I disagree with the assertation that criticizing the cartoon is akin to blaming the rape victim for her clothes, as Bill Maher and some in this thread have suggested. I find that to be lazy. Openly and assertively trying to offend and piss off people for their beliefs isn't even in the same universe as wanting to wear a short skirt when going out to a club. Come on.
These are extremists, not true muslims. Just like the westboro baptist church are extremists, not your average christian.
Come on is right, you keep trying to compare this attack with school yard bullying. Not even close to the same thing, we are all adults.....why can't we start acting like adults. Kids get offended by stupid shit, adults don't.
I wasn't comparing the attack to bullying. The irresponsible "journalism". adults don't get offended by "stupid" shit? You call what they published "stupid". Have some respect for others' beliefs. I think religion is all bullshit, but I don't go around drawing cartoons of jesus getting anally raped by a Televangelist. And damn right people iver here would get offended by that. And well within their rights. (And save your comeback of "difference is, over here no one would murder the cartoonists", because, obviously, that isn't the point I am making here).
that shit is drawn by people with the maturity of a teenage boy.
Nothing ecxuses murder. Ever. I wish i didn't have to keep saying that, but some people just can't fathom that I can be against what they printed but outraged at the consequence they suffered as a result at the same time.
Pjfan: At the risk of starting a circular argument (why did that even enter my mind to type that first?) I agree about words not justifying death but on the other hand RR, what if from now on everyday I call you a dick publicly on this forum? I don't even know you but it should be in my right mind to not do this to you. Because I can though, I will. (not really, just making a point)"
If thats the way you really feel then let it fly! As with other instances of free speech you will likely be asked to substantiate your opinion, and you will be subject to being called a dick as well. That's the way the world works, and should work. Of course some things are inherently more offensive than others, if you dig at someone about personal issues or tragedies...that makes you a dick lol but oh well, sticks and stones!
The funny thing about this to me, and I mean funny literally, is that Charlie Hebdo was a pretty obscure publication with a small readership...until the idiots attacked them to suppress the images that are now being viewed by millions instead of thousands. )
And I am not suggesting that they stop printing that stuff out of fear. They should stop printing out of decency and some sense of journalisitic integrity.
If thats the way you really feel then let it fly! As with other instances of free speech you will likely be asked to substantiate your opinion, and you will be subject to being called a dick as well. That's the way the world works, and should work. Of course some things are inherently more offensive than others, if you dig at someone about personal issues or tragedies...that makes you a dick lol but oh well, sticks and stones!
The funny thing about this to me, and I mean funny literally, is that Charlie Hebdo was a pretty obscure publication with a small readership...until the idiots attacked them to suppress the images that are now being viewed by millions instead of thousands. )
My point was to show cause and known effect. I am not in anyway condoning the attack but will simply say that the effect received was not a surprise nor out of the ordinary.
Swift justice to murderers for sure, religious driven or not. As long as there is religious extremism there will continue to be attacks when this particular religion is mocked. Right in their minds, wrong in ours.
And Jimmy I'm with your thought process here.Although speech may be tasteless and offensive,you can't pick and choose what is offensive and to who.So those freedoms of expression,thought and speech must never be bottled up at the risk of offending someone at some time.
The threat of Death and violence should never halt these freedoms regardless of the content.There is NEVER a reason words should justify death.
At the risk of starting a circular argument (why did that even enter my mind to type that first?) I agree about words not justifying death but on the other hand RR, what if from now on everyday I call you a dick publicly on this forum? I don't even know you but it should be in my right mind to not do this to you. Because I can though, I will. (not really, just making a point)
I see your point PJFan,and it is your right to call me a dick.As loud and as often you feel that you need to to express your point of view.What we are dealing with would be my reaction.If I was a hot head and came at you like a spider monkey as soon as you said it,that of course would be one response.Threatening to harm you and your loved ones if you don't take it back and apologize.Or I could take the high road and just ignore you.I could use my freedom of speech and call you a name back,But I could also look at the context.If you said to me,"Ryan you are A dick" sounds way worse then "Ryan ,don't be a dick" or that's a dick move,or That's a dickishmthing to say.All the latter roll right off.No biggie.My reaction is all I control,and I know it's just your opinion.We move on and your not invited to party with us when PJ plays West Palm.lol
Is it bad manners to call me a dick?Yes.Is it your right? Yes.What does it say about me if I pledge to seek you out and punch you in the face for calling me names?Its fucking asinine,that's what it says.
If someone is offended,too bad move on,don't buy the paper.Publish your own paper,start a petition,take out and add.Protest do anything other then kill.
The only way it ends is the abolishment of the Holy texts. All of them. They are filled with an endless litany of divisive rules, and what good can be found in them has been bettered by poets throughout the ages. Humanity's greatest poets have done what it's religious figures wouldn't, they have presented the greatest aspirations of humanity and left the filth in the trash where it belongs. There is inspiration enough to be found, and faith and belief can exist without the aged dogmas of people far less civilized than we have become.
RR your typo "That's a dickishmthing to say", has lead me to a new slang word. Dicksmithing. "That dude is a total dicksmith" "Oh don't worry about Bill, he's just out in his garage dicksmithing around, it's best to just ignore him"
The only way it ends is the abolishment of the Holy texts. All of them.
Fully agree. Until that day there will be justified by god killer extremists. Let's just get this giant white elephant back into the centre of the room - by continuously provoking the bear (prophet) it will always end in barbaric death. Right in their extremists mind to do but wrong in our minds for them to do.
As long as there is in existence a holy text that can be interpreted in a way to justify killing a person this will always happen.
RR your typo "That's a dickishmthing to say", has lead me to a new slang word.
Dicksmithing. "That dude is a total dicksmith"
"Oh don't worry about Bill, he's just out in his garage dicksmithing around, it's best to just ignore him"
I like it,Its catchy.Does one need to study to become a Dicksmith?
And PJfan,I can be a dick,so getting called out on it would be in order from time to time.Just saying.:)
Would it be offensive to you that I don't think you should be allowed to like Pearl Jam?
That's the thing PJfan,I don't care!! It wouldn't bother me at all what you or any other person thinks.About anything.
It's not letting shit bother you.If some statement is offensive to YOU,then don't pay it any mind,move on and don't waste any energy on what you can't control.People can be idiots.
The only way it ends is the abolishment of the Holy texts. All of them.
Fully agree. Until that day there will be justified by god killer extremists. Let's just get this giant white elephant back into the centre of the room - by continuously provoking the bear (prophet) it will always end in barbaric death. Right in their extremists mind to do but wrong in our minds for them to do.
As long as there is in existence a holy text that can be interpreted in a way to justify killing a person this will always happen.
abolishment would lead to nothing but more violence in the name of religious suppression.
The only way it ends is the abolishment of the Holy texts. All of them.
Fully agree. Until that day there will be justified by god killer extremists. Let's just get this giant white elephant back into the centre of the room - by continuously provoking the bear (prophet) it will always end in barbaric death. Right in their extremists mind to do but wrong in our minds for them to do.
As long as there is in existence a holy text that can be interpreted in a way to justify killing a person this will always happen.
abolishment would lead to nothing but more violence in the name of religious suppression.
The only way it ends is the abolishment of the Holy texts. All of them. They are filled with an endless litany of divisive rules, and what good can be found in them has been bettered by poets throughout the ages. Humanity's greatest poets have done what it's religious figures wouldn't, they have presented the greatest aspirations of humanity and left the filth in the trash where it belongs. There is inspiration enough to be found, and faith and belief can exist without the aged dogmas of people far less civilized than we have become.
The only way what ends? Violence has been around before, and secular societies have been responsible for far worse crimes. Is the bible to blame for the 1,000,000 dead Iraqis at the hands of the U.S., UK and its allies? Give me a break. Your last sentence shows that you're basically a fascist and actually a bigot.
The only way that radical terrorism ends. The question was asked a while back, the quote feature isn't working for folks in droid phones at least.
A facist and a bigot? Are you fucking kidding me??? For believing that it is uncivilized to stone a woman to death on accusation of infidelity? For imagining an afterlife devoid of torture at the hands of our "loving creator"? For believing that loving someone of the same sex doesn't merit death and torture? That makes me a facist and a bigot??
Your response shows just how aged and uncivilized you adherents are, anyone who threatens your dogma is an enemy, even if they leave the door open for faith and belief rooted in compassion.
The only way that radical terrorism ends. The question was asked a while back, the quote feature isn't working for folks in droid phones at least.
A facist and a bigot? Are you fucking kidding me??? For believing that it is uncivilized to stone a woman to death on accusation of infidelity? For imagining an afterlife devoid of torture at the hands of our "loving creator"?
For believing that loving someone of the same sex doesn't merit death and torture? That makes me a facist and a bigot??
Your response shows just how aged and uncivilized you adherents are, anyone who threatens your dogma is an enemy, even if they leave the door open for faith and belief rooted in compassion.
You need to get a fucking grip!!
Are you listening to yourself? Did I come in here proclaiming that all atheists are less civilized, or more barbaric? To claim that a group of people are less civilized than you is bigoted pure and simple, that's the definition of the word. And to reduce an entire religion to the points you made above is intellectually dishonest and purely embarrassing for you. I'm sure many of those reading this are well aware that Islam is not what you claim it to be above, and those familiar with the Quran (few that they are) and who don't simply Google "evil Quran verses" are aware that there is no stoning in the Quran. Finally I find it fascinating that you're so opposed to torturous punishment when I'm sure many of you here have no sympathy for terrorists being imprisoned for their lives or shot in cold blood. No I'm not comparing disbelievers to criminals, but I've already responded to your point regarding disbelievers being damned and showed that it's much more nuanced. But your point isn't that torture is bad in and of itself, it's that you want the people you don't like to be tortured. It's that you believe that religions teach it's followers that they are superior which isn't convenient to you because YOU think YOUR superior. Do you see how ironic and dogmatic you are? You fight religion using the logic that you don't like about what you think religion is!
But why should we let the conversation get complicated when it's so much easier to say we are more civilized and better than others? Yay freedom! Yay West! Yay atheism! Death to the savages! Kill religion and burn its adherents at the stake! Roooooooar!!
I find it incredibly unlikely that radical terrorism ends with the demise or irrelevance of religion at large. Religion's role in terrorism is nothing more than a convenient justification for acting on one's inner feelings of frustration, and directing blame for injustices of the world in convenient or self-serving ways. It presents a set of rules, and presents at least enough ambiguously written text to allow people to claim divine inspiration for the atrocities they themselves wish to commit.
Without divinity, I can think of several other sectarian divisions that, in the absence of religion, have been and will continue to be disturbingly horrific and convenient justifying notions: colonialism, nationalism, racism, classism - you can honestly pick any of these, they will become more and more significant in the role of terrorism if religion goes the way of the dodo bird.
Not that world leaders would mind this.
Strangely enough, if you kill in the name of America under blind instruction from a leader, you are called a patriot, given a medal, and you will serve the rest of your days receiving praise from your people. If you kill in the name of Allah under blind instruction from a leader, you are coined a murderer or terrorist, and are given the death penalty (if you're still alive). Both are scenarios where a centralized group of few persons disseminate kill instructions where the members of the group at large have the utmost faith in the good nature of the few in charge. Both are scenarios where this faith is abused. One is condemned, one is championed. Does this leave anyone else scratching his or her head?
Religion is not an epidemic - something which, when wiped out, returns us back to our healthier state. It is just a symptomatic byproduct of the real epidemic: human selfishness, and near-complete neglect of our human companions and their well-being. You can get rid of this symptom, but rest assured, another will appear in its place, because the epidemic isn't going anywhere so long as others' losses lead to our own gains.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There is no basis to believe in Jesus or Allah. Both the Koran and Bible are utter bullshit. This needs to be said over and over again. I realize I sound like a dick, so be it. CH did this as well and I applaud them saying what needs to be said. I don't feel there is a limit to free speech or ridicule. As stated earlier if you don't like it ignore it. Fuck being PC
I regard all believers the same and yes there is something believers need to feel fulfilled. I don't need this. Am I better? Not relevant.
The CH situation is just a prime example of how perverted humans get following a religion.
Are there non religious killing and if all religions where gone would there still be killings? Of course. Doesn't mean we continue in this nonsense.
Actually Callen, I don't really have an issue with you saying what you said. I think saying something is "utter bullshit" without going into detail specifically as to why can sound a bit childish, but I wouldn't say it's completely offensive the way rgambs is actually suggesting that he/she is "more civilized" than groups of other people, which is bigoted logic that leads to far worse crimes than mere intolerance and discrimination. However, I think your praising CH is misplaced because you clearly don't actually know what their cartoons are like, which are incredibly racist not just anti-religion. If atheists want to become far more militant and argue for the eradication of religion, that's one thing. But to support racist and bigoted cartoons of an underprivileged group of people shows that you don't just lack religion, but you lack ethics. Furthermore, I'd suggest that perhaps you do believe in limits to free expression. Pardon my being vapid for a moment, but if I drew a cartoon of me having sex with your wife while slaughtering your children and drinking their blood, then began distributing these cartoons outside your children's school, would you be there with a picket sign defending my right to do that? Should pornographic material be allowed in public papers? Or photos showing dead children with their brains falling out of their skulls? What about a cartoon showing Jews with big noses having group sex with Hitler while bathing in money stolen from the poor working class? Or an anti-black cartoon making fun of slavery?
Have I made my point? Freedom of expression without ethics can be disgusting, and we should not forget the cultural discrimination against Jews that helped lead to the holocaust. We should be responsible and use our ethical guidance to determine what should be published and what shouldn't be. We already do that, FYI. All the examples I gave above would not be published in any serious paper. But when it comes to muslims, a disenfranchised population, we demand that they be published. This is the problem.
Lastly, the fact that you actually cite the extremely sad murder of those working for CH as the problem with religion makes me think that this whole post responding to you was rather pointless, given how utterly ridiculous of an argument that is -- we ignore the 1,500,000,000+ peaceful muslims and those who do extremely good work contributing to their society in exchange for this one example. It's dangerous thinking and in all honesty is about as sophisticated in terms of thinking skills as a low level terrorist who's brainwashed to kill.
Religious affiliation or lack thereof is way down my list in valuing correspondence with another human or how I view them.
And acknowledge I am ignorant to all of CH messages but still support their sarcasm of religion and having balls to do it. I though yearn for this perspective as I have high frustrations of organized religion and how it affects me individually.
And the fucking rich football players in prayer circle thanking god for their selfish success. Arghhhh. Going for NE now. (:
"Fuck: Are you listening to yourself? Did I come in here proclaiming that all atheists are less civilized, or more barbaric? To claim that a group of people are less civilized than you is bigoted pure and simple, that's the definition of the word. And to reduce an entire religion to the points you made above is intellectually dishonest and purely embarrassing for you. I'm sure many of those reading this are well aware that Islam is not what you claim it to be above, and those familiar with the Quran (few that they are) and who don't simply Google "evil Quran verses" are aware that there is no stoning in the Quran. Finally I find it fascinating that you're so opposed to torturous punishment when I'm sure many of you here have no sympathy for terrorists being imprisoned for their lives or shot in cold blood. No I'm not comparing disbelievers to criminals, but I've already responded to your point regarding disbelievers being damned and showed that it's much more nuanced. But your point isn't that torture is bad in and of itself, it's that you want the people you don't like to be tortured. It's that you believe that religions teach it's followers that they are superior which isn't convenient to you because YOU think YOUR superior. Do you see how ironic and dogmatic you are? You fight religion using the logic that you don't like about what you think religion is!
But why should we let the conversation get complicated when it's so much easier to say we are more civilized and better than others? Yay freedom! Yay West! Yay atheism! Death to the savages! Kill religion and burn its adherents at the stake! Roooooooar!!""""
You make twice as many assumptions as valid points. I didn't claim to be more civilized than all religious people, if you reread my posts with a clear head rather than a defensive zeal, you will see I claimed superiority to the founders and leaders, not the adherents...but, while I am all riled, I will go ahead and assert my superiority over anyone who condones any sort of torture, violence, stoning, selling of children as wives, subjugation of women, bigotry towards homosexuals and all the other backwards assed byproducts of the holy books. I was not, and am not singling out Islam, again your defensive zeal has lead you to assumptions. Since you wont be bothered to see for yourself you can ask anyone familiar with my posting history and they can tell you I am equally critical of all religions. Locking a terrorist in jail for life is seclusion for the protection of society, not torture, and I DON'T SUPPORT TORTURE OR THE DEATH PENALTY EVER, another false assumption of yours.
Your "nuanced" dancing and "context" still amount to a sentence of fire torture for people like me, who fight religion peacefully, according to the way y o u explained it anyways, but I am sure you can find some other way to translate or interpret it to exclude all but violent offenders. That's the whole game. Or you won't, and you will tacitly accept eternal torture for a person like myself who never hurt, or sought to hurt, anyone in their life.
Your last paragraph just sounds pyschotic. I know it was supposed to be sarcasm but it was just weak. No atheist wants death for adherents, no burning at the stake, least of all me. I am a civil person, who loves peace and compassion and if you are asserting otherwise, you my friend are a Grade A dicksmith. I supoort your freedom to spout such idiotic nonsense, nonetheless.
I'm going to post this again because I don't think anyone read it
Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended
Over the past few days I, along with the rest of the world, have been horrified by the terrible atrocities committed in France last week, beginning with the massacre at the Charlie Hedbo offices, and continuing through the streets of Paris and into the supermarket of a jewish community.
I was equally moved by the outpouring of love and solidarity which followed. No, it doesn't help bring back the deceased, but it demonstrated the unbreakability of the human spirit, and it highlighted the similarities of our humanity amongst men and women in a society so often fractured by our differences.
But one thing I've found difficult to ignore is the growing voices of those who knew little of the cartoonists and journalists saying terrible things about them, which are quite frankly unsettling.
"Racist", "Islamophobic" and "hypocritical" have been the most common accusations. Many seemingly educated friends and social media buddies seemed to be merely glancing at a few cherry-picked Charlie Hebdo covers without making any effort in understanding their true meaning or impetus (or often even of the French translation of the accompanying captions).
So to those smearing the names and reputations of men and women who are no longer here to defend themselves a few things that I thought it might be good to know....
Charlie Hedbo were leftists, some may even anarchists and punks. They printed numerous cartoons which were anti racism/xenophobia; that mocked and satirised the far right as bigots and racists. As long time reader and Frenchman, Olivier Tonneau pointed out in his excellent article, The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others. Next came bosses, politicians and the corrupt. Finally they opposed organised religion. ALL organised religion. They didn't hate or abuse or target any one group or religion. They did however mock ALL systems and organisations and individuals of power - from political to religious to everything in between. They were satirists, and all people, systems and organisations should be open to criticism and mockery (so long as it sticks within the laws of the land). They were democratic in their ridicule and satirisation. No one was exempt. To do otherwise would have been the hypocritical. Equal rights also means equal treatment.
Accusations of Islamophobia alone seem to ignore the fact that the Pope, Jesus, Orthodox Jews (amongst many others) were targeted in equal measure. As the publication's lawyer Richard Malka said this week "In each edition for the past 22 years there has not been one where there have not been caricatures of the pope, jesus, priests, rabbis, immans or Mohammed." Although of course... perhaps you still believe they were Islamophobic, Christian-phobic, and anti-Semitic... but it seems it was not the every day believer they were intentionally targeting.
"We want to laugh at extremists - every extremist," surviving staff member Laurent Leger stated. "They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept".
Much has been made of the fact (and accusations of hypocrisy bandied around) over the fact that a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked in 2009 over an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon (although its rarely noted this decision was taken by a long-since departed editor; that the sacked journalist ultimately won his unfair dismissal suit; and that this cartoon targeted a specific individual as opposed to an entire religion or idea), and many have asked why Muslims should expect to put up with things that Jews don't. Which would be a fair point, if it was true.
Judaism was frequently lampooned (a simple Google search will verify that). The Charlie Hebdo team were also very much pro-Gaza, and often fiercely critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One series entitled 'One Commandment A Day: The Torah Illustrated by Charb' coarsely depicts Jews as contradicting their religious values in their interactions with Palestinians."Ne pas opprimer les faibles" ("Don't oppress the weak") is the title of a cartoon of a Jewish man firing an assault weapon into the back of a Palestinian woman. "Here, take that Goliath!," he shouts.
More in-depth research and conversations with those who were regular readers of the magazine reveal that Charlie Hebdo also strongly and regularly denounced the plight of minorities, they wrote in support of the Kurds, and they campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. One of Cabu's most famous creations was Mon Beauf, which caricaturised an ignorant, racist and bigoted Frenchman, and Bernard Velhac, also known as Tignous (and a member of Cartoonists for Peace) once said, "I would love to think that every time I make a drawing it prevents a kidnapping, a murder, or removes a land mine. What joy it would be! If I had that power I would stop sleeping and would make drawings non-stop."
As Oliver Tonneau so beautifully writes: "Two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism... I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, then you lost precious friends and allies last week."
The comments section underneath this article will no doubt be full of remarks and examples of cartoons which appear to defy this and which seem to to scream "racism!" and honestly, it would take a far longer article than I could write here (or you would care to read of mine) to go through every single cartoon, analyse it, explain the context, the news item behind it, the cultural context, the nuances and history of French humour, satire and cartoons (which were used up to 400 years ago to mock religion, royalty and other powerful and oppressive institutions in a time when many people couldn't read and cartoons were essential in the fight against monarchy and the church).
Only then after all that might we appreciate that the cartoon depicting France's black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper's front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication (note that Taubira sued the paper Charlie Hebdo were parodying, and not Charlie Hebdo). By depicting the world through the lens of the extreme right's gaze they were attacking the racists, not the race.
We might also understand that the now widely shared front cover titled "Boko Haram Sex Slaves are angry" with the women shouting "don't touch our welfare" says the exact opposite of what it first appears at first glance. As Max Fisher explains in Vox this week far better than I could, "Charie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare programs... what this cover actually says is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants that they would have you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping from Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare."
And we may appreciate that the very controversial cartoon of Mohammed being filmed naked titled "The film that embraces the Muslim world:" wasn't merely for the sake of putting him in a lewd position - it is a parody of a Brigitte Bardot scene in Jean-Luc Goddard's film Contempt thus satirising the outrage following the release of a controversial film about Islam.
Perhaps knowing all this and more you (or even I) may still find these and other cartoons extremely offensive (or worse) .
It's your right to feel that way, and to say as much as loudly as you like (and in doing so even to offend others). Freedom of speech means that some things people say and do are bound to offend you and vice versa. That's ok. As (a personal hero of mine) Majid Nawaz says you have every right to be offended, you do not have the right to not be offended.
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, no one sane would suggest it is. The laws of the land lay out what is and is not permissible. Defamation, incitement of violence and hate speech are just a few examples of where what you say crosses a line. But in France, religion is fair game.
Incitement of violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc is not ok (or legal). But criticism and mockery of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or atheism and the ideas they represent is. People have rights. Ideas do not. And the law is there to punish those who cross that line.
If anyone genuinely felt that the Charlie Hebdo crossed that very line then they had the option to start legal proceedings (as the Catholic church did many times). Fear of being prosecuted is a valid one that journalists, comedians and even cartoonists consider. Fear of losing one's life shouldn't be. The law is there to guide us in what we say, and punish us when we go too far. If you don't feel that the law adequately represents the rights of muslims or anyone else for that matter, or that certain depictions of religious figures in cartoons shouldn't be permissable, you're free to say so, write about it, protest and campaign to change the law. You aren't however free to take the law into your own hands.
The thought that a religion, a set of beliefs, or an idea, could be above criticism or ridicule is, to me, a scary one which could lead us into very dangerous ground.
Ultimately the line between humour and offence is a thin one, and the posts will move from person to person. It's something satirists and stand up comedians are well aware of. And the boundaries are often pushed. I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them.
So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not. And until the respective laws change, people are just going to have to like it or lump it (or live in a country where the laws are different).
As we all argue about what's right to say and what's wrong, what's offensive, and what's hypocritical, it might do us good to remember that 17 people died last week in the cruelest of ways. Each was their own person, no doubt differing in their morals, ethics, ideas and thoughts. Let's not call many of them names before they are even cold in the ground, although... of course, it's your right to do so if you like because most of you, like them, have similar freedom of expression. I may not like you insulting them, and you may not like anything that i've said in this article, but as you write your comment in section underneath (perhaps about what a stupid idiot you think I am) just remember that Charlie Hebdo's staff died standing up for your right to do so.
Is it too difficult to honor the freedom of religion? Apparently for a number on this beard , it is... Doesn't matter what your own religion or belief system is, some of us are convinced their religion/ belief system makes them better people than others of an other religions/ belief systems. I am not a religeus person myself, but that doesn't make me a better person than one who does, it just makes my point of view DIFFERENT... Who am I to judge their beliefs, if I don't want to them to judge me?
As long as we classify belief systems, the radical terrorism will win, instead of letting ourselves get more and more defied, why can't we learn from our different belief systems, and learn to listen to others?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
I wasn't comparing the attack to bullying. The irresponsible "journalism". adults don't get offended by "stupid" shit? You call what they published "stupid". Have some respect for others' beliefs. I think religion is all bullshit, but I don't go around drawing cartoons of jesus getting anally raped by a Televangelist. And damn right people iver here would get offended by that. And well within their rights. (And save your comeback of "difference is, over here no one would murder the cartoonists", because, obviously, that isn't the point I am making here).
that shit is drawn by people with the maturity of a teenage boy.
Nothing ecxuses murder. Ever. I wish i didn't have to keep saying that, but some people just can't fathom that I can be against what they printed but outraged at the consequence they suffered as a result at the same time.
www.headstonesband.com
At the risk of starting a circular argument (why did that even enter my mind to type that first?) I agree about words not justifying death but on the other hand RR, what if from now on everyday I call you a dick publicly on this forum? I don't even know you but it should be in my right mind to not do this to you. Because I can though, I will. (not really, just making a point)"
If thats the way you really feel then let it fly! As with other instances of free speech you will likely be asked to substantiate your opinion, and you will be subject to being called a dick as well. That's the way the world works, and should work. Of course some things are inherently more offensive than others, if you dig at someone about personal issues or tragedies...that makes you a dick lol but oh well, sticks and stones!
The funny thing about this to me, and I mean funny literally, is that Charlie Hebdo was a pretty obscure publication with a small readership...until the idiots attacked them to suppress the images that are now being viewed by millions instead of thousands.
www.headstonesband.com
My point was to show cause and known effect. I am not in anyway condoning the attack but will simply say that the effect received was not a surprise nor out of the ordinary.
Swift justice to murderers for sure, religious driven or not. As long as there is religious extremism there will continue to be attacks when this particular religion is mocked. Right in their minds, wrong in ours.
I see your point PJFan,and it is your right to call me a dick.As loud and as often you feel that you need to to express your point of view.What we are dealing with would be my reaction.If I was a hot head and came at you like a spider monkey as soon as you said it,that of course would be one response.Threatening to harm you and your loved ones if you don't take it back and apologize.Or I could take the high road and just ignore you.I could use my freedom of speech and call you a name back,But I could also look at the context.If you said to me,"Ryan you are A dick" sounds way worse then "Ryan ,don't be a dick" or that's a dick move,or That's a dickishmthing to say.All the latter roll right off.No biggie.My reaction is all I control,and I know it's just your opinion.We move on and your not invited to party with us when PJ plays West Palm.lol
Is it bad manners to call me a dick?Yes.Is it your right? Yes.What does it say about me if I pledge to seek you out and punch you in the face for calling me names?Its fucking asinine,that's what it says.
If someone is offended,too bad move on,don't buy the paper.Publish your own paper,start a petition,take out and add.Protest do anything other then kill.
Would it be offensive to you that I don't think you should be allowed to like Pearl Jam?
Dicksmithing. "That dude is a total dicksmith"
"Oh don't worry about Bill, he's just out in his garage dicksmithing around, it's best to just ignore him"
Fully agree. Until that day there will be justified by god killer extremists. Let's just get this giant white elephant back into the centre of the room - by continuously provoking the bear (prophet) it will always end in barbaric death. Right in their extremists mind to do but wrong in our minds for them to do.
As long as there is in existence a holy text that can be interpreted in a way to justify killing a person this will always happen.
I like it,Its catchy.Does one need to study to become a Dicksmith?
That's the thing PJfan,I don't care!! It wouldn't bother me at all what you or any other person thinks.About anything.
It's not letting shit bother you.If some statement is offensive to YOU,then don't pay it any mind,move on and don't waste any energy on what you can't control.People can be idiots.
abolishment would lead to nothing but more violence in the name of religious suppression.
www.headstonesband.com
The only way what ends? Violence has been around before, and secular societies have been responsible for far worse crimes. Is the bible to blame for the 1,000,000 dead Iraqis at the hands of the U.S., UK and its allies? Give me a break. Your last sentence shows that you're basically a fascist and actually a bigot.
A facist and a bigot? Are you fucking kidding me??? For believing that it is uncivilized to stone a woman to death on accusation of infidelity? For imagining an afterlife devoid of torture at the hands of our "loving creator"?
For believing that loving someone of the same sex doesn't merit death and torture? That makes me a facist and a bigot??
Your response shows just how aged and uncivilized you adherents are, anyone who threatens your dogma is an enemy, even if they leave the door open for faith and belief rooted in compassion.
You need to get a fucking grip!!
Are you listening to yourself? Did I come in here proclaiming that all atheists are less civilized, or more barbaric? To claim that a group of people are less civilized than you is bigoted pure and simple, that's the definition of the word. And to reduce an entire religion to the points you made above is intellectually dishonest and purely embarrassing for you. I'm sure many of those reading this are well aware that Islam is not what you claim it to be above, and those familiar with the Quran (few that they are) and who don't simply Google "evil Quran verses" are aware that there is no stoning in the Quran. Finally I find it fascinating that you're so opposed to torturous punishment when I'm sure many of you here have no sympathy for terrorists being imprisoned for their lives or shot in cold blood. No I'm not comparing disbelievers to criminals, but I've already responded to your point regarding disbelievers being damned and showed that it's much more nuanced. But your point isn't that torture is bad in and of itself, it's that you want the people you don't like to be tortured. It's that you believe that religions teach it's followers that they are superior which isn't convenient to you because YOU think YOUR superior. Do you see how ironic and dogmatic you are? You fight religion using the logic that you don't like about what you think religion is!
But why should we let the conversation get complicated when it's so much easier to say we are more civilized and better than others? Yay freedom! Yay West! Yay atheism! Death to the savages! Kill religion and burn its adherents at the stake! Roooooooar!!
I find it incredibly unlikely that radical terrorism ends with the demise or irrelevance of religion at large. Religion's role in terrorism is nothing more than a convenient justification for acting on one's inner feelings of frustration, and directing blame for injustices of the world in convenient or self-serving ways. It presents a set of rules, and presents at least enough ambiguously written text to allow people to claim divine inspiration for the atrocities they themselves wish to commit.
Without divinity, I can think of several other sectarian divisions that, in the absence of religion, have been and will continue to be disturbingly horrific and convenient justifying notions: colonialism, nationalism, racism, classism - you can honestly pick any of these, they will become more and more significant in the role of terrorism if religion goes the way of the dodo bird.
Not that world leaders would mind this.
Strangely enough, if you kill in the name of America under blind instruction from a leader, you are called a patriot, given a medal, and you will serve the rest of your days receiving praise from your people. If you kill in the name of Allah under blind instruction from a leader, you are coined a murderer or terrorist, and are given the death penalty (if you're still alive). Both are scenarios where a centralized group of few persons disseminate kill instructions where the members of the group at large have the utmost faith in the good nature of the few in charge. Both are scenarios where this faith is abused. One is condemned, one is championed. Does this leave anyone else scratching his or her head?
Religion is not an epidemic - something which, when wiped out, returns us back to our healthier state. It is just a symptomatic byproduct of the real epidemic: human selfishness, and near-complete neglect of our human companions and their well-being. You can get rid of this symptom, but rest assured, another will appear in its place, because the epidemic isn't going anywhere so long as others' losses lead to our own gains.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There is no basis to believe in Jesus or Allah. Both the Koran and Bible are utter bullshit. This needs to be said over and over again. I realize I sound like a dick, so be it. CH did this as well and I applaud them saying what needs to be said. I don't feel there is a limit to free speech or ridicule. As stated earlier if you don't like it ignore it. Fuck being PC
I regard all believers the same and yes there is something believers need to feel fulfilled. I don't need this. Am I better? Not relevant.
The CH situation is just a prime example of how perverted humans get following a religion.
Are there non religious killing and if all religions where gone would there still be killings? Of course. Doesn't mean we continue in this nonsense.
THE BIBLE AND KORAN ARE UTTER BULLSHIT.
The BIBLE AND KORAN ARE UTTER BULLSHIT.
Have I made my point? Freedom of expression without ethics can be disgusting, and we should not forget the cultural discrimination against Jews that helped lead to the holocaust. We should be responsible and use our ethical guidance to determine what should be published and what shouldn't be. We already do that, FYI. All the examples I gave above would not be published in any serious paper. But when it comes to muslims, a disenfranchised population, we demand that they be published. This is the problem.
Lastly, the fact that you actually cite the extremely sad murder of those working for CH as the problem with religion makes me think that this whole post responding to you was rather pointless, given how utterly ridiculous of an argument that is -- we ignore the 1,500,000,000+ peaceful muslims and those who do extremely good work contributing to their society in exchange for this one example. It's dangerous thinking and in all honesty is about as sophisticated in terms of thinking skills as a low level terrorist who's brainwashed to kill.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Religious affiliation or lack thereof is way down my list in valuing correspondence with another human or how I view them.
And acknowledge I am ignorant to all of CH messages but still support their sarcasm of religion and having balls to do it. I though yearn for this perspective as I have high frustrations of organized religion and how it affects me individually.
And the fucking rich football players in prayer circle thanking god for their selfish success. Arghhhh. Going for NE now. (:
Peace.
But why should we let the conversation get complicated when it's so much easier to say we are more civilized and better than others? Yay freedom! Yay West! Yay atheism! Death to the savages! Kill religion and burn its adherents at the stake! Roooooooar!!""""
You make twice as many assumptions as valid points. I didn't claim to be more civilized than all religious people, if you reread my posts with a clear head rather than a defensive zeal, you will see I claimed superiority to the founders and leaders, not the adherents...but, while I am all riled, I will go ahead and assert my superiority over anyone who condones any sort of torture, violence, stoning, selling of children as wives, subjugation of women, bigotry towards homosexuals and all the other backwards assed byproducts of the holy books. I was not, and am not singling out Islam, again your defensive zeal has lead you to assumptions. Since you wont be bothered to see for yourself you can ask anyone familiar with my posting history and they can tell you I am equally critical of all religions.
Locking a terrorist in jail for life is seclusion for the protection of society, not torture, and I DON'T SUPPORT TORTURE OR THE DEATH PENALTY EVER, another false assumption of yours.
Your "nuanced" dancing and "context" still amount to a sentence of fire torture for people like me, who fight religion peacefully, according to the way y o u explained it anyways, but I am sure you can find some other way to translate or interpret it to exclude all but violent offenders. That's the whole game. Or you won't, and you will tacitly accept eternal torture for a person like myself who never hurt, or sought to hurt, anyone in their life.
Your last paragraph just sounds pyschotic. I know it was supposed to be sarcasm but it was just weak. No atheist wants death for adherents, no burning at the stake, least of all me. I am a civil person, who loves peace and compassion and if you are asserting otherwise, you my friend are a Grade A dicksmith. I supoort your freedom to spout such idiotic nonsense, nonetheless.
Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended
Over the past few days I, along with the rest of the world, have been horrified by the terrible atrocities committed in France last week, beginning with the massacre at the Charlie Hedbo offices, and continuing through the streets of Paris and into the supermarket of a jewish community.
I was equally moved by the outpouring of love and solidarity which followed. No, it doesn't help bring back the deceased, but it demonstrated the unbreakability of the human spirit, and it highlighted the similarities of our humanity amongst men and women in a society so often fractured by our differences.
But one thing I've found difficult to ignore is the growing voices of those who knew little of the cartoonists and journalists saying terrible things about them, which are quite frankly unsettling.
"Racist", "Islamophobic" and "hypocritical" have been the most common accusations. Many seemingly educated friends and social media buddies seemed to be merely glancing at a few cherry-picked Charlie Hebdo covers without making any effort in understanding their true meaning or impetus (or often even of the French translation of the accompanying captions).
So to those smearing the names and reputations of men and women who are no longer here to defend themselves a few things that I thought it might be good to know....
Charlie Hedbo were leftists, some may even anarchists and punks. They printed numerous cartoons which were anti racism/xenophobia; that mocked and satirised the far right as bigots and racists. As long time reader and Frenchman, Olivier Tonneau pointed out in his excellent article, The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others. Next came bosses, politicians and the corrupt. Finally they opposed organised religion. ALL organised religion. They didn't hate or abuse or target any one group or religion. They did however mock ALL systems and organisations and individuals of power - from political to religious to everything in between. They were satirists, and all people, systems and organisations should be open to criticism and mockery (so long as it sticks within the laws of the land). They were democratic in their ridicule and satirisation. No one was exempt. To do otherwise would have been the hypocritical. Equal rights also means equal treatment.
Accusations of Islamophobia alone seem to ignore the fact that the Pope, Jesus, Orthodox Jews (amongst many others) were targeted in equal measure. As the publication's lawyer Richard Malka said this week "In each edition for the past 22 years there has not been one where there have not been caricatures of the pope, jesus, priests, rabbis, immans or Mohammed." Although of course... perhaps you still believe they were Islamophobic, Christian-phobic, and anti-Semitic... but it seems it was not the every day believer they were intentionally targeting.
"We want to laugh at extremists - every extremist," surviving staff member Laurent Leger stated. "They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept".
Much has been made of the fact (and accusations of hypocrisy bandied around) over the fact that a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked in 2009 over an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon (although its rarely noted this decision was taken by a long-since departed editor; that the sacked journalist ultimately won his unfair dismissal suit; and that this cartoon targeted a specific individual as opposed to an entire religion or idea), and many have asked why Muslims should expect to put up with things that Jews don't. Which would be a fair point, if it was true.
Judaism was frequently lampooned (a simple Google search will verify that). The Charlie Hebdo team were also very much pro-Gaza, and often fiercely critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One series entitled 'One Commandment A Day: The Torah Illustrated by Charb' coarsely depicts Jews as contradicting their religious values in their interactions with Palestinians."Ne pas opprimer les faibles" ("Don't oppress the weak") is the title of a cartoon of a Jewish man firing an assault weapon into the back of a Palestinian woman. "Here, take that Goliath!," he shouts.
More in-depth research and conversations with those who were regular readers of the magazine reveal that Charlie Hebdo also strongly and regularly denounced the plight of minorities, they wrote in support of the Kurds, and they campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. One of Cabu's most famous creations was Mon Beauf, which caricaturised an ignorant, racist and bigoted Frenchman, and Bernard Velhac, also known as Tignous (and a member of Cartoonists for Peace) once said, "I would love to think that every time I make a drawing it prevents a kidnapping, a murder, or removes a land mine. What joy it would be! If I had that power I would stop sleeping and would make drawings non-stop."
As Oliver Tonneau so beautifully writes: "Two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism... I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, then you lost precious friends and allies last week."
The comments section underneath this article will no doubt be full of remarks and examples of cartoons which appear to defy this and which seem to to scream "racism!" and honestly, it would take a far longer article than I could write here (or you would care to read of mine) to go through every single cartoon, analyse it, explain the context, the news item behind it, the cultural context, the nuances and history of French humour, satire and cartoons (which were used up to 400 years ago to mock religion, royalty and other powerful and oppressive institutions in a time when many people couldn't read and cartoons were essential in the fight against monarchy and the church).
Only then after all that might we appreciate that the cartoon depicting France's black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper's front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication (note that Taubira sued the paper Charlie Hebdo were parodying, and not Charlie Hebdo). By depicting the world through the lens of the extreme right's gaze they were attacking the racists, not the race.
We might also understand that the now widely shared front cover titled "Boko Haram Sex Slaves are angry" with the women shouting "don't touch our welfare" says the exact opposite of what it first appears at first glance. As Max Fisher explains in Vox this week far better than I could, "Charie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare programs... what this cover actually says is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants that they would have you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping from Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare."
And we may appreciate that the very controversial cartoon of Mohammed being filmed naked titled "The film that embraces the Muslim world:" wasn't merely for the sake of putting him in a lewd position - it is a parody of a Brigitte Bardot scene in Jean-Luc Goddard's film Contempt thus satirising the outrage following the release of a controversial film about Islam.
Perhaps knowing all this and more you (or even I) may still find these and other cartoons extremely offensive (or worse) .
It's your right to feel that way, and to say as much as loudly as you like (and in doing so even to offend others). Freedom of speech means that some things people say and do are bound to offend you and vice versa. That's ok. As (a personal hero of mine) Majid Nawaz says you have every right to be offended, you do not have the right to not be offended.
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, no one sane would suggest it is. The laws of the land lay out what is and is not permissible. Defamation, incitement of violence and hate speech are just a few examples of where what you say crosses a line. But in France, religion is fair game.
Incitement of violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc is not ok (or legal). But criticism and mockery of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or atheism and the ideas they represent is. People have rights. Ideas do not. And the law is there to punish those who cross that line.
If anyone genuinely felt that the Charlie Hebdo crossed that very line then they had the option to start legal proceedings (as the Catholic church did many times). Fear of being prosecuted is a valid one that journalists, comedians and even cartoonists consider. Fear of losing one's life shouldn't be. The law is there to guide us in what we say, and punish us when we go too far. If you don't feel that the law adequately represents the rights of muslims or anyone else for that matter, or that certain depictions of religious figures in cartoons shouldn't be permissable, you're free to say so, write about it, protest and campaign to change the law. You aren't however free to take the law into your own hands.
The thought that a religion, a set of beliefs, or an idea, could be above criticism or ridicule is, to me, a scary one which could lead us into very dangerous ground.
Ultimately the line between humour and offence is a thin one, and the posts will move from person to person. It's something satirists and stand up comedians are well aware of. And the boundaries are often pushed. I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them.
So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not. And until the respective laws change, people are just going to have to like it or lump it (or live in a country where the laws are different).
As we all argue about what's right to say and what's wrong, what's offensive, and what's hypocritical, it might do us good to remember that 17 people died last week in the cruelest of ways. Each was their own person, no doubt differing in their morals, ethics, ideas and thoughts. Let's not call many of them names before they are even cold in the ground, although... of course, it's your right to do so if you like because most of you, like them, have similar freedom of expression. I may not like you insulting them, and you may not like anything that i've said in this article, but as you write your comment in section underneath (perhaps about what a stupid idiot you think I am) just remember that Charlie Hebdo's staff died standing up for your right to do so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html
As long as we classify belief systems, the radical terrorism will win, instead of letting ourselves get more and more defied, why can't we learn from our different belief systems, and learn to listen to others?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee