Je suis Charlie, and je suis Pamela.
"And I should say this in capital letters: have you read the list of “hate groups” so labeled by the SPLC? It includes the Catholic Family News/Catholic Family Ministries Inc., described as “radical, traditional Catholicism” and a host of other Catholic and other Christian conservative groups. It includes nearly all Black political groups, listing them as “separatist”, whatever that means. These are all lumped in with the KKK, Aryan Nation and the Nazis. The list a Muslim groups, As-Sabiqun, which believes in eventual Islamic supremacy but which is non-violent. Some of these groups have people on record as saying hateful things but any group that’s anti-gay marriage is listed as a hate group. Groups that believe in English as the national language are on the list. Anti-immigration? Hate group. In other words, having a position that disagrees with the SPLC means you’re a hate group even if you’re not violent, even if you participate in democracy, even if what you do is protected speech.
To be clear, I don’t agree with probably all of the groups listed by SPLC but to call them “hate groups” like the bleeping Nazi Party or the KKK is an absurdity. This kind of speech is, to me, one of the biggest problems in the US: the labeling of speech by those you don’t agree with as impermissible. We see that now with Israel and a few other issues: the speech is considered the speech of oppression, a phrase right out of Marxist playbooks, and thus isn’t protected speech but is something to be suppressed in the name of actual speech. To label people with a different perspective as a hate group and have that publicized is a means of suppressing their valid Constitutional rights to hold opinions that differ from yours."
One thing to add. Support traditional marriage? Hate group.
Besides that, I don’t think it would be humanly possible to say it better than you did. That post should be in capital letters.
No one is saying that a group that supports traditional marriage is a hate group. It’s the groups that actively oppose same-sex marriage that may be (depending on their particular actions).
If they were just offering marriage counseling and support, even if it were only to hetero couples, there would be no problem.
"No one is saying that a group that supports traditional marriage is a hate group. It’s the groups that actively oppose same-sex marriage that may be (depending on their particular actions).
If they were just offering marriage counseling and support, even if it were only to hetero couples, there would be no problem"
Many groups that support traditional marriage do actively oppose same-sex marriage. And apparently, that makes you part of a hate group. Funny, not too many years ago, the vast majority of the candidates for office claimed they supported traditional marriage. Except for Dick Cheney, I guess he was the only one who wasn’t a hater. And that was just a little while ago.
While I support same sex marriage, it is hard for me to fathom that all these religious groups, that have always been strong supporters of traditional marriage, are considered a hate group by some. Weird. And if you disagree with supporting illegal aliens to have the right to do as they choose, we’ll call you an anti-immigration hater. Any disagreement with my politically correct opinion, we’ll just label you as part of a hate group. Shuddup, already.
As usual, Jon Stewart had what I consider the right take on this, first criticizing Geller as an idiot, but then going on at great length about how it’s not OK to shoot people you disagree with.
Why is anybody upset about this? Everybody involved got just what they wanted–Geller’s group drew out some terrorists and got a lot of publicity, and ISIS got a couple of martyrs at very low cost.
Why are we upset about this???
Geller and others are darned lucky that it turned out okay, and that no attendees were injured or killed, and no police officers were killed. It could have turned out very deadly.
What would Geller have said about a contest to draw cartoons insulting Jesus? The whole thing was in bad taste, insulting to the majority of peace-loving followers of Islam, and inviting violence.
That’s why I’m upset about this, anyway.
My question was meant to be sarcastic, but not the part about both Geller and the attackers getting what they wanted. You’re right that Geller is lucky that nobody else got killed–but I’ll bet that she’d still be happy if they had, as long as it wasn’t her.
I work with a group of peace loving Muslim people and they are incensed at the non-peace loving Muslims and even more outraged at the clueless who don’t realize how critically important free speech is, even the kind that offends delicate sensibilities.
Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn’t. But she made an excellent point and I’m very grateful for her courage.
And back we are with the notion that the idiots were lucky not to get what they … deserved! What is the definition of … inviting violence?
What is the alternative? Who will be the deciding voice in choosing who has the right to assemble and hold a different opinion? Should we adopt the policies, censorship, and human rights violations of the countries who have been seemingly insulted by cartoons?
We should be upset about such events, but we should not confuse the actions of organizing an unpopular event with the decision to bring an automatic weapon to an event. How can anyone with a sound mind even begin to justify the latter?
There are plenty elements of our culture that “insult” the “peace-loving” followers of Islam. How many joints would there be in a twenty mile radius from the Garland HS where nudity and lewdness are celebrated around the clock. While the opposing view is that the “bosom” should be covered (or become a head to toe clothing item) others think nudity is fair game.
Will we state that an attack on pole dancers or strippers along Harry Hines would be simply what those idiots deserved after being provocateurs?
No one is suggesting that AFDI/etc. be censored. They have their right to freedom of speech. Others have the right to see them for what they are, a hate group.
Of course, violence, like that attempted by the Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS followers, is a different story.
Everyone else may be annoyed that both AFDI and Daesh/IS/ISIL/ISIS may have gained some political support out of this incident.
I wonder how the 1930’s version of SPLC would have classified groups that looked at Germany with a degree of trepidation!
In the 1930s, all kinds of hate (including non-violent varieties, like advocating or practicing discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, etc.) was much more mainstream, so someone cataloging hate groups would probably be at it for a long time, and would include most government (US and otherwise) entities.
“There are plenty elements of our culture that “insult” the “peace-loving” followers of Islam. How many joints would there be in a twenty mile radius from the Garland HS where nudity and lewdness are celebrated around the clock. While the opposing view is that the “bosom” should be covered (or become a head to toe clothing item) others think nudity is fair game.”
There is a HUGE difference between a business that offers nudity or alcohol (that Muslims and people of other conservative religions are free to remain outside of) and inviting people to insult the head of someone’s religion.
Look at how many Americans are infuriated when someone desecrates a flag, and who call for censorship and the banning of flag desecration. Let’s give the same respect to others’ sacred symbols (and yes, I suppose that would mean giving freedom of speech rights to those who want to display the Confederate flag).
“No one is suggesting that AFDI/etc. be censored. They have their right to freedom of speech. Others have the right to see them for what they are, a hate group.”
I don’t know much about this group, though I sincerely doubt that I would be a member. Feel free to declare them a hate group, however, you don’t speak as the authority for everyone, deciding whom is a hate group. Purely because the SPLC thinks they can declare every group they disagree with as a hate group, certainly doesn’t give them the power to make it so.
Funny that the Charlie Hebdo people are considered brave and heroic. But these people are considered a hate group. Surely those at Charlie Hebdo knew what they were provoking. Think they were happy about what happened? Aren’t they a hate group?
ADL shares a similar opinion of AFDI/SIOA/etc. as the SPLC does:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/stop-islamization-of-america-2013-1-11-v1.pdf
I’m not saying Geller’s group deserved to be attacked. I’m saying they WANTED to be attacked. They are like the Nazis marching through Skokie, or the Westboro Baptist Church people (who were also brave, by the way). I’m the biggest supporter of free speech around, and I wouldn’t support any kind of legal limitation on what Geller’s group did. But that doesn’t alter my opinion that she is an evil idiot, no better than those marching Nazis.
PS: one difference between Geller’s group and Charlie Hebdo is that Geller’s group had security set up so they had a better chance of killing any attackers, and that’s what happened. Apparently Charlie Hebdo wasn’t expecting the kind of attack that happened.
I guess they learned a lesson from Charlie Hebdo
Another difference is that Charlie Hebdo has a history of doing parodies against many groups, as political and cultural satire. Geller’s group was targeting a particular audience, and, as she said on FOX, hoping to draw an attack.
CH can be argued as freedom of speech. Geller was instigating trouble. Just because you CAN say something (freedom of speech), doesn’t mean you should. What reason was there to have this contest, except to make her point and invite trouble?
“PS: one difference between Geller’s group and Charlie Hebdo is that Geller’s group had security set up so they had a better chance of killing any attackers, and that’s what happened. Apparently Charlie Hebdo wasn’t expecting the kind of attack that happened.”
Charlie Hebdo had already been firebombed, website hacked, had been threatened, knew that cartoonists had already been violently attacked and killed, located in an area known to have many Islamic extremists, and they weren’t expecting anything to happen. Sounds like Geller’s group was more prepared and not as naïve as Charlie Hebdo was.