Pamela Geller’s rhetoric appears to reflect a deep rooted prejudicial anger versus a real desire to heal

As I watched the one time Much Music V-Jay John Roberts (back in the early days of the video music explosion on Canadian television he was known as JD Roberts) interview Pamela Geller on Anderson Cooper 360, I could not help but see the undercurrent of another agenda beneath her veneer of “tolerance.”

I was at once reminded of the early days of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the nation’s despot Saddam Hussein, who at the time was holding foreigners captive as a reported human shield, attempted to portray himself as a gracious host by appearing before the media with a young boy and asking him if “he was getting his milk.”

Hussein meets with his international "guests"

Sad to say, the more I listened to Geller’s explanation of her opposition to the building of a Mosque two blocks away from ground zero, the more I felt myself succumbing to a sick feeling that was similar to the one I had experienced while watching the Hussein facade.

Now I want to make myself clear, as I did in an earlier post, that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack are contemptuous cowards who must be hunted down and brought to justice.  End of story!

However, using incendiary phrases such as “Islamic domination” in reference to a Mosque being built within two blocks of what Geller referred to as “the shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction” is extreme and quite frankly doesn’t jive with her comment that “we have no problem with Mosques, this is not a religious liberties issue.”

To prove her point that it has nothing to do with religious freedom, Geller then suggests that the site upon which the Mosque is to be built is a “national war memorial” and “a part of American history.”  Interesting perspective, and one that might have held more merit if she then didn’t add the comment that “it should not be turned into a mega-Mosque . . . a 15 story Mosque – looking down at ground zero.”

Geller then for some unknown, and disconnected reason veers even further away from her “war memorial” and American history” platform with the statement that the site was “purchased at a distress price,” and “by a guy who was a waiter a couple years ago,” and then asking “where’s that money coming from?”

This is where I believe that Roberts let her off the hook, as he then tries to draw a comparison with the comment that Geller “had put up a bunch of money for ads to go on . . .”  The important question he should of asked at that point is whether Geller’s question as to “where’s the money coming from,” meant that she believes that extremists are the ones funding the Mosque’s construction.

If in fact she does believe this, then one might possibly make a case for her position in that it would be tantamount to the 9/11 perpetrators snubbing their noses at America.  If this is perhaps the basis for her discontent, then why not come straight out and say that she believes this Mosque is being funded by the very individuals who were either behind or supportive of the 9/11 attacks.

Simply put, if someone breaks into my house and trashes it, I am not going to be thrilled if they move next door to me.

Conversely, if Geller cannot produce any tangible evidence beyond veiled innuendos pertaining to the funding source being tied to extremists, then why would the Mosque’s location be an issue?

If the reasons are indeed based upon the premise of a national war museum or the site being a part of American history then why introduce the funding question in the first place, or refer to it as a mega-Mosque looking down on ground zero?

I of course cannot answer as to Geller’s thought process, but I can say that it would appear that hers is an untenable position in that if the money is coming from the long-established Muslim community, and she opposes the Mosque’s construction, then she is painting an entire religion under a single, extremist brush.

She is a smart lady, so I believe she knows this hence her reasons for using deliberately inflammatory commentary such as a Mosque looking down on ground zero, the building being acquired at a distressed price and, questioning the funding source as a means of fanning the flame of fear and outrage, and thus gaining support.

As an American, one has to ask themselves this simple question; if you believe that ground zero is a war memorial and a piece of American history, does a Mosque two blocks away present a problem and why?

In the meantime, you might also want to address the issue regarding President Obama’s decision “to continue a controversial presidential tradition of honoring Southern Civil War soldiers by sending a wreath to Arlington’s Confederate Memorial.”

Perhaps the answer to the Mosque question can also be found in the President’s decision to also “start what may become a new tradition by sending a wreath to the African-American Civil War Memorial at Vermont Avenue and U Street Northwest in Washington?”  Now that might be what we can all call a true “healing process.”


3 Responses to “Pamela Geller’s rhetoric appears to reflect a deep rooted prejudicial anger versus a real desire to heal”
  1. jimbouchard says:

    As usual you offer an insightful, thoughtful and well researched perspective on a difficult and complex issue. Best thoughts!

  2. Hugh Abel says:

    Well stated! We are all too ready to throw a whole religion under the bus because of the acts of a few extremists.

  3. The run of the mill Muslim believer is no threat. The threat comes from those extreme in any religion. Religiosity has overcome Christianity in this country. We have forgotten how to love in this ME FIRST and Business BOTTOM LINE society.

  • Books Written by Jon Hansen

%d bloggers like this: