After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter

Jan 9, 2015

Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP/Getty Images

By Ishaan Tharoor

In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech.

But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that “defends the rights of Catholics,” issued a statement titled “Muslims are right to be angry.” In it, Donohue criticized the publication’s history of offending the world’s religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier “didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death,” the statement reads.

“Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive,” Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day.

“Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated,” says Donohue. “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

The statement says Charlie Hebdo has “a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning” of religious figures. “They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms,” Donohue says. “They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.”


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

122 comments on “After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter

  • Mister Donohue should learn some French. The Pope (Benedict XVI) was not represented “wearing” a condom. He was holding it like a consecrated bread and saying “Eat, this is my body”.



    Report abuse

  • 3
    Lorenzo says:

    There you go, what this christian lam is saying is: “they deserved it”. It’s not just Islam: it’s all of them.

    It’s really time for all human beings who value peace to say out loud that we have had enough of religion, they should really let us in peace. Literally, in peace.

    ~~~

    I’d like to remember you as well that the massacre of Charlie Hebdo is not the only one that happened: another estremist islamistic orgainzation perpetrated in the last hour another one, in Nigeria, which may be two orders of magnitude bigger: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria



    Report abuse

  • Satire should irritate (the more the better) and especially sacred cows, however widely regarded. Billions of adherents do not make belief into anything but belief. Shame on religion’s wanting special consideration. Right now Islam is being especially considered–to its deserved detriment!



    Report abuse

  • “You had it coming” seems to be Donohue’s message. Hell, how he must envy the fear that a few Islamic nutters can inspire in people. Just too bad for him that the RCC can’t get away with such stuff openly these days. Hell, applied in copious amounts during childhood, is about the best thing the RCC has to offer in abundance. The days of torching people have gone, and Kalashnikovs, are just so yesterday. Consult Pope Francis.

    Isn’t envy one of those venal sins ? Or is it a mortal one ?



    Report abuse

  • What is the actual harm of blasphemy, and those somewhat crude cartoons. Any Muslim feeling like a painted target? Getting more beat-downs from the hysterical crowd?

    hmm no, I didn’t think so. Just hurt your precious feelings, that’s all. Boo-hoo, grow up.

    On the other hand, the graphic demonstration of the blood thirsty morons will not make Muslim’s life in France any easier now.

    What it harms of course is the hierarchy. The higher up it goes, the more it undermine their revered dominance over the masses. So, right on, Donohue.



    Report abuse

  • @OP But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that “defends the rights of Catholics,” issued a statement titled “Muslims are right to be angry.”

    … . . a and we know what the Muslims following “he religion of peace” do when they are angry!

    Saudi Arabia begins 1000 lash sentence for blogger
    Calls to halt punishment of Raif Badawi, who is accused of insulting Islam online. http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201501091417-0024478

    Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been sentenced to life in prison by a court in New York for supporting terrorism.

    He was convicted in May of multiple charges, including hostage-taking and plotting to set up a terrorism training camp in the US. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30754959

    Classic theocratic police state!
    The Spanish inquisition would have been proud of these measures!
    http://www.corpun.com/counsaj.htm



    Report abuse

  • I see we have lost comments again. With the deleted twitter comment thread.

    I’ll try and put some back…

    CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

    “We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack and reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures. The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.

    “We offer sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those killed or injured in this attack. We also call for the swift apprehension of the perpetrators, who should be punished to the full extent of the law.”

    France’s Muslim leaders have similarly condemned the attack as “barbaric.” “This extremely grave barbaric action is also an attack against democracy and the freedom of the press,” said the French Muslim Council (CFCM) in a statement.

    It is pleasing to see that many Muslims in positions of authority understand the importance, the crucial importance, of free speech.

    The forces of suppression seem somewhat stronger amongst the Catholic Theocrats.

    Lets take very great care to note who are our friends in this matter of free speech and who not.

    I am hugely dismayed at the apologists and their failure to discern the relative benefits of a world where we seek to take no offense and the unstable powder keg of one where we simply seek not to give it.



    Report abuse

  • Is it fair to assume that Donahue also regards women in short skirts as “asking to be raped”?
    I find the fat slimy bastard offensive, If I were a militant and not merely the argumentative atheist I am, I would be fantasising extreme violence against him, after all he is just begging for it and has a history of assinine comments



    Report abuse

  • Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article included images offensive to various religious groups that did not meet the Post’s
    standards, and should not have been published. They have been
    removed.

    And here is the problem. Congratulations your cowardice has show extremists everywhere that they can censor free media if they are but willing to murder your counterparts. Does the post pay journalists in war zones risking their lives? Yet you won’t risk yours in solidarity for your fellow journalists. I understand, I might do the same in your position (to my shame I cannot say I would not) you don’t want the same happening to you but don’t expect me to believe you, next time you ask for freedom of press or accept an award for excellence in journalism I’ll judge accordingly. This attack on press freedom has not come from government conspiracy to muzzle the press it’s come from within, an own goal so to speak.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Cairsley says:

    Philoctetes, your logic is impeccable. It is a pity that Bill Donohue seems not to have considered the logic of his own statements.



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Cairsley says:

    Bill Donohue serves his church faithfully, and we owe nothing to that church for fostering the freedom of thought and expression that is now one of the prime values of modern civilization.



    Report abuse

  • “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

    Since when is criticizing religion (or any other ridiculous or counterproductive ideas) a form of intolerance?
    And methinks the speaker is mistaken about what’s provoking what in this case. The provoking comes from within. The response to the criticism is the responsibility of the responder. Violence is an appropriate response only to violence.



    Report abuse

  • How can we begin to criticise or debate on these comments when we accept the fact that the author believes that there is a big man in the sky who will unleash violent actions on non believers and reward his followers with eternal life. We will behave in an accepted, cowardly, intelligent, liberal manner . We will sit back , knowing that the defenders of faith are deluded, deranged, and dangerous people. We are mainly intelligent ,realistic , cowardly pragmatists. Thank God we are atheists. Amen



    Report abuse

  • ” when we accept the fact that the author believes that there is a big man in the sky…”

    What choice do we have but to accept that fact? It is a fact. It would be ridiculous to deny it.
    Do you have a magic formula for getting him to change his beliefs?



    Report abuse

  • What is truly obscene is the intellectual igno-rogance (ignorance and arrogance all wrapped into one) of religious people like this Donohue, not the Charlie cartoons…



    Report abuse

  • There has been dishonesty in the media about the nature of the cartoons.
    If you do a safe-search off, google image of “Charlie Hebdo” you will discover the cartoons are about as obscene as could be imagined. They were intended to shock. It is not just a matter of depicting Mohammed or ridiculing Islam. They are too raw to reprint in Canada.

    The message is, you do not have a right not to be offended. You do not have right to censor or kill those who produce images you find offensive. Other people do not have to respect your religion, after all you have shown no respect for anyone else’s.

    You are not going to get away with hissy fits as a way of controlling everyone else on the planet. Get used to it.

    We are dealing with someone pulling off a temper tantrum left over from the terrible twos.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    Charlie Hebdo has “a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning” of religious figures. “They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms,” Donohue says. “They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.”

    I wasn’t aware of this. Judging by his intimate knowledge of those graphic details, I’m guessing that Mr. Donahue must be a regular reader, maybe even a subscriber. I’m hoping that the cartoonist staff at Charlie Hebdo do express their gratitude by featuring his porky mug in some kind of “pornographic pose” in their next issue.

    If they do that, I’m definitely getting a lifetime subscription… 😉



    Report abuse

  • 23
    Miserablegit says:

    If ever anything defines the warped and twisted mind of the devoutly religious especially Catholic then this statement is it. Who, without such perverse beliefs could ever think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists could have brought their own murder upon themselves. The RCC refuses to contemplate why non believers hold them in contempt, then this statement defines them.



    Report abuse

  • Obzen, I suppose that if you’re discouraged from thinking for yourself from the earliest age, you’ll find it somewhat difficult to “grow up”; but you’re quite right, the murderous medievalism we’ve been subjected to is a matter of immaturity.

    And blaming the victim is a symptom of that malaise; children often do it in order to shift blame away from themselves.

    However, with maturity comes the ability to accept responsibility for your actions.

    Our neighbours of twenty years standing are Muslims, and this Christmas they gave us a box of the finest Asian sweetmeats, and our other next door neighbours are Jews, who invited us round for nibbles and nips at Christmas, and never in over two decades has there been a cross word exchanged between any of us.

    But, if people choose to isolate themselves and not assimilate or integrate into society at large, they cannot then blame that culture for their problems, especially if they consider it inferior to their own; on one occasions we were told by a leading Imam that the UK is a lavatory; or toilet, I forget which.

    Well, it would take a lot more effort and energy to change the culture of the country in which you live than to leave it and reside elsewhere; unless of course you have an ulterior motive for staying put.

    I think perhaps a familiar pattern is emerging, in that Fascists leaders always get others to do their dirty work for them.

    I sympathize with the average Muslims’ dilemma; fundamentally, they are trapped; as in Germany during WW two the average German was too terrified speak out against their Government.

    Only this time it’s an asymmetrical war, but a war nonetheless; but at least, the fact has finally been woken up to.

    And I think it’s worth bearing in mind that this year marks the eight hundredth anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta; so there is an awful lot at stake.



    Report abuse

  • But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that “defends the rights of Catholics,” issued a statement titled “Muslims are right to be angry.”

    This is just Donohue pandering to Muslim extremists with, “Lets join in a “faith alliance” and support each other against those who ridicule your asserted stupid beliefs, and mine”!



    Report abuse

  • 26
    ateu luso says:

    This (predictable) crime makes me angry beyond words. Unfortunately it’s happening frequently, my getting angry beyond words…
    I won’t waste any time on this Donohue prick, the least attention he gets the better.

    I was part of the Amsterdam rally on thursday, together with my kids (of 6 and 7) and my girlfriend. We were there, pencil in hand, fighting for our freedoms. I felt it important for my kids to understand how fragile and precious these freedoms are. These freedoms include, evidently, the right for everyone to believe whatever crap they wish, no matter how infantile, backward and self-contradictory they may be.

    The murderers responsible for the Paris massacres (and countless others), and all those they represent, cannot win. As long as i have any strength left, they will not win.

    It saddens me that i won’t live to see the day when humanity will be rid of the evil virus of the brain that is religion. But i’ll keep fighting for a fairer and completely free world. I’ll keep teaching my kids to think for themselves, to question what they’re told, to accept responsibility for their actions. I’ll keep fighting for their right to experience and understand the wonderful natural world we live in, the unimaginably beautiful universe we’re all a tiny part of.

    Lets’s keep fighting with the best weapons that exist: a pencil and reason.

    Um abraço a todos, viva a liberdade!



    Report abuse

  • Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article included images offensive to various religious groups that did not meet the Post’s standards, and should not have been published. They have been removed.

    Looks like the Washington Post retracted some content. This is disappointing. The content that’s offensive to these Religious Groups is just offensive to a single person who decided to speak for the group. It’s a shame that these groups don’t shake up their leadership or find out who these people are that call the Post and complain. Do they really have the right to speak for the group? Anyway, I thought this was about religion, but, it sounds more like politics…



    Report abuse

  • 31
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    “Lets join in a “faith alliance” and support each other against those who ridicule your asserted stupid beliefs, and mine”!

    Yes, the “secularism is our common enemy” fallacy. What Donohue fails to realize is that Islamic fundamentalists despise him just as much as any other “infidel blasphemer”. If it had been him lying on that sidewalk begging for mercy, they would have executed his pious ass just the same.

    On another note, I am glad to hear that tens of thousands of people in several cities of France are taking up to the streets to demonstrate peacefully against these acts of barbary.



    Report abuse

  • Although I found myself nodding in agreement to Nabila Rambani, on the news, saying that although the murders are totally barbaric, their is the rule of law and defamation, racial hatred and a responsibility to a decent view against restricted view, in no way can anyone say that the murdered people have been responsible for their own deaths. They can be responsible for their own law suit but nothing else.



    Report abuse

  • She was talking in general Phil not specific to this event/atrocity. She also said that christian, muslim and atheist was killed in the attack.

    If the Pope wants to take Minchin (who I love) to court then thats up to him and his lawyers. The law allows it. Are you saying he should not have the right?



    Report abuse

  • I’m not blaming the victims (i.e. the average Muslim) per-se. I’m saying that it is nothing more than a mechanism of control. There is no inherent harm in mocking religion, only perceived harm. That’s the nice thing about discussing figments of the imagination. It’s that perception that is exploited to keep the rank and file in line (and also, gives an excuse to behave like assholes against people you don’t like).

    Depending on how comfortable you are with your neighbors, it might be worth discussing. Make sure you bring drinks. Oh, wait… 🙂

    Yes, I believe it is immature in a sense (the Santa Claus analogy pushing it too far?), but then understanding why and bringing down those sacred cows off their pedestals might bring some small enlightenment.

    Kinda super-heavy though. Maybe they aren’t actually fussed about the whole thing, but in any case, I’d try to stay on the good side of those nice gift-bearing neighbors. They are hard to come by these days.



    Report abuse

  • She was talking in general Phil not specific to this event/atrocity.

    Understood. But worth clarifying here.

    Are you saying he should not have the right?

    No. Are you saying there is a crime?

    Again worth clarifying here. Are you saying Charlie Hebdo committed a crime in French law?

    A lawer can try and bring any sort of case pretty much….its not a crime.



    Report abuse

  • Whether or not it is a crime is decided in the courts (or an outside ‘settlement’ if you have enough money to bypass the system). Defamation is a law is it not? Too complicated a law for me to decide but then thats what courts are for.



    Report abuse

  • Donahue’s piece is quite short. How many objectionable comments could such an innocent looking column hold?

    Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned.

    Bill is off to a great start, who could argue against the ultimate humanitarian rule: We shouldn’t kill each other.

    That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated.

    True.

    But …

    Wait, Bill, I thought you said our condemnation should be “unequivocal”- unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation? Why are you undermining your own position by equivocating?

    What’s your real position?

    It would I humbly suggest, have been better to stick to a simple message while the victims are still being mourned Bill.

    Couldn’t you, at least, wait for the bodies to grow cold?

    Pretending to stand alongside those of us in mourning, while broadcasting a mixed message, there are words for that Bill. None of them are good words, moral words, honest words.

    But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

    Intolerance is an interesting concept to bandy about, willy-nilly, in this particular case. Charlie Hebdo has given itself the remit of not tolerating the intolerance – demonstrated daily – of religions to free speech, often resulting in the death, torture and subjugation of none-believers as we see reported in the media every week. Indeed Bill, your own piece is at one with exactly that global phenomenon.

    A moment’s study reveals that Charlie Hebdo is intolerant of that intolerance we receive from religion. To pretend that the situation is reversed requires some evidence to counter Charlie Hebdo’s published record and the constant stream of verified reports of beheading, stoning, exposure of lovers to disease, abuse – particularly of defenceless innocents and exploitation – particularly of the uneducated and poor.

    You offer none, Bill, you simply make an assertion. Clearly, it is an ignorant assertion.

    Those who work at [the newspaper Charlie Hebdo] have a long and disgusting record …
    Setting aside this … what should we call it … (bonkers? mad? ludicrous? heroic?) interpretation of Charlie Hebdo

    Another interesting idea from Bill here. Disgust is a favourite word of the tabloid press, which they use to pretend to their readers that any feeling of revulsion they may have is justified by the fact that what they see reported makes them feel uncomfortable, or seems unpleasant. It gives readers licence to take offence.

    The above seems to be exactly the way that Bill is using the word disgust. In the light of what he says next, this reading is confirmed.

    Taking offence is the dogmatic person’s knee-jerk reaction to criticism. Indeed, it may even count as a defining feature of belief through faith.

    … of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures.

    Bill is asking his, presumably mostly Catholic, readers to take offence at the very idea of a publication that, by his own definition, publicly criticises public figures by using ridicule, irony and sarcasm.
    At no point, notice, does Bill use the term free speech. The consequences of opposing the few brave voices that have the guts to point out the crimes of religion are ignored. Never let reality get in the way of a good story, aye Bill.

    … going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures …

    I’ll leave it to you, Dear Reader, to say whether we should trust Bill’s judgement on this.

    and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures.

    No surprise here, Bill believes religion should be able to enter the political arena, but should be immune from criticism. Very Catholic of him.

    For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic pose.

    And You Tube religious posters cut and paste atheists into porn. I don’t get your point Bill?

    I also don’t understand how your tastes in humor and political dialog get to trump my tastes in humor and political dialog?

    While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not.

    If Abram and Baraq both call themselves Muslims – and both claim that the other’s Muslim faith is incorrect – to me they are indistinguishable. They’re both Muslims until someone persuades me that one is a true Muslim and the other is not. Abram gave a Woman 60 lashes for not wearing a sack over her head. Baraq says he is a bad Muslim for misinterpreting the Prophet. Abram says Baraq is a bad Muslim for misinterpreting the Prophet.

    Using Bill’s logic, we see that a Muslim is a Muslim until he says he believes depictions of the Prophet are naughty. How does this help?

    Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask Muslims to put their own house in order. Condemnation of what has happened in Paris is not enough. Multicultural policies must be called into question.

    Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran.

    Bill introduces a Red Herring. What the Koran says about pictures is connected to murder by the taking of offence. Just like you Bill they didn’t like what they saw, they took offence … Bill tells us he wouldn’t take the next step. But Bill hasn’t finished with us yet, there is another next step. Like the Muslim’s next step it is anti-social, anti-human and ugly.

    What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed.

    Who has the right, Dear Reader, over the rights of all others? Who is the right person to say what you can and cannot read? Who can tell you that you cannot read Charlie Hebdo? Depending on where you live in the World there is some piddling clause in some piddling law that says exactly that, or there is some politicized publisher with access to limited resources – like licensed radio spectrum – who does exactly that for you. In some countries we have the luxury of both. But this outrageous censorship is not enough for Bill, oh no.

    That is the limit of our freedom. Push that boundary every day – or call yourself Serf, because that is what you deserve.

    What [Muslims] object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years.

    Can anyone doubt that insult can be earned? Insult is often the only tool we have to persuade our fellow citizens that someone in power is lying, cheating, bullying, enslaving, torturing, raping, killing.

    How else are we to hold the powerful to account?

    Religions are at it constantly. Just turn on your TV, it’ll be there.

    Freedom of expression must come before culture, every time. It is often our only defense.

    On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

    Bill breaks cover. When it comes to censorship, he puts himself squarely in the extremists camp.

    But Bill does not use the word censorship, he’s far too crafty for that. At this point he just wants his readers to exercise their disgust, to set aside their qualms on political freedom and to sum these in an exercise in anti-human reaction to murder-for-speech.

    Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.

    Bill speaks, again, with forked tongue. Given that Stephane Charbonnier was living permanently under police protection it seems to me that he knew exactly what he was doing, and precisely how he was most likely to die.

    In 2012, when asked why he [Stephane Charbonnier] insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.”

    Pretty straightforward.

    Had he not been so narcissistic …

    Bill doesn’t say where he gets this perception of Stephane Charbonnier from.

    … he may still be alive.

    Bill appears now to be attempting to offend those of us who would prefer to see more free speech by pretending that Stephane Charbonnier’s comment makes him oblivious to the feelings of others. Small-mindedness, alas for Bill, tends not to be found among those of us who do not subscribe to some dogma or other.

    The bigger picture is obviously that Stephane Charbonnier, and his colleagues, want to protect the maximum number of people by speaking truth to the powers that be be – particularly those of organised religion – and by alerting the rest of us to their crimes. It is as plain as day that they put their lives on the line to do this.

    Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

    Bill attempts to take the moral high ground by pretending that he wouldn’t use Charlie Hebdo tactics – after spending a few paragraphs doing exactly that.

    Bill makes common cause with murderous scum. Remember that …

    I didn’t make Bill a brother of those slayers who’s philosophy and world view was so pathetic the only political dialog they could conceive was death. Bill did it himself.

    Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence.

    But you don’t have to, do you Bill, your religious brothers do it for you.

    This [assumed to mean: Bill’s interpretation of what it means to be restrained in the face of political provocation, i.e. supporting those who resort to mindless violence and pretending this is enough to show clean hands. Pontious Pilate would be proud to know he founded a religio-political tradition.] however, does not empty the issue.

    No Bill, it doesn’t. Now we have to deal with the deniers of truth. People like Bill.

    Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

    Oh the irony … how it burns.

    Je suis Charlie



    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon Jan 10, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Bill speaks, again, with forked tongue. Given that Stephane Charbonnier was living permanently under police protection it seems to me that he knew exactly what he was doing, and precisely how he was most likely to die.

    It is a characteristic of the “Faith-Head” of the likes of Donahue, that it has faces – facing in all directions, and a mouth that blabbs “New-Speak” double talk!



    Report abuse

  • Can’t we just discount everything that Bill Donahue says as the product of a diseased mind and stop giving him the attention he craves so badly?



    Report abuse

  • ” …Donahue doesn’t understand the nature of free speech.”

    Actually, he does.
    However, free speech is (deliberately) not part of Catholic doctrine. That would be contradictory.



    Report abuse

  • I was reminded the other day on the BBC programme Any Questions, of a fairly common pronouncement made by Imams, which runs more or less as follows:

    A Muslim’s love of the prophet Mohammed is greater than that of their children, parents, and anyone or anything else; it is an all embracing love which exceeds all others.

    That, I submit, is profoundly unnatural, and anyone who has been subjected to that level of propaganda since earliest childhood, and succumbed to it, is almost certainly bound to suffer some kind of emotional, mental or nervous breakdown.

    For example, not long ago a mother in the UK beat her son to death because he couldn’t learn the “recitation” or Qur’an by heart.

    OK, extreme cases make bad law, but, “Nature cannot be fooled.”.



    Report abuse

  • But Christians get to this despicable place of putting their own salvation above their obligations to their own family. Its in the text, but particularly horrible to see a parent give up on a child for religious reasons. (The Amish are case in point. The final interview with the WBC mother in the second Theroux, chillingly self centred.)

    I’ll be blunt. This common deep immorality of both religions makes it an easier challenge to throw out again and again until some religious kids start to notice. The burgeoning theocracy at the rotten religious heart of the US will help us in the end. Two birds, one stone and no specious, junk criticism like “Islamophobe!”.



    Report abuse

  • Aren’t they catering to their customers? They are a commercial organisation, after all. Or do you think they have no Muslim readers? I’m not saying whether they should or should not have published in retaliation, as that’s a matter of political strategy– a reality which is too often ignored. I’m pointing out the conflict between commercial media and expression of a full range of opinion.



    Report abuse

  • PERSON Jan 11, 2015 at 6:21 am

    Aren’t they catering to their customers? They are a commercial organisation, after all. Or do you think they have no Muslim readers?

    If they have Muslim readers, I presume they, for the most part, must have bought the publication.
    Except when I find the the odd copy lying around and evaluate any changes in quality, I don’t buy Murdock drivel tabloid comics purporting to be newspapers, because I consider they have nothing of value to offer me, with information too biased and unreliable to be of any use.



    Report abuse

  • For my sisters ‘Mevlit’ (religious reading after death and some years after) the imam told us of a dog that sang the prayer along with him, in Turkey some years back, and that the dog was sent from god. Do you think everyone in the room believed him? Most just go through the motions and then get on with their lives. The odd nut does not a forest make, taking into account the forest is massive. If we take into account that there is no confession in Islam then most have long ago given up entry into paradise. 😉



    Report abuse

  • Wouldn’t it be great if the madness was limited to the odd nut and his singing prophet dog. I think Stafford would be a lot happier. 🙂

    Re your imam. I doubt many in the room believed him. Some may even have doubted that he believed what he was saying himself. Did you get any chance to discuss it after the ceremony?

    The problem comes back to what Dan Dennett talked about – the reasons why people believe or declare their belief – fear, power, consensus, guilt, embarrassment or a sort of belief in belief. The whole talk is worth the watch.



    Report abuse

  • As I said, the forest is massive so the odd seem many.

    I had no intention of discussing anything with someone who not only calls himself an ‘imam’ but refers to dogs and gods in the same breath. If he wants redemption, then he will have to come to me 😉

    Got visitors coming soon but will take a look at the link later tonight, I hope. thanks.



    Report abuse

  • I should have been clearer. I was wondering whether you discussed with your family and friends what they thought of the imam’s story and how seriously (if any) they took it. Would it have been embarrassing to talk about it, even after the ceremony?



    Report abuse

  • Very good.

    Trouble is, satire only bites with those who can laugh at themselves anyway.

    Which means that this is a wasted effort.

    My favourite cartoon so far has been the one depicting a black clad assassin holding a smoking weapon, and standing over a corpse which has a pair of specs and a pencil laying close to it, with the murderer saying “He drew first!”.

    Tragically, too true to be funny.



    Report abuse

  • 60
    maria melo says:

    Nigeria was on the news, and it was heart breaking for me to know about, while french right extremists think the solution to these problems would be to close frontiers, not showing any interest in “other´s” suffering, but “their´s”, that´s unfortunately sadly real.

    (these young men were lost in their cultural identity, their algerian parents were not even religious, they had never been religious, perhaps they thought they had to embrace this particular “religion” just because they were algerian? the first contact they have had with religion was in jail, why such huge protagonism in “religious terms” then, when they were not religious all theirs lives?)



    Report abuse

  • Marktony,

    Rest assured that these discussions take place on a regular basis in Muslim families. Extremism has reared its ugly head in public and private spheres. Every Muslim family I know has been seriously affected by an extremist(s) within their own ranks. These fundamentalists are extremely difficult to control in the family. At this time, after this tragic Paris incident, those of us who are members of Muslim families (my in-laws are Algerian) are now in deep discussion with each other to make sense of this new atrocity. From the perspective of the ranking adults in our clan, we are struggling to promote and maintain progressive values in the younger generation. Olgun is correct when he says that it’s not all black and white. It is definitely all a complex, convoluted arrangement of grays.

    I’m now in a state of mental exhaustion from days of intense discussion with the 20-somethings in our family on the topics of freedom of speech, freedom of press, blasphemy laws, women’s rights, effects of societal marginalization, and of course there’s the ever present backstory of the screwed up political situation in the Middle East. Just in this one family we have a range of perspectives from the one niece who is a hejab-wearing fundamentalist, all the way to me, the American atheist, feminist Auntie, and the others who fall everywhere else on that range.

    I wish I could report that we have reached a working agreement, but that is not quite the case. The young people have all dispersed to their nuclear families now, but none are content with the results of the discussions. We are all uneasy, worried, and we are all extremely discouraged about what the future will bring for the entire Muslim community worldwide.

    If this is the case in a family with strong secular humanistic leaders, then what must be happening in Muslim families who are much more devout and traditional than we are?

    You see, in the old tribal tradition that still exists as the model of family management in Muslim societies, I now must participate in dialog with the other matriarchs and patriarchs of my in-law family where I’m sad to say, the answer to my question will be answered in very short order. I will present the explanation of what free speech really means to us in the West and make the inevitable corrections when they point out that they support free speech but not at the expense of prophet Mo. I will agree that they have the right to criticize Israel, USA, France and whoever they want as well. And then the cartoons will be reprinted and my leverage will vanish into thin air. So I agree with Olgun when he says on the other thread:

    Olgun
    Jan 10, 2015 at 12:24 pm
    Every muscle in my body says ‘YES reprint’, but we have to take a step back and say who are we doing that against? The attackers want more recruits. Should we help them by reoffending decent Muslims instead of showing we are better? Donate and let the paper do what it does best. My opinion.



    Report abuse

  • 62
    Tintern says:

    I wonder if he’s okay with someone taking appropriate action Catholic priests for raping children. Perfectly understandable, they knew what they were doing etc etc and it was, of course, disgusting. Wow, you could play Buzzword Bingo with that guy all day.



    Report abuse

  • Reading these comments is like reading the comments on the BBC’s, or the Daily Mail’s web pages. The proper word for them is cant.



    Report abuse

  • Thank you LaurieB. I am not good at this sort of thing, as everyone here has seen, but I will join you and say, ‘We need your help people’.



    Report abuse

  • I discussed it with only a few that I thought could handle it, quietly in the corner. The same respect I show when I go to funerals in a church or more recently, the Jewish cemetery.



    Report abuse

  • And then the cartoons will be reprinted and my leverage will vanish into thin air.

    So no reprint but next month Charlie Hebdo starts up exactly as before.

    Does your leverage vanish then?



    Report abuse

  • Yes, that’s right. I can hold steady with a defense of free speech as long as it ends at incitement and if there is a level playing field in the game for everyone.



    Report abuse

  • And then the cartoons will be reprinted and my leverage will vanish into thin air.

    I think you are being too pessimistic. From the rest of your post I can see that you are engaged in exhaustive discussions with friends and family. Keep up the good work.

    Yes, if they thought that the cartoons were being reprinted deliberately to spite Muslims then that would probably set back your progress. But I was talking about a specific response the day after the attack. I find it difficult to believe that ordinary Muslims would see that as revenge or attack rather than defence of freedom of speech. It would perhaps be seen as revenge if the press re-printed now, so many days afterwards, and I would not recommend it now. But I would still not be critical of Hebdo if they re-print certain cartoons on Wednesday.



    Report abuse

  • Mark, I am only comparing these for the sake of the discussion and don’t want to get into an argument where you think that I think the severity is comparable but, If all the ‘Muslims’ expressed unity with the killings you would, quite rightly, think all ‘Muslims’ want to kill. If ALL western papers act in the same way then ALL ‘Muslims’ will think they ALL want to insult ALL ‘Muslims’ and the devision starts. This comparison does not include Hebdo BTW. I think we might be getting our wires crossed on that one. They can print what they like…As I have said, business as usual. (I hope I have phrased this properly and no misunderstanding comes about)



    Report abuse

  • If they reprint on Wednesday, a lot of different ways of doing it are possible?

    How would any here like to see it done?

    I would opt for reprint and acknowledgement of the great Muslim support against the perpetrators and a reminder of all their (CH’s) targets.

    I don’t believe, in any sense, reprint actually is revenge. Not in any sense. But it is an act of defiance against terrorists and their publicised aim. In visibly not being cowed they make it safer for all the world’s satirical publications (hugely important). Intimidation does not work. See you make things worse for yourselves. You must be discouraged from ever trying this again.



    Report abuse

  • No, I understand what you are saying. But even if all Western newspapers had re-printed last Thursday I don’t see why all Muslims, or even the majority, should see it as an insult to all Muslims rather than a defence of free speech. I have heard Muslims on the news today saying “I am Charlie”. They are not supporting the publishing of these cartoons, they are supporting the defence of free speech.



    Report abuse

  • But it is an act of defiance against terrorists and their publicised aim. In visibly not being cowed they make it safer for all the world’s satirical publications (hugely important).

    That’s what I was trying to say.



    Report abuse

  • Again, I think we have our wires crossed here Phil, Hebdo have the right to do whatever they think is best.

    One piece of advise I remember watching on an army recruitment advert was that a negotiator, in a dangerous situation, should remember to take off his sunglasses so that there is eye contact. It serves to remind the person they are talking to that they too are human and not just a killing machine in a uniform. Make of that what you will.



    Report abuse

  • They are not supporting the publishing of these cartoons, they are
    supporting the defence of free speech

    And they can only do that if the two are physically separated. If we are trying to separate them from their faith at the same time, I think it a step too far at this stage. (Not that that is what you were saying)



    Report abuse

  • If you prick me do I not bleed?

    The humanity must come to the fore.

    In reprinting these we are scared ordinary folk may take this wrongly. But we are terrified for our very lives of those hateful others. As in the past, free speech is something to defend with our lives.



    Report abuse

  • Gandhi started to walk with a small group and unarmed. By the end of his journey he walked with millions. Mandela too. There is more than one way to show your strength.



    Report abuse

  • And they can only do that if the two are physically separated.

    NO. They can defend Hebdo’s right to publish even distasteful or offensive cartoons at the same time as finding those cartoons offensive or distasteful. If Hebdo re-print and are again attacked I would not expect fewer Muslims to say “I am Charlie”.



    Report abuse

  • Marktony,

    I think you are being too pessimistic.

    I think you are being too optimistic!

    Here are some quotes from your comments on this thread and from the other thread on this same topic. (I hate when this happens here. I can’t keep track of two threads running concurrently!)

    Re your imam. I doubt many in the room believed him.

    and

    I find it difficult to believe that ordinary Muslims would see that as revenge or attack rather than defence of freedom of speech.

    From the other thread:

    Surely decent Muslims would understand that they were not the target of the decision to re-print and that the primary purpose would be the defence of free speech. And I find it astonishing that you seem to think there would be a danger of decent Muslims becoming recruited to terrorism.

    I’m left wondering how you have come to hold these opinions, feelings, doubts and beliefs, as you call them yourself. You don’t exactly explain where these come from. I won’t say that all Muslims agree with the sin of depicting prophet Mo, but it sure seems like an overwhelming majority in my view. Couple that with their sense of being victims of Western special interests and voila! – the Charlie H. cartoons are just the latest offensive strike in the culture wars. I googled Charlie Hebdo Zionism and came up with a truckload of hits.

    I don’t know if there are any polls or other data out there that would clarify just how widespread the devotion is to the idea of nondepiction of Mo, but might I suggest some personal conversations with actual real life Muslims to try to get to the bottom of it? Here’s some optimism for you; they might be very relieved to explain their side of things to someone who cares enough to listen. I think what is going on now in that community is a mass group expression of worry and fear. They may never change their mind about the nondepiction thing but at least they should know the laws about free speech, free press, and every other Constitutional freedom we have and how these are the very principles that make our countries a good place to live! Isn’t that why they’ve come here? For a better life? They should be instructed as to WHY it’s better here. It’s where the conversation should begin.



    Report abuse

  • NO. They can defend Hebdo’s right to publish even distasteful or
    offensive cartoons at the same time as finding those cartoons
    offensive or distasteful.

    I suppose they already have but it would be better coming from Hedbo rather than you.



    Report abuse

  • I won’t say that all Muslims agree with the sin of depicting prophet Mo, but it sure seems like an overwhelming majority in my view.

    But do an overwhelming majority of Muslims (in your view) agree with the sin of depicting the prophet being applied to non-Muslims?



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    it is an act of defiance against terrorists and their publicised aim. In visibly not being cowed they make it safer for all the world’s satirical publications (hugely important). Intimidation does not work. See you make things worse for yourselves. You must be discouraged from ever trying this again.

    Absolutely acknowledged. I agree with Olgun that:

    Hebdo have the right to do whatever they think is best.



    Report abuse

  • It wasn’t for the depressing bit that I linked. Sorry. I just wondered if any of the later arguments were any use?

    I thought the image thing was “only” in the hadith and was for the prevention of overly lauding the prophet and idolising him (sic)? I don’t think that was Charlie Hebdo’s collective intention…..



    Report abuse

  • If the ban on his depiction is to prevent idolatory, then surely the ban is meaningless if applied to non believers? If rather than idolising they defame….isn’t that….well….not bad?



    Report abuse

  • Marktony

    Yes of course that’s what it means. If it didn’t mean that then why on earth would they be angry/fearful/indignant etc. over all of the cartoon “offenses” in these past years, including this latest one?



    Report abuse

  • This is why I said to you before I don’t argue on a religious level. If it made sense then I would not be an atheist. My argument is that atheists are supposed to be better at interpreting and reacting with the world AND all its wrongs, act responsibly and scientifically. That is where I find the rant of Hitch all wrong. It is like screaming at a parplegic to get up and walk…..



    Report abuse

  • Phil, ha. tricky one there 😉

    I guess it did start as a prohibition against idolatry but now it’s all tangled up with the claim that Mo is the most perfect person ever. “A perfect man for all times who serves as a model for us all” as I am often told. Perfectly gagworthy but I find this to be the most common response to the question of why it is absolutely haram to depict him, not only as an insult but also even in a flattering way. You’re not asking me to make sense of this crap, are you Phil?



    Report abuse

  • If it didn’t mean that then why on earth would they be angry/fearful/indignant etc. over all of the cartoon “offenses” in these past years, including this latest one?

    I didn’t think the overwhelming majority were angry/fearful/indignant. Those, sometimes violent, protests over the Danish cartoons were not necessarily supported by the majority of Muslims.



    Report abuse

  • Again, how do you know that? Maybe it’s wishful thinking…just sayin

    I don’t know that. And I have not surveyed any Muslims. I just can’t help my optimistic nature. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • You know how this will go down..first we’ll have a nice portrait of ethnic arabian Mo with a proper mediterranean skin tone and hanging around the tent with his voluptuous camels and wives and a multitude of offspring leaping and spinning all around them. Then before you know it there’ll be all manner of blond Swedish Mo’s, black Senegalese Mo’s, and Japanese Asian Mo’s serving up sushi to the starving masses, all in the name of Allah the merciful. Sigh. How is this to end? Maybe they were onto something with that ban after all. 🙁 I think I’ll stick with the good old argument that starts off with, “hey, so if you find idols to be an abomination then what’s that big black box all about? And why are those millions of Muslims crouched down around it with bums up in the air? Praying to a big black box maybe? They might as well paint a big portrait of Mo on it, now that I think about it.



    Report abuse

  • Something is different this time. It may be the scale of the outrage. It could be that as with all terrorist acts its a fine balance between galvanising those you see as your own by the general backlash and disgusting them.

    I just feel from all the positive Muslim expressions I’ve been reading and hearing about and from those I wouldn’t expect to notice these things, something more positive can come out of this this time…

    But unlike Mark, who is only a glass half full guy, I tend to be 150% full.



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    something more positive can come out of this this time…

    Did you mention 150 percent optimism level?

    “Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable.”
    Voltaire



    Report abuse

  • 108
    aquilacane says:

    If these attacks are the fault of Hebdo for publishing images that are considered offensive to many Muslims and non Muslims I guess they are cool with accepting responsibility for the offense taken by non believers over their shit. Take the detail of the tympanum of Saintefoy De Conques Abbey Church which depict the last judgment and hell. I take offense to Catholics who feel it is okay to depict such terrible acts on my people. But it is nice to know that if the church were ever only to be properly defaced, they would understand.



    Report abuse

  • Christopher Hitchens very clearly and helpfully pointed out the distinction, not usually made, between jealousy and envy, by saying that envy a positive and motivating state of mind which spurs people on to strive for what they witness others to have achieved.

    Whereas jealousy is a negative and destructive state of mind which leads people to despise and destroy the achievements of others.

    I think it’s the latter condition which drives Islamism. They hate the achievements and fruits of the renaissance and enlightenment; except of course when it comes to employing them as bomb detonators, instruments of massacre and the like.

    Of the three monotheistic religions, Islam is the only one not to have experienced a reformation; perhaps we’re now suffering the results of that simple, salient, incontrovertible fact, and its “leaders” need to address the matter.

    Here endeth my thoughts for the day.



    Report abuse

  • 110
    inquisador says:

    How dare you criticize our beloved prophet? Just cos he was mass murderer, plunderer, slaver, rapist, torturer? Don’t you realise he is our greatest role model?

    Die infidels!

    (ref: Koran, Sira)

    (nothing to do with Islam)



    Report abuse

  • Maria,

    There is a strange phenomenon that has been happening in the Muslim community for some years now that explains this strange situation where there is a family of Muslims that give the appearance of being moderate and then there is one young person who is an extremist. Our family has this problem too. We have the older generation all moderate or even atheist (me) and then the teens/20somthings being a mix. We have 4 atheists, 2 moderates and one fundamentalist niece. That niece was involved with her local mosque in Montreal and spent more and more time there against the advice of the rest of the family, including her own parents. She was radicalized in the mosque along with countless other young people.

    Also the internet, as much as it serves as a community for us atheists to interact, it also provides support for fundamentalists. Immigrant young people in the West are easy targets for the extremists. The youth feel alienated and lonely in their new homes. The mosque serves as an instant social network offering up an instant hoard of new best friends. You can imagine how impossible it would be for even a well adjusted teen to turn away from this. But for an alienated lonely teen it would be an instant attachment. Very sad.

    The Algerians in France have a large community and sad to say, they are not well integrated into mainstream society. There are whole neighborhoods there of what we call “the projects” where low income families are housed all together. These low income communities have been a complete disaster here in the States because the isolation of low income people causes an “us vs them” mentality and encourages all the worst social problems you can think of. Again, this social isolation encourages feelings of alienation and hopelessness. Where do you think these young people will turn to for support and validation? To the mosques of course! There, they will hear confirmation of how the French think that their immigrants from the former colonies (Algeria) are ignorant, dirty cockroaches and how the European countries, led by USA are the cause of much pain and suffering in the “Muslim world”. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is the number one recruitment tool of the extremist forces.

    I don’t know about the prisons in France but it is well known here in the States that our prisons encourage their population to embrace religion as an important part of their rehabilitation. The inmates who become indoctrinated as Muslims, again, find themselves to be members of a close support group that promotes an us vs them mentality. When these guys get out into the public, they seek out the same support on the outside. And where do they find it? In the “projects” and they go straight to the mosques.

    We have freedom of religion here in the States which is solidly established in the Constitution. But we also have no end of meddling, mischief and trouble from these institutions. My first impulse, in moments of extreme aggravation, is to crush them a la French Revolution! But with our freedom of religion here, which I support, all I can say in the end is, it’s complicated. 🙁



    Report abuse

  • What an idiot! Is there anyone in the Catholic League who can think BEFORE they publish something? I’m wondering if Mr. Donohue feels the depiction of a prophet in a political cartoon is equally offensive as say, I don’t know, the rape and abuse of thousands of children?! Who has “provoked a violent reaction” more than Catholic priests? Should we line them all up and shoot them? After all, those Catholic priests broke laws against humanity and decency. All Charlie Hebdo did is exercise a declared right of free speech. Mr. Donohue wants to talk about being OFFENDED. REALLY??



    Report abuse

  • Equally curiously, I am happy too. I can’t figure it out really. I guess it has to do with realizing how lucky I am to have drawn a long straw in a world that offers so many a short one.

    by the way, Pangloss would be an excellent screen name if you’re ever in need of one. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • The BUT Campaign? No thanks!

    Placing Charlie Hebdo in the place of Giordano Bruno? No thanks!

    Beyond the following quotation:

    “Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be
    unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be
    tolerated,” says Donohue. “But neither should we tolerate the kind of
    intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

    if you give a glance to the first part of the video in the article “The reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attack” of Richard Gizbert (The Listening Post) on Al Jazeera English at the following link, then you will understand better what I mean with the phrase: The BUT Campaign.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2015/01/reaction-charlie-hebdo-attack-20151109475501508.html

    The very dangerous attempt is to say: well, killing is bad, BUT… also those that did a satire that caused offence are responsible for what happened.

    It needs to show to those who are trying to exploit the recent tragedy in Paris that their line is reversible and it can be very dangerous for them to insist on the pretext of the “offence”.

    For pure example: “I am very offended that in the Islamic countries the homosexuals are hanged, so I will go in a mosque where they preach to hang the homosexuals and I will kill hundreds of people with a bomb. OK, in that case I would become an assassin, a terrorist, BUT… I was offended by their unacceptable blasphemy against civilization, so… also those that offended me preaching to hang the homosexuals are responsible. They provoked my reaction going beyond the acceptable behavior.”

    So let’s try to explain to the promoters of the BUT Campaign that they are wrong. And “they” are not only the defenders of the Islamists, it includes also many other religious people that are trying to exploit the situation.

    The original article on the washingtonpost.com
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/
    includes a video – commented as: Pope Francis prays for the victims in Paris and asks God to “change the hearts” of the perpetrators – in which the pope tries to exploit the situation and says with able narration: “So much cruelty, human cruelty, so much terrorism…” (The occasion is such a chance for them that Francis forgets to mention what happened to the Christian minorities in France during the centuries: thousands of people killed by the so much compassionate and human Catholics.)

    If they succeed to substitute Giordano Bruno (that refer to Catholic bestialities) with Charlie Hebdo (that refers to Islamists’ bestiality) then they succeed to wash the mark of bestiality in their forehead and impress it in the forehead of the Islamists and Moslems and, in the same time, they have the occasion to ask a cut of the freedom to criticize the religions (plural) because the Islam (singular) is particularly sensitive and can react badly!

    What a success for them if they reach to grasp these two results at expenses of the Islamists and of the Moslems in general!

    And what can we say about the Freethinkers? Will they permit to those scavengers to cast a shadow on Giordano Bruno because of Charlie Hebdo?

    Giordano Bruno was burnt in Rome by the Catholic clergy on 17 February 1600. He was carried to the pole with the mouth mechanically closed.

    Never forget.

    Never permit to put Giordano Bruno under the carpet because of Charlie Hebdo.

    Never permit to exploit the anger of the Islamists to reduce the freedom of expression that Giordano Bruno and thousands of other people paid with their life.

    We don’t have to confuse the fierce, carefully thought, and systematic exercise of power done by the Catholic hierarchy for 14 centuries with the fierce deviation of the improvised Islamists (condemned by a good number of Moslems who maybe perceives the possible moves beyond those manipulated organizations.)

    The sorrow for the recent terroristic attack against a satirical magazine in Paris doesn’t have to override the assassination of Giordano Bruno because his assassination by the Roman Catholic Church was carefully planned against the freedom of expression of the whole humankind.

    Don’t fall into the pit of the promoters of the BUT Campaign with abundant petrodollars.

    Don’t fall into the trap of those with cupola in Rome who try to exploit every occasion to hide or minimize their dirty and bloody history.



    Report abuse

  • I will agree that they have the right to criticize Israel, USA, France and whoever they want as well. And then the cartoons will be reprinted and my leverage will vanish into thin air.

    How about pre-printing?

    The latest cover of Charlie Hebdo has been published in advance by French media. Outside France, the Washington Post, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine, Corriere della Sera in Italy and the UK’s Guardian are among publications to show the cartoon.

    Defiant Charlie Hebdo depicts Prophet Muhammad on cover.



    Report abuse

  • 117
    Fraser says:

    A many faceted situation with a lot of room for discussion. To me we should be looking at the declared intent, by the various, and diverse Muslim people “to spread Islam throughout the world”. Their aim is to effectively take over governments and cultures to bring about one society run by a form of medieval sharia laws.

    So, my concern is that democracy might not be enough to combat this threat. In fact, our democratic way of life is being used by them to protect their religious beliefs from criticism by the non Muslims. I don’t want to sound paranoid but I get the feeling that they think that we are a soft target.

    On the lighter side I do see a hole developing here and it’s one that needs filling by non religious people. As Donahue demonstrates we really can’t let the Christians get involved.

    Unfortunately I have no overall answer to this threat but I would feel a lot better if we brought the full severity of the threat into the every day discussions.



    Report abuse

  • I agree completely. Does he not see that killing someone who offends them is just a bit harsh? How about not looking at or listening to the offending person, or whatever entity?



    Report abuse

  • “They have shown nuns masturbating and the Holy Trinity locked in a
    three-way homosexual orgy.”

    Just for the record, these are both very popular fetishes on many different adult websites. Or so I’m told (wink).



    Report abuse

  • Apparently tribalist “faith-thinking” Muslim protesters don’t see a position of solidarity with those similarly mocked Xtians, and are simply looking for some scapegoats on whom to vent their offended angry egos!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30863159
    Charlie Hebdo: Niger protesters set churches on fire
    Saturday’s protests began outside Niamey’s grand mosque with police using tear gas a day after at least four were killed in the second city of Zinder.

    The French embassy has warned its citizens to stay indoors.

    Protests against the magazine were also seen on Friday in Pakistan, where protests turned violent in Karachi, the Sudanese capital of Khartoum and the Algerian capital, Algiers.

    People in Somalia took to the streets on Saturday.

    In Niger, a former French colony, hundreds of demonstrators gathered at Niamey’s grand mosque, shouting “God is Great” in Arabic.

    .At least two churches were set on fire – similar to Friday’s demonstration in Zinder where protesters also raided shops that were run by Christians.

    Offended delusional religion in action!!!!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.