The critics of Pamela Gellar have a point. She did taunt Islam and she provoked exactly the response I suspect she wanted. She's is intentionally insulting the religion, which I generally oppose simply on the grounds of civility. If we lived in a sane world, I'd oppose intentionally offending Muslims because it's rude and boorish. We don't live in a sane world.
The winning cartoon wasn't anti-Islam, it was a political cartoon. Drawing the prophet is against Islam, but that rule does not apply to non-Muslims. I assume some of the drawings were offensive for the sake of being offensive, but I really don't see anything offensive about the winning drawing below. In contrast, it would not be difficult to find offensive things aimed directly at Christians on TV in the next few hours. I honestly don't know what drawing an image of Mohammed registers on the offensive scale for Islam, but from my view, most of prime time television is more offensive to Islam and Christianity and Judaism (and more) than this drawing. These media outlets criticizing Gellar are fountains of blasphemy pumped straight into believers' faces. That people can't see this clearly shows how far Western civilization has fallen.
Furthermore, most people criticizing her did not bring on the piss Christ artist or elephant dung Virgin Mary artist and harangue them non-stop. They are not showing the cartoons from the contest on air or in their newspapers or on their websites, as good dhimmis should.
The AmericanThinker rightly juxtaposed this image with the piss Christ that was funded by the NEA. Would the government fund a piss Prophet?
Good on ya Pam.
“Climate Change” Hides The Real Issue - Conservatives get a lot of flak for opposing “progress.” When progress was first announced to us, it meant replacing a network of gentle towns with mega-ci...
34 minutes ago