Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Not Kosher

None other than Spencer’s bestest friend in the whole wide world!

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Loonwatch has previously pointed out that Islamophobia and Judeophobia are frequently related. In this open letter to synagogues and Jewish organizations planning to have Pamela Geller speak, Jewish Loonwatcher Just Stopping By points out that not only is Pamela Geller Islamophobic, but her Islamophobia leads her to take anti-Jewish positions as well. Loonwatchers are encouraged to send copies of or links to this letter, or to compose a polite but informative message of their own, when they hear of Geller planning to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization.

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Guest Post by Just Stopping By

An Open Letter to Synagogues and Jewish Organizations Considering Inviting Pamela Geller to Speak: Pamela Geller Promotes Hatred of Jews and Jewish Practices

Pamela Geller frequently arranges to speak at venues by claiming to be a human rights advocate. Often, when the venues involved learn of her public Islamophobia, they decide to cancel her speech.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President Emeritus of the Union for Reform Judaism noted in 2013, “The recent decisions by a synagogue in Great Neck and another outside of Toronto to cancel appearances by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller—both were rescheduled at other venues—have made headlines in the Jewish press and raised  interesting questions for the Jewish community.” Rabbi Yoffie states in his commentary that “Pamela Geller has no place in an American synagogue.  She is a bigot and purveyor of hate.”

Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim hatred should be sufficient reason to not invite her to speak or to withdraw any invitation already given. In addition, as has often been pointed out, hate against one group often leads to hate against another. And, even if Pamela Geller does not mean to promote hate against Jews and Jewish practices, in many ways she does just that. Below are ten ideas that you may not be aware that Pamela Geller has put forth that, in fact, are conducive to promoting hatred of Jews and Jewish practices.

1. Geller is effectively against kosher meat, having described a process nearly identical to shichitah (kosher slaughtering) as an action that yields “meat slaughtered by means of a barbaric, torturous and inhuman method: Islamic slaughter. Halal slaughter involves killing the animal by cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out…” The same could be said about shichitah, as the slaughtering method is subject to the same concerns.

2. Geller objects to reasonable accommodations for those who want to wear religious headwear like a kippa / yarmulke. Similarly, she points out an Obama appointee is “the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House,” (bolding in Geller’s post), licensing a similar smear against kippa- or sheitel-wearing Jews.

3. Geller objects to universities offering optional classes and conferences in religious law. This is true even when those conferences serve goals such as applying pressure on non-state actors to reduce civilian casualties by addressing “the lack of standards for dealing with the rise of irregular armies or the inability of the law to accommodate asymmetric forms of attacks by non-state entities against sovereign states.” This position could be used against schools like the largest Catholic university in the United States, which has a Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies.

4. Geller objects when a government official uses a Semitic language to speak to an audience, calling it “speechifying in” that language. This attitude could be similarly used to criticize U.S. government officials who reach out to Jews in Hebrew or, moving beyond purely Semitic languages, in the Yiddish phrases that former Secretary of State Colin Powell sometimes invoked.

5. Geller objects to a private airline removing pork from its menu when traveling to/from a Middle Eastern country, even though many American Jews are familiar and comfortable with pork-freeflights to the Middle East.

6. Geller objects to mosques‘ existence and construction, often under the pretext of zoning issues, using arguments that could be turned against synagogues. She further “calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal,” a principle that could be turned against foreign funding or support for synagogues, and presumably other religious endeavors such as Chabad Houses, everywhere in the world other than in Israel.

7. Geller objects to the use of sharia courts for private dispute resolution, though this could affect b’tei din (Jewish courts) and though Jewish, Muslim, and other religious courts are publicly financed in Israel.

8. Geller objects to public schools having religious holidays off when those holidays are for religious minorities at the school, though Jewish groups often make the case for schools with large Jewish student populations having Jewish holidays off.

9. Geller promotes intolerance by using mocking terminology for religious figures, such as “Moe”for Muhammad, while Jews have rightly been upset at the use of mocking references to Jewishnames and should be uniquely concerned with nomenclature given issues such as references to the Tanakh or the “Old” Testament.

10. Geller spreads conspiracy theories about what she has called the “Islamic Geopolitical Influence in Financial Markets.” Do synagogues and Jewish organizations really want to sponsor a speaker who promulgates theories about the influence of members of a particular religion on global financial markets?

Pamela Geller’s statements about Muslims are hateful enough that on that basis alone she should not be invited to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization. Jews would not approve of other groups making similar statements about us, and we should remember that we should not do to others what is hateful for us. Beyond that, when we go and study Geller’s statements, we see that her agenda is not pro-Jewish. In fact, it is conducive to hatred against Jews and Jewish practices; she does not even have a leg to stand on.

How far do Geller’s statements go in providing support for hatred against Jews? Consider this quote from Geller, with bolding added, about a rabbi who called out Geller’s bigotry:

The quisling “rabbi” Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, which spent $10,000 on ads last fall to oppose my pro-Israel ads, said “I wish that none of this had ever started.” Really, “Rabbi”? Jacobs will answer to higher authority. Jacobs was silent when vicious anti-Israel ads ran in cities across the country. Jacobs only got involved to condemn me for standing up against the vicious anti-semitic ad campaigns running on transit platforms from NY to California. Jacobs is not a rabbi — Jacobs is a quisling, an enemy with a Mona Lisa smile. She should be stripped of any rabbinical status (I am sure she’s of the ridiculous “reformed” [sic] movement — which no practicing Jew takes seriously).

A speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization should be someone whose talk leads to a good and pleasant experience for those seated in the audience, not someone who uses blog post titles to spread division-inciting baseless hatred while trivializing Jewish history. Geller’s statements are not the kind of speech that a Jewish soul should yearn for; for if it does, our hope for peace and understanding with Muslims and other Jews may be lost.

It is understandable that a synagogue or Jewish organization could be misled by a carefully edited biography about Pamela Geller that seems to show her as a civil rights activist. But, analyses by the Southern Poverty Law Center show that she is an avid anti-Muslim bigot. That should be sufficient to deny her a position as a speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization. But, given Geller’s effective anti-Jewish agenda, if you do decide to invite her, remember not to serve kosher meat or to refer to any rabbis who oppose her, especially those of the Reform movement though also Modern Orthodox, as a rabbi (instead of as a “rabbi”), lest you do something she finds offensive. Of course, the best idea is to either not invite her at all, or, like other synagogues and Jewish organizations have done, to withdraw an invitation you have provided before being made aware of Geller’s anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish positions.

Thug spat on woman who was wearing a hijab in Humberstone Road, Leicester

Leicester hijab assault suspects

These brave men laughed when their pal spat on a young women in headscarf. How much you want to bet they are part of those “freedom fighting” EDL bunch?

Thug spat on woman who was wearing a hijab in Humberstone Road, Leicester

(This is Leicester)

A thug spat at a woman in the street apparently because she was wearing an Islamic head scarf.

Police have appealed for help tracing the man, who targeted the woman in Humberstone Road, near Leicester city centre.

The 20-year-old woman was walking near to the St Matthews service station when she noticed three young men approaching her.

One of them spat on her as they passed by and the three began laughing as they walked away.

Officers have released a CCTV image of three people they want to trace.

The incident happened shortly before 1pm on Monday, February 4.

Pc Dave Adams said: “The victim felt upset and frightened following the incident and feels that she was targeted because she was wearing a hijab.

“We will not tolerate people feeling intimidated and frightened on our streets and I would urge anyone with information to call us as soon as they can.

“The road was quite busy at the time of the incident so there is a possibility that passers-by and passing traffic may be able to help.”

The three suspects are white, 18 or 19 and of slim build.

One was wearing a peaked cap and another was wearing a black hooded top.

Contact Pc Adams on 101 or Crimestoppers, which is anonymous, on 0800 555 111.

Robert Spencer: Muslim Woman Getting Fired For Hijab Was Part of the “Plan”

Really, Police Blotter Bob?

Wow…Wow. Robert Spencer has really outdone himself.  Hate does things to you, and it really shows. Take this reaction to the lawsuit of an Ametican Muslim woman against Abercrombie and Fitch:

The real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn’t she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn’t she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab? Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

LOL. Spencer wonders why a “Muslima,” or Muslim woman, would want to work at A&F? Umm…maybe to make some money? Novel concept, eh? (pardon the Canadian) But, no! Mssr. Spencer knows the REAL reason: to get hired and then get fired in order to…what were his words?

“to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.”

Really? Her whole ordeal…getting fired, losing income, and filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – which, by the way, evaluated her claim and saw merit to her lawsuit going forward – was so she can “assert Islamic dominance”?

Dude…really?

If A&F had simply adhered to its own stated policy, she would not have been fired in the first place.  It is the law of the land, Mssr. Spencer, to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice. The Muslim woman in this case didn’t object to the dress code. She just refused to violate her religious beliefs and take off her headscarf. And for this she was fired.

Moreover, this wasn’t the first time Muslim women at A&F were fired for refusing to take off their headscarves, according to the article. So it seems that A&F has a problem vis a vis Muslim women employees. Hence, the lawsuits.

But Mssr. Spencer knows better! He saw through the whole scheme! It was all an elaborate plot, full of taqiyya and dhimmis (in the EEOC). He said it himself:

Yes. It seems tolerant to force Abercrombie & Fitch to change its dress code. It seems open-minded. In fact, it is accommodating an ideology that is radically intolerant, and when in power has never granted similar accommodation to those outside it.

Oh yes! The “radical ideology” of allowing a Muslim woman to wear her headscarf while working? Really? Would Spencer be saying this if A&F fired an Orthodox Jewish man for refusing to take off his yarmulke? Hardly. But when it comes to Muslims, it is “Stealth Jihad.” How pathetic.

Like I said…hate does thing to you.

Quote of the Day: Silly Spencer: Abercrombie & Fitch is a New Proving Ground for Stealth Jihad

Hani Khan, 20, says she was fired from Abercrombie & Fitch at Hillsdale Mall for refusing to remove her headscarf while at work. Credit Drew Himmelstein

Spencer tends to forget that a job is a job. Everyone has the right to work where they want in America.

The real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn’t she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn’t she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab? Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

This Muslim woman chose to work at a place where her love for fashion could be a place to help others find the perfect accessories. Her personal accessory happens to be a hijab.

“Abercrombie & Fitch will also be selling hijabs, niqabs, and burqas once creeping Sharia takes effect.” Spencer needs to get a life.

Most of the comments for this post veer far off topic and into an odd self-gratifying Hadith flinging game. Here is a sampling of the “moderated” comment section:

Robert Spencer Reads with Special Police Blotter Glasses

It look like he is squinting.

Robert Spencer must wear certain glasses when reading anything related to Islam and Muslims. These “special” glasses are perfect for those with dogmatic minds who wish to read everything from a particular biased and hateful perspective.

For instance today Spencer writes about a  Muslim woman from California who was forced to take her hijab off in jail:

California: Muslim defendant sues county over hijab removal in jail

They made her take off her hijab for security reasons, but who cares about security when Muslim practices must be accommodated?

“Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal,” by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

All you have to do is read the whole article and you will understand why this woman is suing the county. I am not making this up Spencer, it was in the article:

The court returned the case to a federal judge to decide whether the deputies interfered with Khatib’s religious freedom without a compelling security need.

Spencer seems to imply that prisoners don’t have freedom of religion, especially if they are Muslim, but that’s good old Spencer for you, fighting freedom at every turn.

The article was not simply about undue religious accommodation and as was related in the article there was no “compelling security need” that required that the woman be forced to remove her hijab. Spencer of course wants to turn this into something it isn’t, he wants to imply that this is an example of ‘Muslims taking over,’ or ‘America “submitting” to Islam,’ but what are we to expect from the police blotter who wears “special glasses?”

——————————-

In another post, Spencer writes about CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, released after paying 2.34mln dollars in compensation to the family of his victims who thereafter pardoned him; implicit in this is Davis’ acceptance that he wrongfully murdered these two. In Islamic Law this payment is known as “Diyaa,” commonly translated as “blood money” or what is known in the West as “punitive damages.”

And what was Spencer’s catechistic complaint:

And why is the U.S. submitting to Sharia in this regard? In better days, a team of commandos would have done the job.

Spencer again sees this as an example of America somehow submitting to the bogeyman monster of “sharia” which is all together more ridiculous when we consider that Raymond Davis actually killed two people and admitted as much when he implicitly apologized for the deed by paying the family. However, Spencer cares little about the lives of these two Pakistani men, he thinks commandos should swoop into Islamabad and violate a nation’s sovereignty, not a surprise considering Spencer in the past has supported calls for genocide against Pakistanis.