Charlie Hebdo

Caringheart wrote: I am pleased today, to see peaceful muslim marches in protest of Charlie Hebdo magazine.  Now that is a way that is acceptable and may have some effect.

It's better than killing people, for sure, but IMHO it still makes Muslims look like a bunch of whiney cry-babies.  Seriously, you're marching in the streets because of a few silly cartoons?  Who does that, aside from Muslims?  Honestly, just get over it!

But you're right about one thing: all the protests are certainly having an effect. They are giving the magazine, and its cartoons, far more publicity and attention than it deserves.  Instead of a few thousand copies, the latest edition is selling millions.  So congratulations.


Edited by Ron Webb - 20 January 2015 at 11:19am

Greetings back at you, TG!  I agree with the freedom of speech expressed in the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [emphasis added] 

That Amendment pertains to restrictions on Congress; the media, businesses, academia, individual behavior, etc. all are, or at least have been, self-regulated  on freedom of speech and press issues.  Of course, in recent years with the pervasive socialist influence permeating through all aspects of American society, so-called "hate speech" issues have been raised.  The problem with that is at least two-fold:  what is hate speech to one is not to another (the meat/poison analogy), and where does one draw the line with something that is so subjective?  You can see where that leads:  to totalitarianism. 

It is a slippery slope to start putting subjective restrictions on freedom.  In a free society, freedom means that some people will be offended at one thing or another.  For instance, I am offended by pornography, but the answer for my discomfiture would not be to ban everything that I find personally offensive.  I simply shun whatever I find offensive.

The "genocides" in the Bible and in the Quran?  Well, I am not concerned with what took place in the past, especially that which was commanded by God, but I am greatly concerned about what is happening today!   Are Jews or Christians committing rape, kidnappings, beheadings, and "ethnic cleansing" in the name of their religion?  Of course not; it is only the demonic and bloodthirsty jihadists who are committing all these crimes in the name of their religion, Islam.  That is why Muslims who eschew the actions of the barbarian jihadists, who are acting out the killing verses in the Quran and advocating for Shariah, need to be heard and seen in great numbers.  Otherwise, peace-loving Muslims will be painted with the same broad brush as the jihadists.  (I do wonder, though, do peaceable Muslims shun the jihadists but embrace Shariah, and if so, how do they reconcile the dissonance between peace and violence?)

TG, I don't recall George Bush ever declaring any of his wartime actions as being done in the name of Christianity.  With the jihadists, they make no claim to be conducting their barbaric crimes in any name other than allah!

Colin wrote: "I don't think it's a good idea to go around intentionally insulting people, just like I don't think that neo-nazi caricatures of black people and Mexicans and Jews should be displayed in newspapers, even if it may cause some to have a 'chuckle'." To some, other peoples' religious beliefs can be perceived as insulting because they conflict with their own beliefs. But in free and open societies they have the right to extol their own particular religion. Of course, this doesn't mean that people should be encouraged to denigrate other people's religions. Basic human politeness isn't reliant on any particular belief system.

I understand what you are saying. Christianity has components that are insulting to Judaism and paganism, Judaism and Christianity have components that are insulting to paganism, Islam has components that are insulting to all of three previously mentioned.

I don't think though that either of these religions teaches their adherents to draw st**id cartoons mocking the beliefs of others.

The existence of non-whites, as equal citizens especially, is an insult to a very small number of white people, though in the past they were not such a minority. There are also black racists and Jewish racists and Hispanic racists who believe that other races are inferior to them.

That still doesn't mean we should be propagating racist beliefs, and I would not be offended if it was (and I think it actually is) prohibited for newspaper to publish racist cartoons. Yet when it comes to religion, some want it to be OK.

Colin wrote: Religion should not be a special case. People should have the right to say disparaging things about religion. Just as those pushing their particular brand of religion should have the right to do so without fear of being silenced. Provided no laws are broken this is what free and open democratic societies are all about. They are two-way streets. The alternative is to live in controlled societies where only those in absolute power dictate what you can and can't say. Like the former Soviet Union or the present day Saudi Arabia. Both one-way streets.

I don't think it's a good idea to go around intentionally insulting people, just like I don't think that neo-nazi caricatures of black people and Mexicans and Jews should be displayed in newspapers, even if it may cause some to have a 'chuckle'.