The smearing of Pamela Geller highlights exactly why she is (mostly) right

My old friend Pamela Geller took to the pages of American Thinker today to defend herself against the outrageous smears broadcast on CNN the other night regarding her supposed "anti-Islam" worldview.

For a detailed defense of Geller, I refer you to the article linked above. But what struck me in the CNN roundtable about her her and her links to new national security adviser John Bolton was the the ignorant and naive conflation of many on the left between "anti-jihad" and "anti-Islam" thinking. 

Geller doesn't have a hateful bone in her body, but she's passionate about sounding the alarm over the seeming acceptance of political ideology masquerading  as religious expression. This is what Islamists promote. And it is a political ideology completely, totally, 100% at odds with the United States Constitution. Not only does Islamist ideology promote inequality of women, it places strictures on its adherents that are inimicable to the traditions and thinking of western society.

Believing this is important is a legitimate point of view, not hate. Nor is it hate to speak against "creeping sharia." This is not a "conspiracy theory." It is a point of view - one I don't happen to agree with, but would never dream of saying that it reveals Islam-hate on the part of Geller. Muslims who proselytize and seek to grow their religion are not necessarily trying to impose anything on anyone. But it is hardly hateful to oppose an ideology that treats women like cattle, gays as deserving of death, thieves who should have their hands cut off, and stoning adultering women. This is the stone cold reality in many Muslim countries and you have to wonder why anyone who lives in a western democracy would approve of it.

The lies, misstatements, and deliberate smears of Geller can't hide the fact that showing tolerance for extremist Islam is deadly to Americans and puts lives in danger for no other reason other than virtue signaling.  Liberals want to tell us how much better they are than us because they tolerate radical Islam. But it's a curiosity to speak against hate by some while tolerating it in others.

My old friend Pamela Geller took to the pages of American Thinker today to defend herself against the outrageous smears broadcast on CNN the other night regarding her supposed "anti-Islam" worldview.

For a detailed defense of Geller, I refer you to the article linked above. But what struck me in the CNN roundtable about her her and her links to new national security adviser John Bolton was the the ignorant and naive conflation of many on the left between "anti-jihad" and "anti-Islam" thinking. 

Geller doesn't have a hateful bone in her body, but she's passionate about sounding the alarm over the seeming acceptance of political ideology masquerading  as religious expression. This is what Islamists promote. And it is a political ideology completely, totally, 100% at odds with the United States Constitution. Not only does Islamist ideology promote inequality of women, it places strictures on its adherents that are inimicable to the traditions and thinking of western society.

Believing this is important is a legitimate point of view, not hate. Nor is it hate to speak against "creeping sharia." This is not a "conspiracy theory." It is a point of view - one I don't happen to agree with, but would never dream of saying that it reveals Islam-hate on the part of Geller. Muslims who proselytize and seek to grow their religion are not necessarily trying to impose anything on anyone. But it is hardly hateful to oppose an ideology that treats women like cattle, gays as deserving of death, thieves who should have their hands cut off, and stoning adultering women. This is the stone cold reality in many Muslim countries and you have to wonder why anyone who lives in a western democracy would approve of it.

The lies, misstatements, and deliberate smears of Geller can't hide the fact that showing tolerance for extremist Islam is deadly to Americans and puts lives in danger for no other reason other than virtue signaling.  Liberals want to tell us how much better they are than us because they tolerate radical Islam. But it's a curiosity to speak against hate by some while tolerating it in others.