a minute. The same militant Islamists who do not permit the drawing of pictures of the prophet Mohammed also do not permit homosexuality and do not permit gay marriage.
And we know what their attitudes toward women are.
Why don't we respect those? Can you imagine? If you turn on MSNBC, all you're gonna see, given the day -- maybe not every day, but the odds are, at least a portion of the day -- you're gonna see a total devotion to the concept of gay marriage. Isn't that insulting to the Muslims who would be watching? Would it not then be understandable if the Muslims watching take some kind of action against MSNBC for offending them?
They're not tolerant of gay marriage.
They're not tolerant of homosexuality, and you turn on MSNBC or CNN or any other Drive-By Media outlet and all you get is total support for it. Is that not offending our Muslim friends in the viewing audience? Why is there no concern for that? When people draw cartoons of "the prophet," it's, "Oh, Rush that's intolerable! You can't accept it. You gotta stop! Oh, my God, that's horrible!" But we can taunt them with gay marriage, and we can taunt them with women's rights and feminazism, and we can taunt them with homosexuality, and we are somehow not concerned about how that offends them?”
Leave it to Rush to sit back and enjoy the rich spectacle of the liberal media busily trapping themselves.
Leftist media outlet by leftist media outlet, liberals (and yes even some conservatives) are now well out there castigating Pamela Geller for her “Draw Mohammed” cartoon conference. Here’s a sample.
-- The New York Times: In an editorial titled Free Speech vs. Hate Speech the Times castigated Geller for “an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom” and “assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism and anti-Semitism.” Simply drawing a cartoon of the Prophet - forbidden by Islam - is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism…”.
-- Marc Lamont Hill of CNN and Morehouse College tweeted: “I need someone to explain to me why someone would organize or attend an event primarily designed to mock Islam, or any religion.” He added in a another tweet: “I understand and respect free speech. But to organize hate speech events, purely because you're legally allowed to, is disgusting.”
-- Rukmini Callimachi of the New York Times tweeted: “ Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest’?”
-- MSNBC: As the Washington Examiner reported here they were apoplectic over at MSNBC about Pam Geller’s conference. After Chris Matthews had said "I wonder whether this group that held this event down there to basically disparage and make fun of the prophet Mohammed doesn't in some way cause these events” he got this response from NBC terror expert Evan Kohlmann: ”Well, not the word 'causing' — how about provoking, how about taunting, how about daring?” Kohlmann said the fact that Geller had violated a core tenet of Islam that there must be no images of the Prophet was showing “hatred of other people.” He added of Geller’s group: “That’s their guiding light, that's what they do. They're intentionally trying to provoke a response from the Muslim community, and unfortunately this was predictable.”
There was more, of course. Oh so much more. Chris Cuomo from CNN said the contest was “hate speech.” And right on cue, there was Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to say that Geller headed a “hate group” and that what she was doing was an example of being “anti-Islam.” And don’t forget Geraldo over there on Fox, who told the Fox & Friends crew that Pamela Geller was “hateful” “spewing..hatred” and “making us all look like the intolerant jerks they are saying we are in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
OK. Got it. So lets shift, as Rush suggests, to the views of all these liberals on - gay marriage.
Here’s Geraldo in an interview with the Windy City Times (bold highlights mine) saying:
“Over the years I have been very conspicuous of my support of gay organizations and causes. Now I am just delighted. Like I just said, it was one of my personal requirements as to whom I voted for. I feel Republicans are being so self-defeating on their Neanderthal positions on a lot of things.”
Question? If Geraldo counts himself as a big supporter of gay causes and views Republican opposition to gay marriage as a “Neanderthal position”- what does that make Muslims? Is he not waxing Geller-esque? Is he not calling Muslims a bunch of bigoted Neanderthals because they forbid homosexuality - and punish it with death? Is Geraldo taunting Islam?
Mark Potok and his SPLC were recently in the news for putting now-GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson on the SPLC list as an extremist. Why? Because Carson - like Islam - opposed gay marriage. The group later apologized to Carson, but still cited his pro-traditional marriage comments as a sign that Carson’s views were somehow not legitimate. Curiously, the SPLC exhibits a split-personality on the subject of gays and Islam. When it comes to gays the SPLC site labels those who attack gays as guilty of “hate crimes.”
Yet as seen here the SPLC site is littered with a defense of Islamic groups, calling out those who wage “Jihad Against Islam.” In other words, the SPLC is defending Islam in spite of the fact that it forbids homosexuality and, again, will punish gays with death. Yet somehow the SPLC excuses Islam from being listed as a “hate” group, with Islamics who execute gays mysteriously never accused of “hate crimes.” Question: Does this defense of Islam qualify the SPLC as a hate group? Or just make it guilty of political schizophrenia? Or merely hypocrisy?
The very same New York Times that has labeled Pamela Geller as a bigot for her staunch opposition to Sharia law - which condemns gays to death - has demanded the Supreme Court recognize gay marriage and “end the exclusion and inequality of gays and lesbians in America.” Which is it? Is staunch opposition to Sharia the act of a bigot? Or, among other things, a staunch defense of a gay person’s right to life? And isn’t the New York Times taunting and inciting Muslims with its support of gay marriage. The New York Times can’t seem to decide.
And so it goes with one of these liberal media Geller critics after another. On the one hand she’s a bigot for having her “Draw the Prophet” contest because it is antagonizes and incites Muslims. Yet on the other hand all these people are out there as solid supporters of not just gays but gay marriage - all of which, as with drawing the Prophet, is a blasphemous incitement of Islam, with offenders being executed. Given the death penalty. Death. The very same fate the British Imam Anjem Choudary said on Sean Hannity’s TV show must be delivered to Geller - with Geller already having a fatwa hovering over her head promising her murder.
On Friday’s show Rush Limbaugh noted correctly that this small problem of the Islamic death warrant on gays most probably won’t stop the move in America to gay marriage. But one suspects that the very first time an Islamic terrorist attack in America is focused exclusively on some members somewhere of the gay/LGBT community? The cry will go up from someone in the liberal media that maybe - just maybe - Pamela Geller’s campaign for free speech isn’t quite so bigoted after all.
