oh Bull Crap... They are satirists...comedians.... no sacred cows... no stone unturned... If you are offended by words or pictures...that is your issue...not theirs... like the cross in piss... or Bush as Alfred E Newman... They are equal opportunity satirists... And the response is indicating how right they may be.
Many disagree, and if they are not, they are open for criticism. Have you read the magazine yourself?
I look at it as a matter of context. I did not see it as ridiculing the Prophet, but rather that He would never have countenanced the murder of the cartoonists. I saw one cover of the pope talking to a priest about the sex scandals, and thought it quite satirical and pointed. I saw another which showed the Three Persons of the Trinity engaged in mutual sodomy. Thought that was offensive, but I don't know the context ... can't think of one, though. Everyone's quite happy to see other people's 'sacred cows' ridiculed, until it comes to their own, and then they complain – see how the 'freedom of the press' brigade complain when anyone mentions the word 'responsibility'. Or how they bleat when someone makes racist, sexist comments, etc. In my mind, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. And if ridiculing others is the best you can do with your freedom, then that's a pity. In the UK, we had one supporter of freedom of speech, the media darling Katie Hopkins, who on hearing that a nurse, having returned to the UK had developed symptoms of ebola, was rushed from Scotland to the specialist unit in a London hospital. She tweeted: 'Little sweaty jocks, sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians. Just isn’t cricket. Scottish NHS sucks'. Do I support the right for people like her to say things like that? No, I don't. Would I threaten her? No. Would I give her TV airtime? No. That the media does indicates just what sewers the media will sup from in pursuit of an audience ... and how so many lap it up ...
If your intention is to be offensive, then why would you not expect someone to be offended? If I call you "as ignorant as a decapitated roach", just to piss you off, why would I be surprised that you were offended. And after years of that offense, wouldyou say that someone would not reach a breaking point? Have you ever been angry with someone who just would not stop being mean? Which would incite a greater reaction, your wife cheating on you in secret, or your wife cheating on you while videotaping it and professing the whole time how it is so much better than with you. Maybe you can keep your cool through it, forgive her, or divorce, but what if she keeps sending more tapes with more men, maybe someone you loath, maybe with someone you love (say a brother or friend), ending each one is both of them yelling "F*&@ You!!!". Assuming you truly loved her, how long you think it would be before you snapped? There are thousands of examples I can give about other examples of things people will eventually break and become violent about. Especially when people are tryng to piss you off. Everyone has a breaking point, everyone has their shrug off point. Some are not very high. If they were to be less offensive or directly insulting, I'm sure there would be more peace. I support freedom of religion, speech, and expression. I also realize that there are limits to all. The religion cannot cause harm to people or it must be banned, the speech should not be offensive, and the expression should be as nonviolent as possible. when you step over those lines, there should be consequences.
I think the question is 'Why are you offended?" "Why are you reacting" Satire brings up the questions, causes the stirrings that lead discussion... If you reaction is to get out a gun and shoot someone.... Odds are you were gonna shoot someone anyway and you just found a target that suited your needs. Just a normal religion... You don't hold the keys to the kingdom any more than any other religion does... Sure you believe that your prophet and book is the be all end all of truth....guess what...you are in the middle of a long line...many thought the same before you...many thought the same before Mohamed...and many have thought the same after... and you all disagree. I'll support the satirists and condemn the shooters... and those that support the shooters.
I don't speak french....I have not read all their stuff....I have seen their pictures over the years and obviously taken a perusal through recently.
Who is it they are missing out on? https://www.google.com/search?q=cha...IJCgyQS4iIJ4&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1280&bih=620
Odds are statistics, I doubt you have anything to back that up. The truth is emotion is the cause of such actions. Emotions are affected by repeated offense among other things. They say they respect Islam as a religion, yet they disgrace the Prophet Mouhammed's (PBUH) image and associate it with evil actions regularly. If you have something to say about terrorists, separate the offensive material to only cover terrorists. Why bring the Prophet into it. I would be equally offended at Jesus or Moses (PBUT), and am in great dislike when they make fun of any religious group in total. Want to make fun of terrorists, make the leaders out to be taking the place of the prophet (something I believe they are trying to do anyway). That is entirely just your opinion. I might hold the keys to the kingdom with my religion. you cannot prove otherwise. And just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it any less true. Also, there is still a statistical possibility that what you are claiming makes it irrelavant, is actually what makes it plausible. Granted statistically speaking that chance could be 1/near Infinity. That doesn't make you any more right. I'll condemn the shooters, and condemn the offenders, and those that support the shooters.
the speech should not be offensive, and the expression should be as nonviolent as possible. when you step over those lines, there should be consequences. BigJoe, Are you F'ing serious! You are going to support the use of force and death because of what someone said or wrote? Surely I'm not understanding what you seem to be saying. No one, NO ONE has the right to kill someone over a voiced opinion. People ridicule Christians all the time. They ridicule Jews all the time. The only Abrahamic religion that issues orders to have people killed on a regular and ongoing basis over self expression is Muslims. That is a statement of fact. There is a long line of people targeted just over the past few decades that supports that it is a statement of fact. Be as offended as you want. It doesn't change the facts. You do not see the Pope issuing edicts to have people killed because of what they said. Nor Jews. Just Muslims. It is a stain on the religion. I'm not saying that because it is Muslims. I'd say exactly the same to any religious group who thinks murder is the answer to ridicule. So don't give me the 'you're just against my religion nonsense'. An opinion is but an opinion, not matter how sick and disgusting it may be. There is never a justification for murder for an opinion.
She tweeted: 'Little sweaty jocks, sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians. Just isn’t cricket. Scottish NHS sucks'. Do I support the right for people like her to say things like that? No, I don't. Would I threaten her? No. Would I give her TV airtime? No. That the media does indicates just what sewers the media will sup from in pursuit of an audience ... and how so many lap it up ... Thomas. Thomas I am disgusted by this person's comment as you are. Unfortunately, that is what free speech means though (although I know the UK does not have a free speech clause like in the US Constitution). If people can only say what you approve of that is not free speech. And who gets to decide what is 'acceptable' and what is not? As Nick in China about that. On the media. That they will print such stuff is offensive. That they do print such stuff because it gets them ratings - what does that say about the audience watching? The news media is pandering to the public, spoon feeding them, apparently, what they want to hear. Otherwise it wouldn't increase ratings. If it didn't increase ratings, the news media would not do it. So who should we really be offended by here. The media or the people watching?
Let us just add up how it works... Did the Muslims gain any worldwide support from non muslims due to this attack? Did people who never heard of Charlie Hebdo before now know of the paper and click on its website and possibly even send a donation to the families? Hint...I didn't see 40 leaders of countries linking arms and indicating that Charlie Hebdo should back off.
Explanations of how they put together their satire... What was the context of Charlie Hebdo's cartoon depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens? - Quora
You got me completely wrong I think. I thought I posted here enough that Now that we are back on the topic that I was talking about, is ridicule and offensive speech will create backlash. No matter who they are there is a breaking point. And no "Muslim" gave an order to someone else to kill them for saying anything. Nor did any Muslim order the killing of innocent people. These are acts that cannot and will not be supported by the Quran or Sahih Hadiths which means the person was acting of their own will and not Allah's, meaning they were not submitting to Allah's will, which means they are not Muslim. The orders to kill people come from greedy individuals seeking power and found weak minded people to accomplish that goal. So for now, Let's define those people as, I don't know, Terrorists or maybe Murderers slides off the tongue better. I would even understand calling them Pseudo-Muslims or Hypocrites. Even IF you say those are Muslims, are you really willing to say Muslims are the only Abrahamic faith to order killing of innocent people? Do we need to step back a few months into Israel (ha, let's be honest, look at yesterday's news)? How about the fringe groups of Christianity? Who cheer at hurting people at abortion clinics (something Muslims are against as well, but you don't see us lining up to throw things at the drs and patients or bombing the clinics). It is a people problem. not a faith problem. To call these murderers and terrorists Muslims is about as accurate as calling Joseph Kony a Cardinal.
It wouldn't be like calling Kony a cardinal....but it would be like referring to him and his group as Christians with every child they take and every woman they rape.... Muslim shooter = entire religion guilty Black shooter = entire race guilty White shooter = mentally troubled lone wolf
Okay I appreciate the clarification. Stating in an earlier post that 'there should be consequences' could easily be interpreted as support for murder when someone is pushed too far. Which was something else you were suggesting. Anyway, I'm glad I misread that. You second paragraph I do have a bit more of an issue with. There will always be religious zealots in most any religion who will twist it to evil ends. You said it yourself though - in other religions in this day and age, they are fringe groups. In the situation with Muslims it is often the leaders of the society who cry for violent revenge. Look how long Salman Rushdie had to stay in hiding. That was not a fringe group out for his head. He was hardly the only one with a kill at any cost on his head. I can to an extent agree that this is a people problem. I think it is also a faith problem though. That almost all religions have been perverted at some time in history, most too many times, tells me that there is a problem with faith itself. I'm talking any faith. Religion seems to be all to easy to pervert to evil ends.
It wasn't a fringe group that made these up either.... the attack on an entire sovereign nation, kill 'em all and let G!d sort them out I believe the phrase was...
I agree. Have already stated in an earlier post that a large part of what we did to the Iraqi's was terrorism. Do try and keep up. Ha! But then, though it was kept to an absolute minimum, there was talk that W was on a Holy crusade. That he believed this himself.
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' | World news | The Guardian he actually said it was a crusade....and then in a later interview said he probably shouldn't have said that... enough coaching will improve anyone
