[Edited on 1/13/2015 by LeglizHemp]
We are Charlie.
Freedom isn't free but worth every penny.
There is going to be one hell of a reckoning in Europe and it is NOT going to be pretty. I take no pleasure in stating this. There is almost a guarantee that hardline anti-immigrant parties are going to take power in France and other European countries and if this is not brought under control Muslims, most of whom will be innocent, are going to be slaughtered. It hasn't happened yet at all, despite the constant cries of anti-Muslim hate crimes but it will. It will because NO PEOPLE not even the French, will walk willingly to their doom.
From 2006.
I miss Hitch.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
Cartoon Debate
The case for mocking religionBy Christopher Hitchens
On Wednesday, gunmen attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12. The magazine was known for printing images of the prophet Mohammed, including the 2005 cartoons that originally ran in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, leading to widespread violence. In February 2006, Christopher Hitchens addressed that controversy in his inimitable way. His article is reprinted below:
As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.
"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."
Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.
Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.
Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." (By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.
As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.
The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.)
The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Emphasis mine.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=2
Quote:
_____________________________________________________________________________
But we are not in a vacuum. We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.
____________________________________________________________________________
Louis C.K. at Madison Square Garden last night.
"blasphemy needs to be defended".
I guess...but it isn't going to be accepted by quite a few people.
me, as a Christian, when someone states that "breathing the same air as...a Billy Graham sermon" is "revolting", I take it with a few grains of salt and a healthy dose of pity.
killing anyone who is blasphemous against ones religion is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
besides, if it were allowable or honorable, MacKenzie, Sang and Blackhawk would be dead due to their blasphemy... 
😉 😛
PATRIOTS !!!!
"...killing anyone who is blasphemous against ones religion is the ultimate in hypocrisy. ...
Amen, amen and AMEN!!!!
It's the whole, "God on our side" thing that has caused more war and death in all of the history of mankind! To quote a wise man, "when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out".
Peace!
Frank Zappa spells all this out in his song 'Dumb All Over'
We are Charlie.
Freedom isn't free but worth every penny.
Some others have had this to say.
I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed
If an editor of a white power mag is killed for publishing anti-black or anti-jewish content, should it be republished to save free speech? Yousef Munayyer
I’m not Charlie, there is no place for killing innocent people, and there is no place for hate speech tainted as freedom of speech. – Tariq Yusufzai
The world supports free speech, but not the Saudis. This is how they handled someone insulting the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and all the Prophets).
[Edited on 1/11/2015 by gina]
We are Charlie.
Freedom isn't free but worth every penny.
Some others have had this to say.
I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed
If an editor of a white power mag is killed for publishing anti-black or anti-jewish content, should it be republished to save free speech? Yousef Munayyer
I’m not Charlie, there is no place for killing innocent people, and there is no place for hate speech tainted as freedom of speech. – Tariq Yusufzai
The world supports free speech, but not the Saudis. This is how they handled someone insulting the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and all the Prophets).
[Edited on 1/11/2015 by gina]
____________________________________________________________________
Free speech trumps all.
If you don't like what someone else says, an honorable person gets past it and respects their right to say it.
The point is to respect their right to say what they wish lest you give up your right to do the same.
We are Charlie.
Freedom isn't free but worth every penny.
Some others have had this to say.
I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed
If an editor of a white power mag is killed for publishing anti-black or anti-jewish content, should it be republished to save free speech? Yousef Munayyer
I’m not Charlie, there is no place for killing innocent people, and there is no place for hate speech tainted as freedom of speech. – Tariq Yusufzai
The world supports free speech, but not the Saudis. This is how they handled someone insulting the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and all the Prophets).
[Edited on 1/11/2015 by gina]
____________________________________________________________________
Free speech trumps all.
If you don't like what someone else says, an honorable person gets past it and respects their right to say it.
The point is to respect their right to say what they wish lest you give up your right to do the same.
But free speech only applies to certain groups, if it is against the Jews it is called anti-Semitic and is not allowed, but if it is against Muslims it is allowed. Why? Shouldn't it be one rule for all groups? When the Klan says something, that is not allowed, yet they could claim people have Klanophobia. If they marched to Washington demanding equal rights, what would happen? The homosexuals have rights, homophobia is not allowed. Some groups are protected against insult and bad speech, others are not. So where is the freedom? That is one point.
[Edited on 1/12/2015 by gina]
http://www.aawsat.net/2015/01/article55340327
Je Suis Ahmed – the French police officer killed at the scene.
There have been debates amongst journalists who are covering the attacks.
“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. “
Salah Adeen Khadr, Executive Producer Al Jazeera English
“if you no longer have anything that you hold sacred (the death of religion and the death of God etc…), there 1.5 billion people who still have … don’t ignore their values in the name of yours, because values are a cultural construct, they vary from age to age and from culture to culture “… Mohamed Vall Salem
Roving reporter Omar Al Saleh (of Al Jazeera)
"First I condemn the brutal killing, but I AM NOT CHARLIE
JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME
INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM
AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS A CRIME"
even if you make a valid point, gina, it's the reaction to what is deemed an insult that is the issue and not free speech itself.
That is true, people are objecting to the reaction and avoiding the actions they took by publishing the cartoon as having anything to do with what happened. People believe that terrorists want to control what they do, what they say, how they live, in a sense that is true because they want societies based on religious law, not secular laws. If peoples, countries continue to flaunt their free speech rights there will be more attacks.
http://yalibnan.com/2015/01/12/a-hamburg-daily-that-reprinted-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-attacked/
German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere. “I am very concerned about well-prepared perpetrators like those in Paris, Brussels, Australia or Canada,” he told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag. Bild am Sonntag said U.S. intelligence agencies had tapped conversations of senior Islamic State (IS) members in which they said the Paris attacks were the start of a series in Europe.
Comments: People do not want attacks, all they are being asked is to show some restraint and good manners. The protesters in the occupy and other movements (Ferguson etc.) are not just protesting police brutality, they punched police on the Brooklyn Bridge, they marched calling for dead cops. They are anarchistic, what about everyone else?
Are we coming to a world where people just say and do whatever they please, and the alternative is a fascist state?
Lampooning Orthodox Jews as being like the Amish and/or making a cartoon of
Abraham winking as he places an axe in the hands of the "single" god as he "invented" monotheism is OK; slaughtering the infidels who would have the temerity to do so is not OK.
Making fun of Mohammed while distasteful to some is OK; murdering the infidels who did so is not OK.
You get the gist?
I know what you are saying, but people need to wake up. When words/actions insult a group of people to the point they feel that retribution in the manner of death is an appropriate response, the cartoonists need to step back and reconsider what they are doing. There is a new issue coming out Wednesday that will further inflame many Muslims. Why do they continue doing this?
It showed a figure of the prophet Mohammed holding a sign saying “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”), with the words “All is forgiven” above it on a green background.
I saw another cartoon that may be in that issue with 3 characters who are martyrs appearing before God, but God tells them that Je Suis Charlie. The world needs to stop this or the violence will escalate. Muslims are not going to tolerate their Prophet, the one who brought Islam to them being mocked in any way. It is a religious attack. The religion of Islam gives them the right to fight when someone attacks the religion or them because of their religion. Does anyone understand this yet?
[Edited on 1/13/2015 by gina]
A lot of people on this board for years have stated that terrorism would stop (Muslim) if the US stopped supporting Israel. It is obviously no true; free speech (no matter how offensive) is free speech. The borderline always shifts - so there can't be a borderline. When satire goes over the line it is offensive - but violence can never be justified by bad taste
And also....
both Muslims and Orthodox Jews find eating pork offensive. Do we start shooting up rib joints? Hindus think cows are sacred. So twenty dead at Morton's Steak House? No; civilized people don't kill others for these reasons.
You know, it just seems to me that the point of religion - any RELIGION is to pay reverence and give thanks to the creator and master - whoever or whatever you deem that to be. The rationalization that assassination, murder and slaughter of those who you (or leaders of said religion) see as blasphemous to your ideals is just counter to the entire point.
I consider myself tolerant of a lot of cultures and ideals that I don't fully understand. But any religion that encourages or condones killing of people based on being offended by them will not get a "like" vote from me.
[Edited on 1/13/2015 by Rusty]
I know what you are saying, but people need to wake up. When words/actions insult a group of people to the point they feel that retribution in the manner of death is an appropriate response, the cartoonists need to step back and reconsider what they are doing. There is a new issue coming out Wednesday that will further inflame many Muslims. Why do they continue doing this?
It showed a figure of the prophet Mohammed holding a sign saying “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”), with the words “All is forgiven” above it on a green background.
I saw another cartoon that may be in that issue with 3 characters who are martyrs appearing before God, but God tells them that Je Suis Charlie. The world needs to stop this or the violence will escalate. Muslims are not going to tolerate their Prophet, the one who brought Islam to them being mocked in any way. It is a religious attack. The religion of Islam gives them the right to fight when someone attacks the religion or them because of their religion. Does anyone understand this yet?
[Edited on 1/13/2015 by gina]
Bull. Because of their religion? Because of their religion they (not just Muslims, anyone) should behave in a way that is the foundation of their belief and not in a manner that the world dictates they behave. Spiritual people are above the worldly mess and should...should, be more tolerant of any buffoonery.
Jesus was beaten to a pulp...then crucified, just to top it off and He's been mocked, doubted, made fun of and other assorted things by the world for two thousand years.
murder in response to cartoons???
turn the other cheek.
Mohammed, shedding a tear, holding a sign that says "We Are Charlie," above his head reads "All Is Forgiven," published by people who just had their friends and co-workers slaughtered.
Perfect. Just so perfect on so, so many levels.
The religion of Islam gives them the right to fight when someone attacks the religion or them because of their religion
No, it does not.
How the Prophet Muhammad Dealt with Insults
Muslims who respond to the likes of “Charlie Hebdo” with violence need to consult the Qu’ran.
by Harris Zafar
Wednesday’s brazen attack in the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has left many people the world over shocked, saddened, and even infuriated. As the smoke cleared and we learned that 12 people were killed at the hands of three individuals wearing commando uniforms who brandished automatic weapons that were fired indiscriminately at the office, we were left with the horrific reality that these individuals were killed for the single fact that they used their free speech to publish provocative content.
As a Muslim, I was left having to grapple with — and answer — questions about the Islamic stance towards free speech and whether this attack is a natural consequence of mocking or abusing Muslim sentiments.
Many of us are no strangers to Charlie Hebdo, which has worked its way into controversy for some years, especially after choosing on multiple occasions to publish insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad with the expressed intention of offending Muslims. And, of course, if Charlie Hebdo has the right to insult, then Muslims have a right to feel offended. But the question becomes how Muslims should react and respond to this offense?
As hurt as I was to learn that 12 people lost their lives (and 12 families lost loved ones) due to this unjustifiable and unconscionable terrorist attack, I also experienced anger when I learned of the response of a known radical cleric in the United Kingdom named Anjem Choudary. This obscure leader of a tiny group of radical Muslims has spouted off some of the most despicable words one could imagine and appears hell-bent on intentionally maligning the Islamic faith and its prophet.
Why should I care about his article? Well, in less than 12 hours of being published, it had already been shared on social networks nearly 8,000 times, with 300 comments posted by readers. This obscure, insignificant lunatic has a platform and his voice is being heard. In his rant, he claims, “Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression,” alleging that anyone found guilty of abusing the Prophet Muhammad will receive “capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.”
Purporting to be an Imam, he did not make even the slightest hint that there was anything wrong with commandos brutally killing these people. Instead of expanding on how Islamic scripture explicitly instructs Muslims to respond to insulting speech, Choudary concluded, “It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.”
In truth, it is time for radical hate-mongers like Choudary, who clearly have no true attachment to God or the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to be confronted by the true teachings of Islam. Islam offers the balanced approach, instructing believers to self-govern their own speech but also how to respond to unseemly speech.
The Qur’an strongly discourages indecent behavior and speech, or the hurting of others’ sensitivities, regardless of whether it is done with or without a “valid” reason. Prophet Muhammad called his followers to human decency, integrity, and sensitivity through self-restraint — a virtue that encompasses forgiveness, patience, abstention from injury, truth, sweetness of speech, benevolence, and freedom from malice.
But Islam does not support people who violently censor free speech. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Qur’an both through direct instruction as well as recalling how Muhammad was insulted to his face and never retaliated. The Qur’an records that he was called crazy, a victim of deception, a liar, and a fraud. Through this all, the Prophet Muhammad never retaliated or called for these people to be attacked, seized, or executed. This is because the Qur’an says to “overlook their annoying talk” and to “bear patiently what they say.” It instructs us to avoid the company of those who continue their derogatory attacks against Islam. There simply is no room in Islam for responding to mockery or blasphemy with violence.
But perhaps most pointedly, the Qur’an tells believers not to be provoked by those who seem to attack Islam, stating very clearly “let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice.”
This is supported by the actions of the Prophet Muhammad himself. When he was once returning from an expedition, an antagonist used insulting words against him. Although a companion suggested that the culprit be killed, the Prophet Muhammad did not permit anyone to do so and, instead, instructed they leave him alone.
How tragic that some so-called Muslims have forsaken the words of the Qur’an and the prophet they claim to somehow defend. Muslims are not allowed to respond with violence. Rather, they must have the same courage as the Prophet of Islam to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech.
So when you hear lunatics such as Anjem Choudary claim that people who mock Islam must be killed, tell him to go read the Qur’an and educate himself on the faith to which he claims allegiance but of which he remains ignorant.
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/01/08/how-the-prophet-muhammad-dealt-with-insults/35723
I know what you are saying, but people need to wake up. When words/actions insult a group of people to the point they feel that retribution in the manner of death is an appropriate response, the cartoonists need to step back and reconsider what they are doing. There is a new issue coming out Wednesday that will further inflame many Muslims. Why do they continue doing this?
Eff 'em. Bunch of goddamn troglodytes. They can learn to live in a free society or go away. Simple as that.
What would happen? I'll tell you what wouldn't happen. Jews killing anyone.
I know what you are saying, but people need to wake up. When words/actions insult a group of people to the point they feel that retribution in the manner of death is an appropriate response, the cartoonists need to step back and reconsider what they are doing. There is a new issue coming out Wednesday that will further inflame many Muslims. Why do they continue doing this?
Eff 'em. Bunch of goddamn troglodytes. They can learn to live in a free society or go away. Simple as that.
How do we make them go away? Ahh there is the rub.
Talking with my buddy last week, while watching the news, we wondered about the solution. Lots of talking heads said that Muslims need to step up and fix this. But how do they fix this? What do they need to do? Can they do anything that will really stop those that have a perverted sense of what Islam is about?
As you watch the talking heads I suggest you always keep this question in mind.........How?
I don't know if it matters to them (radical fundamental Islamists) or if they've even noticed but they are losing sympathy, understanding and empathy with the rest of the world at the speed of an anvil dropped from an airplane.
The gathering in France over the weekend and the fact that this newspaper's circulation has more than quadrupled and has been printed in multiple languages is a sure indication that the rest of the CIVILIZED world is just not on page with their message and agenda.
In seeking to instill fear in the publishers of this magazine, they have instead strengthened their resolve and created nearly an entire world of enemies and "non-sympathisers".
Make 'em go away? That's not an easily achieved goal. But I think that actions like the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo staff create a society where fewer and fewer people would really mind so much if they were bombed back into the stone age or otherwise annihilated.
Talking with my buddy last week, while watching the news, we wondered about the solution. Lots of talking heads said that Muslims need to step up and fix this. But how do they fix this? What do they need to do? Can they do anything that will really stop those that have a perverted sense of what Islam is about?
As you watch the talking heads I suggest you always keep this question in mind.........How?
The question that I have been asking for years - where is the Islamic equivalent of the Pope or Billy Graham? Who is the world leader of Islam? What is the official edict, policy or message on this type of radical behavior?
