Uploaded by Acts17Apologetics on April 12, 2013
One of the most interesting things about Pamela Geller’s critics is that they rarely condemn her for something that she actually said or did. Instead, they usually misrepresent her position and then condemn her based on the misrepresentation. In logic, this is called the “Straw Man” Fallacy—criticizing a false caricature of your opponent’s position rather than your opponent’s actual position.
Now, why don't Pamela’s critics make the slightest effort to be fair or accurate in their portrayal of her views? It’s simple really: If you state Pamela’s views and claims accurately, most people are going to agree with her.
If you walk up to someone and say, “Oh man, we've gotta do something about this Pamela Geller. She’s against terrorism. She’s against honor killing. She’s against female genital mutilation. She’s against the persecution of religious minorities. She’s against the forced marriage of child brides, and believe it or not, she supports the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—AND Israel’s right to exist!” If you tell someone that, the response is going to be, “Yeah, we should do something. We should give her a medal for having the courage that the media lost years ago.”
So, if you want to stir up an angry mob against Pamela, you have to get a little creative. You have to invent some things. Let’s look at an example. One of the people responsible for getting Pamela’s speech at Great Neck Synagogue cancelled was Rabbi Jerome Davidson. Why shouldn't Pamela be allowed to speak according to Rabbi Davidson?
[Video clip of Rabbi Davidson speaking]What was the hate speech?
The synagogue is no place for hate speech. She put posters in the subways which compared Muslims to animals.
She put posters in the subways which compared Muslims to animals.She compared Muslims to what?
....to animals.So, Rabbi Davidson, if we look at Pamela’s subway ad, it’s going to say, “Muslims are animals”. Right?
Here’s the subway ad:
It says, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” Notice that this ad doesn’t call anyone animals. It calls certain people savages—savages are uncivilized human beings. But what kind of people are being called savages? Muslims in general? No. Jihadists, and specifically, the Jihadists who are waging a war against Israel. Jihadists who are blowing up busloads of civilians, and slaughtering families in their homes, and carrying out suicide attacks.
Now, who doesn’t believe that terrorists who target civilians and children are savages? Since this isn't a controversial statement, critics like Rabbi Davidson have to manufacture a controversial statement by claiming that the ad calls ALL Muslims animals, even though the ad doesn’t mention Muslims and doesn’t mention animals.
But apart from slandering Pamela Geller, notice what Rabbi Davidson has done. He's admitted that it would be wrong and immoral to call a group of people a derogatory term, like animals.
So, let’s test the good rabbi’s consistency by turning to the Qur’an to see what it says about Rabbi Davidson and his fellow-Jews. To make things simple, we'll stick to a single verse of the Qur’an:
QUR'AN 98:6 “Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.”Who are the worst of creatures? Christians, Jews, and idolaters who refuse to believe in Muhammad, and convert to Islam. So according to the Qur’an, Rabbi Davidson, and his entire family, and his congregation are the worst of creatures. They're lower than dogs according to the Qur’an. They’re worst than pigs according to the Qur’an. In the same world, what would we call this Rabbi Davidson?
[Video clip of Rabbi Davidson speaking]
”....hate speech.”But wait a minute! If it would be wrong for Pamela Geller to call Muslims animals—which she didn’t do—shouldn’t it be wrong for the Qur’an to call Jews as the worst of creatures? And yet it would never occur to Rabbi Davidson to condemn this verse of the Qur’an or any other verse of the Qur’an. Why the inconsistency? Why the double standards? Why does Rabbi Davidson apply one set of rules to Pamela Geller—it’s wrong to call people names—and a completely different set of rules to Muhammad and his followers?: “You, Muslims, can call people all the names you want.”
Here we arrive at one of the great ironies of our time. Rabbi Davidson thinks that he's showing respect to Muslims when in reality, by holding Muslims to a lower moral standard, he’s insulting and degrading all Muslims, even the peaceful ones.
Pamela Geller, by contrast, calls terrorists savages (and who wouldn't?) but she holds Muslims to the same moral standard that she would apply to any other group.
So who gives more respect to Muslims? Someone like Pamela Geller who criticizes certain Islamic teachings (but only because that’s just how we do things when we have a disagreement in the West) or someone like Rabbi Davidson who shows, by his comments about Pamela Geller, that he believes in openly criticizing views he disagrees with, but for some reason, puts Muslims OUTSIDE the realm of criticism and discourse.
When Rabbi Davidson and the media and politicians say to Pamela Geller, “Pamela, we expect better from you than these things we made up about you,” their botched message is that civilized human beings must adhere to a basic moral principle: Don’t make negative generalizations about an entire group of people. But then the same rabbi, and the same reporters, and the same politicians turn to Muhammad and his followers and say, “But YOU’RE exempt from this basic moral principle.”
What kind of people do we NOT expect to live by basic moral principles that apply in civilized society? Savages?
Will the REAL Islamophobes please stand up.
Transcriber's note: If you spot any errors, please let me know, and I will make the correction. Thank you!