The Telegraph takes the opposite stance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1133...

> "We must stop blaming ourselves for Islamist terror"

> It is tempting to think the Islamic fanaticism is purely a reaction to the West, but jihadists kill because that is what they do

> [...] Provocation is merely an excuse used by bullies to justify their actions, [...]

Ridiculous, cowardly, and wrong. Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, and is fairly even handed when it comes to mockery.

Even if they weren't even-handed, it wouldn't change a thing. They could be publishing a newspaper named "Fuck Muhammad" and it'd still be equally wrong for them to have been attacked in this way.

I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.

Oh, I agree, it's just that the impression the FT tries to give ("Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper specialized in Muslim-baiting") is wrong. Hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing.

I think we agree that the killing is not a good outcome. Going back to your initial statement that "hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing", my point is that hopefully nobody reading this thinks Islam is compatible with reason.

"Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.

But they are supposed to be free to practice their religion, which means shooting people for a drawing. Maybe religious freedom should not extend to psychopathic ideologies just as freedom to bear arms does not extend to personal nuclear weapons.

Wasn't the act of shooting a religious practice? You may choose to rationalize a separation of religion from its inevitable outcomes. They don't.

Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.

I'm not so much hiding from the issue as (apparently) failing to understand what point you are trying to make.

Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).

Freedom of religion does not extend to shooting people in the name of it in any western country. What are you talking about?

We don't coddle religious fanatics, we coddle the moderate masses.

As soon as extremists get involved things change. These murders have caused many people who were against publishing Mohammed cartoons to change their stance.

> Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech

How is explicitly challenging those who oppose free speech not the best way to be a 'champion of the principle of free speech'?