I’ve been following, as I’m sure you have, Wednesday’s horrific terror attack at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which resulted in the heartbreaking, pointless and outrageous deaths of 12 journalists, cartoonists and editors at the paper, including two police officers. As you know, the attack is said to have been carried out in retaliation for cartoons published by the paper over the years lampooning the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.
It was a barbaric, gruesome, and unjustifiable act, allegedly carried out by extremist adherents of the Islamic faith against a group of journalists who poked satirical fun at extremists of virtually all religious faiths over the years.
There is no question about the absolute right of the journalists to do what they did, no matter who it may have offended. Moreover, courageous responses by the journalism and cartoonist communities (some great toons in response here and here), along with that of the people of France (see these photos, akin to none that I am aware of in the U.S. after the September 11 terror attacks here) have been both uplifting and inspiring in the wake of the attack.
That said, I am still having trouble understanding at least one thing about all of this…
While the magazine and every other journalist or satirist or cartoonist has the right to publish whatever they like, no matter how offensive it may be regarded by any particular group (at least in this country, similarly liberal freedoms do not apply in many others), I am still having difficulty understanding why one would want to publish material known to be regarded as offensive by an entire, large group of folks, particularly when the offense lies at their very core religious (and, thus, very personal) beliefs.
I am no particular fan of any religion, to be frank. Pretty much every one of them (including the one I was raised with) tend to strike me as bizarre and, frankly, weird. But, while I have likely poked fun at various religious beliefs over the years, and certainly at the idea of religion itself, I don’t have any particular need to belittle any particular belief simply because it may be seen as weird — especially a belief that I know adherents of that religion or cultural group are strongly offended by — or simply to prove that I can.
I don’t pretend to know alot about Islam, but my understanding is that it is not only extremist adherents of the faith — such as those who allegedly carried out the brutal murders at Charlie Hebdo — who are offended by depictions, satirical or otherwise, of Mohammed. As I understand it (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), that is generally regarded as an insult to all members of Islam, extremists or otherwise. While the vast majority of Muslims would never even consider carrying out violence in response to such an offense, my understanding is that it is still something that is known to be offensive to an entire religion. So why do it? Simply to prove that one has the right to do so?
In our 11 years of publishing more than 10,000 articles and blog items — and, yes, cartoons — here at The BRAD BLOG, many of them snarky and/or occasionally satirical, I don’t recall ever publishing something that was known to be a personal offense to an entire group of people simply in hopes of offending them in order to demonstrate that I can, or even to prove that no cows should be sacred.
To be clear, extremism and intolerance by any religion or people is a perfectly fair (and important) target of satire. Nobody should cower in fear of such extremists. It seems to me that groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, for example, are perfectly fair game, along with other powerful people and institutions, including religion as a whole, and certainly hate groups. But depictions of Mohammed, at least as I understand it, do not serve to skewer those groups, they simply serve as an insult to each personal believer of Islam. Again, there should be no law against it — our track record here in favor of Freedom of Speech and Press should be pretty well established by now — but why would anybody want to do it, legal or otherwise? What noble cause do personal attacks on personal beliefs serve, other than demonstrating that we can do so if we want?
If they do serve a noble cause, I’m not sure I know what cause that is, but I am open to your thoughts there, as well. It’s also true that French culture (where they ban religious head scarves and idolize Jerry Lewis) is different than our own, so perhaps there is a different mindset in regard to these things that I don’t fully appreciate either.
In this country, we tend to frown on the publication of grotesque depictions of various groups deemed offensive by members of those groups. Respectable organizations, even broadly satirical ones, don’t tend to publish caricatures of “greedy” Jews with big noses, “lazy” African-Americans with big lips, or grotesquely offensive depictions of Jesus. We certainly can, yet those who do are often condemned and justifiably criticized for it when they do so.
Of course, they are not killed for doing so, so the comparison is decidedly imperfect. But there are undoubtedly some — extremists within any such group which might feel put upon — who might do so if they could. See, for example, just from recent days, the “balding white man in his 40s” who is wanted for the virtually unreported bombing of an NAACP office this week in Colorado Springs, or the gun fanatic who murdered a police officer and critically wounded another in Pennsylvania in hopes of sparking a revolution to kill many more to help “get us back the liberties we once had.”
It is one thing to lampoon the powerful. And, again, it is my personal belief (and a protected right in this country) that anyone should have the right to satirize — and even offend — anybody they like.
But, I must say, I still don’t understand why anybody would want to do that, particularly when the offense is made to millions of people who do not intend to hurt anyone with the particular belief that they hold dear — no matter how obnoxious or stupid or silly that particular belief may be regarded by others.
I’d love to know what I’m not understanding here, because I am sure there is probably quite a bit. So if you can help me understand what I am missing, I hope you’ll feel free to do so in the comments section below. When you do, however, try not to post grotesquely obnoxious and racist attacks and offensives against others. We have had a few of those posted here over the years, generally by cowardly racists, and we try to delete them, unless they are otherwise, somehow, instructive. If cartoons lampooning Mohammed are instructive, however, I’m not sure I understand the lesson — other than to make the point that we are all allowed to offend others, if we wish. It’s just something I don’t generally wish to do, at least not to those who don’t deserve it. So, again, perhaps someone will feel free to enlighten me about what I am missing here…
By the way, here’s a cartoon by Patrick Chappatte, published in September 2012, not long after the office of Charlie Hebdo was fire-bombed in response to earlier depictions of the Prophet Mohammed…
Brad,
Well stated, expressing my thoughts, but so much better than I would have. I agree with all you said, so I’m afraid I can’t shed any light on why.
My thoughts exactly. I have been going back and forth on this one because when I saw some of the cartoons I felt even slightly offended and I am not Muslim. I did see a few that depicted stereotypes of Jewish and Catholic leaders so I tried to tell myself they were simply out to lampoon everything.
I do not know enough of the history of France when it comes to multicultural interaction but from a Jewish historical perspective, France has not been the most tolerant. So I wonder if some of this is really an unspoken racism. When I see the cartoons I see dehumanization of a group of people. As you said, in the US we do not condone this.
I think I read that they wanted to push the line of what defines respecting a religion and feel free to be critical. However, it seems to me when you try to debate the merits of someone or something, you lose when your arguments are no more than personal attacks.
It isn’t that in our country we aren’t racist. There are plenty of people in power and on TV who are anti-Islam. And while their speech may be insidious, somehow, I don’t know, I am more appalled by the cartoons. Maybe because it reminds me too much of the hooked nose Jew or the dimwitted big lipped African slave. Or the drunk Irish cop. Etcetera. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Anyway, those people should not have died that way. What good did these terrorists do for their cause? How many more Charlie Hebdo’s did they just give birth to? How much more fuel did they add to the growing fire of white nationalism that is taking over parts of Europe? You cannot take away the right of free speech with blood.
Other possible motives…
Supposedly France recently voted to recognize Palestine as an independent state. Supposedly France was against the sanctions on Russia.
Never forget the anthrax attacks on top Democrats after 9/11 was initially blamed on radical muslims.
Never forget Operation Gladio and the tactics of divide and conquer among populations by the warring elite who profit from conflict.
I also heard these masked men dropped their ID’s near the scene of the crime similar to the passport supposedly found in the rubble of the 9/11 attacks identifying the hijackers.
Be skeptical.
Double Standard – http://i.imgur.com/JhzuqrT.jpg
Many countries including I think both Germany and France consider it a crime to question the official story and numbers of the Holocaust.
Is there a link to the original image that set this whole thing off? If not, why not? I saw it a few days ago on Reddit but can’t seem to find it today on Reddit or by Google search. If anyone has a link to it please post it. It was a picture of Mohammad bent over with a 5 pointed star covering his rear end. Peace.
Brad, I understand your point, but we should be careful not to think that somehow if only the cartoonists had been “more sensitive” no killings would have happened. The fanatics involved would have found another excuse to kill someone else in an attempt to impose their religion by force. Maybe kill some women for being outside without a head scarf, or a man for eating a pork sandwich, or — as we have seen — a school full of Afghan children just for the “glory” of God. While we should always strive to practice tolerance and respect, we should not fall into the trap of believing that will keep us save from fanatics who practice neither.
This conservative Mormon says, “well said,” as well. Kudos, Brad.
I’d need to see more of the supposedly offensive cartoons to have an opinion here. The one I noticed last night(maybe on Chris Hayes?) depicted a Christian, Muslim, and a Jew(and maybe all clerics?), each looking angry and distorted. I don’t remember the words of the cartoon but I took the meaning to be that some pretty weird angry shit goes down in the name of the virtuous “right” path, no matter what the religion. (I’m oversimplifying, but I think that was the gist of it.) Seemed like a reasonable hypocrisy to lampoon.
Also, in the course of this interview(linked below) this particular Muslim seems to present a different view than the one you’re holding about how the majority of Muslims might be viewing these things.
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/01/don-lemon-isis
Me, I don’t know. I do not know a majority or even a minority of Muslims. Too small a sample to know much of anything.
Hey Brad,
I just watched the link I posted in comment #8 again and realized I misspoke. I thought after one viewing he’d said that most Muslims wouldn’t have a problem with the cartoons. That is not the case, one way or the other as he doesn’t address that specifically. The speaker says he himself has no problems with the cartoons but nothing really about how other Muslims might feel about them other than that the vast majority of Muslims would never view them as a justification for murder. My mistake.
It’s my understanding only Sunni Muslims are against depictions (satirical or otherwise) of religious figures, similar to how Calvinist Christians avoid icons and images of Jesus and Bible stories generally in their churches – the idea of avoiding “worshiping” images and making them into idols.
However, I doubt this attack really reflects a burning desire to shut down blasphemous or idolatrous depictions of Mohammed or any other religious character; rather, I think the goal is to radicalize France’s large, but largely secular Muslim population. How? By provoking a generalized backlash against Muslims. Nationalist (read racist) movements are already a trend in France, as in other European countries, and as is the case in North America. But if the attackers provoke more generalized discrimination against France’s Muslims, it is likely the ethnic Muslim population in turn would become a more cohesive, radicalized group in response to retribution and identity politics by the general French population.
It was certainly a strategy pursued by Sunni extremists in Iraq after the US invasion, and the displacement of Hussein’s Sunni-dominated government – provoke the US occupiers and the Shias with violence, and then the generalized counter-violent response itself becomes what unites a Sunni population that previously had been largely secular and non-politically engaged – and ultimately gave us ISIS.
Randy D @ 6 said:
Just to be clear, I didn’t say that (or mean to suggest it). My remarks above had only to do with the question of why they (or anyone) would even want to do what they did.
I agree. (Though Charlie Hebdo would not necessarily been one of their targets. FWIW. That’s not a reason to not do what the magazine did, however. A good reason to not do what they did, was if it was only meant to offend and prove they could do so.)
Agreed.
David Lasagna @ 8 & 9 said:
In case I wasn’t clear in my article above, it is NOT the depiction of just any Muslim that is taken as an offense, but specifically of the prophet Mohammed. You might also note that in those two links I offered in the article to cartoonists responding with cartoons to what happened, while many included Muslims of one sort or another, very few of them included a depiction of Mohammed in their response toons.
And yes, thank you for noting in your follow-up comment that the man in question (I had seen that interview previously myself) was talking only about himself not feeling insulted by depictions of Mohammed, not about the religion taking it as an offense as a whole.
Greg J noted @ 10:
I don’t know if that’s true or not. But, even if so, not sure what difference that would make. According to Wikipedia [cites at the page]:
So, “only” offending about 1.5 billion instead of 1.62 billion?
Perhaps. But, again, not the point I was getting at in the piece above.
Brad–
Just to be clear– I understood that you were talking about depictions of the prophet Mohammed. My point was that not having seen the objectionable cartoons myself I felt a little hamstrung in commenting about them. Just mentioned the one cartoon I mentioned cuz it WAS the only one I’d seen.(just tried to google search them without much luck)
I’d throw in, too, that in our nation’s history we HAVE been arrogantly and thoughtlessly cavalier about cartooning Native Americans and depicting sacred aspects of their culture in atrociously insensitive ways. Still quite popular in some circles, even though plenty of Native Americans have been quite clear on the subject in their opposition to the depictions.
So I’d take issue with your statement, Brad-
Well, actually, I’d agree that we generally don’t approve of it when done against the groups you mention there. But we have been shitting on Native Americans in this regard from the get go. Still haven’t fully done right by them.
Jay Rosenstein’s documentary “In Whose Honor?” and Carol Spindel’s book “Dancing at Halftime” are quite painful and illuminating on the subject of how popular and successful insulting and degrading Native Americans and Native American culture has been by “respectable” Americans. And how oblivious we are to the insidious and perpetuated effects of our thoughtless behavior.
I realize that significant progress has been made regarding Native American mascots. But still, when watching a Florida State game you’re assaulted again and again by the faux Indian music, chant, and tomahawking. I find it all extremely objectionable. Tens of thousands of others seem to feel otherwise. The stupidity and insensitivity of it all are heartbreaking.
But back to your topic–
Chris Hayes had an interesting little group on at the end of tonight’s show. Harry Shearer was adamant about the dangers of censorship.
The founder of the mosque in New York that was so “controversial” after 9/11 and a journalist on the panel were much more with you about questioning the usefulness of championing free speech in a way that seems primarily designed to insult someone people hold sacred.
Still not having seen the cartoons I don’t really know what anyone is talking about.
David –
Its not really the content or context of the specific Mohammed cartoons that matters all that much. The mere depiction is taken to be an offensive to many believers (as I understand it).
So, for example, one such depiction at Charlie Hebdo included an edition of the magazine (renamed for that one edition as ‘Charia Hebdo’), said to have been guest edited by Mohammed with a cartoon of him on the cover saying “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing!”
Kind of funny. Decent satire. But, there’s also some kind of funny, decent satire that one could with lampoons of Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, Asians, etc. etc. etc. Generally, the most grotesque are avoided, and for good reason. Unless there is a good reason to offend an entire people or culture, I’m not sure why anybody would want to do so.
Again, offend ISIS and al-Qaeda all you like. There is excellent reason to do so. But to offend 1.62 billion believers simply to prove that one can? I still just don’t get that.
Tariq Ramadan had some thoughts on this on Democracy Now! today.
Thanks for citing that conversation, Barbara. It was a very interesting discussion.
For those interested…
– Part 1 is here.
– Part 2 (joined by Art Spiegelman) is here.
The more one reads and learns about the topic, the more there is that one has to refrain from discussing (if you know what I mean). Some things don’t abide by logic, modern-day ethics, human rights, or democracy.
This is not about free speech.
Cui Bono?
The Paris Shooters had just returned from NATO’s Proxy War in Syria.
This will be spinned by the media to increase nationalism in Europe in prep for WWIII and help pave the way for even more militarized police – or a police state.
Adam said @ 19:
I don’t.
I agree completely with you Brad. The right to free speech but we don’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. But we have become the me me me society that I have a right to do whatever I want to do.
Another example is after the years of Catholic’s and Protestant’s fighting and then come to a peace accord, but the Protestant’s demand the right to march through the Catholic’s neighborhood. We will never get along, but it seems to me that since Bush poked a hole in the hornets nest we have become more radical.
Glenn Greenwald has some interesting(as usual) things to say on this topic.(with cartoons, as well)
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
I would give my life, as my ancestors have done, to defend the freedom of speech. Indeed, “Political speech” is probably the most protected Right under our constitution.
But there is a fine line between hate-, racist- and incitement provoking speech and sharp political criticism.
An example of one of Hebdo’s covers appearing right after France prohibited the wearing of a burka in public. Hebdo then published a cover showing a naked Muslim woman shoving the burka up her rectum with the caption “..ok, I’ll wear it on the inside.”
I have also heard of one where Mohammed was having sex with a farm animal. Etc, etc.
Sorry. I would give my life to protect Free Speech but I would never give my life to protect racially and religious hateful literature designed to anger a large population of people. It may be funny to some, but I would say most of the people on this planet would say ‘cut the s&it.’
A dog knows the difference between being stumbled upon and being kick. The same analogy applies here.
I’m in disagreement with you on this Brad. Religion is a global scourge, regardless the form. Islam in particular is not a religion of peace as is often claimed. There are passages in the koran that urge believers to kill infidels as a quick ticket to heaven (not having to spend time in purgatory or whatever the equivalent.) Islam is not any more ludicrous than any other “scripture”, but I do believe it is more dangerous due to its content. Insulting Islam is not racist. It is not anti-Arab (there are many Arabs of other faiths, and there are many non-Arab Muslims). I think it is necessary to take down a peg all religions. They all think they are the only way to god, and ultimately they are all wrong about that (except whichever one might be right, and my opinion is that its none of them.) Whenever a religion says “you can’t do that”, I say the hell I can’t and just to show you I can, I will! I say good for Charlie Hedbo for not backing down, good for all of the worldwide support for them, and I hope they double down and print twice as many depictions of the “prophet” in their next issue. Freedom of speech must not be infringed upon, and nobody should fear physical violence for insulting a religion, which is all made up nonsense anyway. The fact that these extremists can’t take it is exactly why we need to keep giving it to them.
Soul Rebel –
I don’t disagree with your assessment of religion as “a global scourge” or your general interest in the need “to take down a peg all religions.”
However, first, I’d suggest you give Glenn’s piece (as cited by David above) a read.
Second, I’d ask, since you wrote this…
…if you agree that Judaism and Christianity are also “not a religion of peace”, given that the Jewish torah (otherwise known as “the old testament” in Christianity) includes the following (as cribbed from here):
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
1 Samuel 15:3,8
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.
Deuteronomy 3:3-6
So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left. We captured all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. … We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city.
Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Jahaz. And Jehovah our God delivered him up before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones; we left none remaining.
Joshua 8:24-26
When the Israelite army finished chasing and killing all the men of Ai in the open fields, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai, including men and women, was wiped out that day—12,000 in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.
1 Kings 20:28-30
So it was that on the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day.
2 Chronicles 25:12
The sons of Judah also captured 10,000 alive and brought them to the top of the cliff and threw them down from the top of the cliff, so that they were all dashed to pieces.
Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ “The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
There is much more, but you get the idea. So do Judaism and Christianity sound like a “religion of peace” to you based on what their ancient texts say?
Should I post anti-Semitic and blasphemous Christian cartoons every day here at The BRAD BLOG to help “take them down a peg”?
Brad, In response to #21
You inadvertently conveyed what I meant in your message at #26. I’ll further venture that some historical fact on many historical figures held in high regard — not necessarily religious ones — would show they didn’t adhere to the same values that people in modern society would. Many would be regarded as criminals and deviants. The more one learns about them, the more one learns facts that one would probably be better off not bringing up in day-to-day interactions. “Choose your battles carefully” is always a wise principle to adhere to. While I don’t disagree that aimless provocation seems pointless, brutally murdering people over it only causes harms and helps nothing at all. For example, I can completely understand how hurt and outraged Mormons would be by the Broadway play “The Book of Mormon” which strikes me as the very embodiment of aimless provocation, but a murderous rampage over it never happened. If it had, one might understand the context used to rationalize it in a misguided mind to do mass killing over it, but that wouldn’t stop it from being emphatically wrong, stupid, and psychopathic.
I’ve cringed at the suggestion that the satirists are to blame for being attacked / murdered.
But on the other hand… not all satire is helpful.
I would ask the satirist…
Is your goal to vent / get the approval of your peers? Or to provoke thought in those he / she is satirizing?
People have the right to do either.
And the best intended satire can still provoke anger (due to the emotional maturity, people skills, cultural awareness, guile etc of the satirist and / or the target audience). But that, too, can be part of the conversation.
I’m not Mormon (and never will be), but this Mormon response to a popularly supported attack on their faith is eloquent. It is a model of how to respond to obectionable attacks on one’s beliefs (religious, ideological, scientific, or whatever), Note how it didn’t involve mass-murdering people.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/book-of-mormon-musical-column
Brad – I was raised a Catholic (yikes!) and went to Anglican schools because I grew up in England. I’ve read the Bible through and through in forced study and when I decided it was all nonsense as it pertains to my own life, I was even more adamant about reading through the places in the Bible (mostly the Old Testament) where all of the verses you have referenced above stood against all reason and common sense. So yes, I’m very much aware that the Bible is no more a scripture of peace than the Koran. And even until recently (I’m thinking along the lines of Western Colonization of the New World and conversion of “savages” to Christianity) the Christian religion has done abhorrent things in the name of the Christian God. And yes, in this modern day, we get crazies who think they are doing God’s work by murdering abortion doctors. But those people are prosecuted by our Western laws and it is only the tiniest fraction of people who think that such acts are acceptable to God.
My perception is that most Christians (and when I say most, I’m thinking 99.9%) and Christian churches have come to terms with a diversity of belief systems, and while they personally and spiritually disagree with those other belief systems, it’s no longer acceptable to go to war and kill those who have different beliefs in the name of God. There is not a single country on earth that considers themselves a Christian nation that would war on its neighbors in order to convert them, or prosecutes those of other faiths. Yet in Iran they still execute Baha’is, whom they consider heretics (because Mohamed is the “Seal of the Prophets” – the final prophet of God, God;s last word.) In Malaysia, they imprison those who preach Christianity. Muslims who convert to Christianity are executed, as this is the ultimate apostasy to Islam.
While there are those horrible and bloodthirsty passages in the Bible, nobody takes that stuff seriously as God’s law – in fact, that’s why we have a New Testament that doesn’t have any of that nonsense. Nobody takes seriously (except maybe some extremist Jewish groups) laws about not touching a woman who is menstruating. Or stoning a neighbor who works on the Sabbath.
And yet having lived in Cairo for six months, I have seen first hand how women are treated as second class citizens, and saw first hand how any criticism of the Islamic faith (whether real or imagined) by Westerners can have extremely negative consequences. One of my coworkers was fired summarily by the school I was working for because she was accused by a student of slandering Islam (which she swore up and down she did not do) – but no real investigation, just an accusation by a student who didn’t like the teacher, and bang, that was it – parents came in and demanded she was fired, next thing you know she’s packing her bags and has a ticket back to the US. I couldn’t wait to get out of that ass backwards place, and I’d NEVER teach in a Muslim country ever again.
There are Muslims extremist terrorist groups all over the world, and the moderate Muslim population does little or nothing to stop it, which to me means that in some way they accept the extremists as doing God’s work.
The peace of Islam and the peace of the Western cultures are two different interpretations of peace. Peace in Western terms means accepting each others differences and diversity of faith (and in my case NO faith), but peace in Islamic terms means that there will be peace once the whole world is converted to Islam. Until then, war in the name of Allah is the norm. All of the evidence points to this.
And now I will read Glenn’s article…
One more thing quickly – the point of your particular blog I don’t think is to take religion down a peg. If you did, I would expect that you did it relatively even handedly since they are all nuts. But it was Charlie Hebdo’s purpose to mock all religion. Same as South Park. And they made offensive fun of all the prophets, simply for the purpose of doing it, and that is fine by me.
https://occupiedpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/661044597.gif
I agree with the comments by Brad. I think one comment about the brothers deserves comment. They were inspired to protest when they saw the photos of Abu Ghraib. I was also sickened by these photos. Since then, there has been a torture report and news that Abu Ghraib was not the whole picture. And where is the justice? No one has been held accountable. Obama and his administration are just as guilty for not pursuing the uncovering of the torture by the past administration, and they are contributing to the torture by the use of drones. Stop the bombing in the Arab world and you will stop the cause of “terrorism”.
Larry Taylor, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Just a note to remind us all not to forget the actual underlying causes of terrorism which I suspect are most probably NOT these cartoons, no matter how insensitive and offensive they may be.
Here, again, is Eqbal Ahmad’s seminal piece on the subject(which you can also find easily enough in audio form–he was a wonderful speaker).
http://www.tamilnation.co/terrorism/981012ahamad.htm
Emotional posts render more comments than intellectual ones.
The “4.7 million person march” yesterday tells me that our government should have been there.
Perhaps they did not want to answer the question that Americans who travel the world are constantly asked: “is your country crazy?“
Adam @ 27 said:
I never saw it (though have heard much of the music) and heard that many Mormons actually enjoyed it. Did you see it? If so, how does the analogy compare to Charlie Hebdo’s purposeful provocation which seems to have been done only to prove that it could be done.
Obviously it would be wrong, had that happened. Just as wrong as it was when actors and theater received death threats from Christians (leading to canceled performances, as I recall) during productions of Corpus Christi some years ago.
Soul Rebel @ 30 & 31:
Pardon my terse replies here. I don’t mean to be dismissive. Just trying to hit a whole bunch of thoughts from your lengthy response (which is greatly appreciated)…
If that is true, it’s an exciting new development. And it is very much contrary to a lot of what I’ve learned during the past decade or so watching and/or covering the Wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Which Islamic countries are doing that?
We imprison (and otherwise condemn, suspect, persecute and treat horribly unfairly) many for preaching Islam.
Try slandering Jews in this country and see how long you get to keep your job. (I’m not suggesting people should slander anybody, just pointing out that there is a double-standard on these things that even you — whom I respect a great deal — seem to be overlooking. I also understand that your coworker claimed her innocence and that you feel the investigation was minimal and firing wholly unfair.)
I strongly disagree with your assessment that they do “little or nothing to stop it”.
I also strongly, if respectfully, disagree with that as well.
I thought I suggested reading that first?! 😉
I am not sure I agree with that either. (Glenn speaks to that a bit in his piece — that you didn’t read first! 😉 ) It is one thing to “mock all religion”. That is not what was allegedly used as the ostensible and twisted reason for the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Making “fun of all the prophets” is also not what Muslims take specific offense to, as I understand it. Rather, quite specifically, the offense is (rightly or wrongly, absurdly or not): depicting Mohammed.
Understood. And appreciated.
Brad #37, the creators of “The Book of Mormon” and South Park are definitely pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with all the time and seems to me to be very comparable to HebDo’s purposeful provocations, right down to cartoons and lampooning.
I saw videos of the play “The Book of Mormon”and it not only brazenly mocked Mormons but received widespread mainstream acclaim and top awards. The response of Mormon leadership was very level-headed and strategic, brilliant PR. They actually utilized it to help the Mormon church and recruit more people into the Mormon church. Likewise much response by individuals in the Muslim community towards provocation has been strategic and level-headed. After all, the biggest casualty of terrorism in the name of Islam is the the Muslim community.
My commending the Mormon response to an assault on their reputation doesn’t mean I’m a fan of Mormonism (or Christianity in general). They assault their own reputation very well without others participation, what with not allowing full inclusion of Black people until 1978 and abuses of homosexuals in the Mormon community. I just thought their response to insults was commendable, one to be modelled after even for non-religious contexts.
Obviously savagery has been committed in the name of Christianity and other religions besides Islam. I never said otherwise and apologize for giving a mistaken impression.
Terrorism is always wrong, just as wrong as Elliot Rodger’s murder spree in California because he couldn’t get laid. It is always wrong, never legitimate, just plain stupid, only destroying lives, damaging communities.
I encourage you to read this.
I thought it was just me!
After the bombing in Paris, we were all appalled that human beings could have such disregard for the lives of other human beings. All Americans understand the concept of terrorist murder….we all remember 9/11.
Yet, after really thinking about how everyone is saying this is a matter of free speech, I have to say that I am bothered by the notion that we are free to say whatever we want an expect there will never be consequences. And while I do not condone murder, the fact is that the term “free speech” really is an oxymoron. Many people have died for the rest of us to have free speech. Their lives have to be worth something.
That said, there is a difference between free speech and responsible speech. This vicious circle of offensive cartoons, articles and comments about Islam, always seems to end in terrorism. Why in the world can any publication feel the need to make fun of another group’s religious beliefs. Would we want to see mocking of the innocent victims of abuse made fun of? What about rape victims? We would all be angry if a publication made fun of the misfortune of these victims and then said they had the right to do so because of free speech.
It’s time people, writers, and publications start practicing RESPONSIBLE SPEECH. Anything else is just bullying!
The argument that Hedbo was attacking all religions without unfairly isolating one or two is a bald face lie from what I have gathered in my readings over the last week. The following, written by Soul Rebel above, is categorically untrue and is being propagated by pro-Islamophoic homophobes across the net.
“Charlie Hebdo’s purpose to mock all religion. Same as South Park. And they made offensive fun of all the prophets, simply for the purpose of doing it, and that is fine by me.”
Unfortunately Hebdo has been concentrating on Islamophobic drawings almost exclusively, espcially during the last year. However you look at it this as something that was directed against “all religions” and that is patently false.