I'm Muslim, I'm Jewish, I'm Christian, I'm Atheist, I'm a Policeman, I'm Charlie
Which I think is much better and is a much more inclusive symbol.
The thing though is that Charlie Hebdo is not a publication that only published offensive cartoons about Mohammad, they published offensive cartoons about everybody and were quite equal handed in the offensiveness... It's very far from being a racist publication, on the contrary.
In term of drawings, there's been a few offensive cartoons of jewish as well as christians (but then again, their caricatures and drawings have traditionally always been more offensive than their columns). See for example: http://www.jewpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ROD0070417.... or http://www.jewpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/antisemitis...
I haven't read it that much (I read it a bit more when I was a student) but I definitely never associated that journal with racism in that they've always seemed equally handed in their offensiveness.
After the boko haram kidnapping of many, many young girls, Charlie Hedbo's cover featured the girls saying "Where's my handout?" http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ddd3904e07d024cc09ecc4d...
That seems to me pretty much as racist as you can get.
Aaaand here's another one: http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a262d9096f3a68dd274198c...
Now, you may come back to me and say that I don't understand the context. But you have to understand that sometimes it doesn't matter what the author meant, it matters what the most readily obvious interpretation is because that's how people will will take it. An author is partly responsible for being mindful of this, and good authors have a good understanding of this.
http://www.france24.com/en/20131113-france-racism-black-mini...
The drawing is actually denouncing the far-right by a play on word with "Rassemblement Bleu Marine" to "Rassemblement Bleu Racist".
At the time of the publishing, it would have been well understood by the readership this was not an attack on the Minister but rather on the far right.
Regarding the context, let me quote you Cardinal Richelieu: "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him"
France has 5,000,000+ Muslims; In Italy, the fastest growing "religion" is Muslim and it's also the second most practiced "religion" there today and closing much too fast for my tastes. I put religion in quotes because I do not believe, now, nor will I ever believe that Islam is a religion. It is a cult created and pushed by a sadistic, ego maniacal, self obsessed rapist and murderer seeking only to justify his tastes for evil, death, destruction and misery.
I pray for Muslims worldwide, that they find the light that is Jesus and through HIM, find their way to the true Father. Allah is but Satan in disguise and Satan is the FATHER of ALL LIES!
To think of 'I am Charlie' as supporting the cartoons themselves would require you divorce the victims from their fate. Essentially, you'd have to make a leap of logic, and focus on the selfish part (i.e. they offended Muslims) and at this point you no longer deal with rational argument.
Essentially the devil's advocate argument is 'a mature and reasonable person should practice caution before saying anything that may be taken out of context by any party that is sufficiently upset', which is nigh impossible.
Not so much(it is only for things westeros are not emotional of)
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5578984/mozilla-ceo-resigns...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/john-galliano-fired-anti...
http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/03/02/greek-doctor-arre...
If you can not call things by their true colors you have nothing and will lose all you thought you had.
Where and who is arbitrarily drawing the lines for what constitutes permitted freedom of speech?
And, of course no-one (except fringe extremists lunatics) is saying execution of the cartoonists was an appropriate reaction to insulting cartoons.
There are not a billion Muslims who would not have killed! Sure there are a few "radicals" that want all infidels beheaded but the remaining Muslims want the radicals to do the beheading.
For it says in the Qur'an Surat At-Tawbah 9:5 - And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Let me rephrase for you: convert or die.
They would emphatically say no, but the Trinity suggests otherwise.
Three distinct entities, with distinct personalities, goals and natures: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son forgives easily, the Father holds grudges for generations. It's an unforgivable sin to blaspheme against one, but not the others. Meanwhile, the description of the Trinity as essentially distinct aspects of a single being is similar to some interpretations of Hinduism. There is at least a superficial (and not at all radical) case to be made that Christianity is monotheistic in name only.
So would, or do, Muslims consider Christians to be polytheists? I don't know. But it seems they would need to for that verse to really apply.
Although... Christian teaching holds the Old Testament to be as sacred and inerrant as the New, and that has many examples of God (the Father) commanding His people to stone the unclean and murder the infidels (which at the time would be anyone not a Jew, because of course the God of Israel was, exclusively, the God of Israel, (until He wasn't)) and the Book of Revelations is almost entirely about a holy war between Christians and Everyone and Everything Else.
Yet, I doubt you would find the majority of Christians or Jews holding to such a violent and literal interpretation of scripture. Some, yes, obviously. In the US at least, apocalyptic Christian theology is big business (just see the Left Behind and assorted clones in any bookstore) and big politics.
Nevertheless, it is no more the case that all Muslims want the infidels dead (but only a few are willing to pull the trigger) than it is that all Christians want every woman on her period within the city limits to be stoned to death. The truth is, most religious people are hypocrites, and the world remains the better for it, and both Islam and Christianity could (and have, now and then) justify genocide and hate with their Scriptures if they wanted, because both religions come from a time when those were SOP for religions and societies.
// Funny how both you and the notepad++ people felt the need to add a disclaimer btw.
The popular sentiment on most forums (at least ones I've seen) seem to equation the 'je suis charlie' statement with effective re-publishing of the offending cartoons.
You've gotta understand that Mohammad is a very significant and sacred symbol to Muslims everywhere. Printing cartoons Mohammad doing weird things is pretty seriously distressing moderate Muslims -- it's like if someone in America were to making fun of black people being slaves -- it's a no-no, you don't go there, it crosses a line, it's insulting black people, why do that? Of course everyone should have the right to print absolutely anything, but we adults should distance ourselves from childish and belligerent content like that.
You can't control how people interpret what you say. Granted, in this case it wouldn't have been too hard, but that's not the point.
> You've gotta understand that Mohammad [...]
I do actually. You sound exactly like my muslim friends (living in Egypt, Turkey, those kind of places) so we can cut this one short. The rules concerning Mohammad contradict freedom of expression. That's what we end up agreeing upon every time.
> it's like if someone in America were to making fun of black people being slaves
Like every american stand-up ever?
> but we adults should distance ourselves from childish and belligerent content like that.
Fuck that.
---
The problem is the contradiction. The simplest and most cynical solution is to just not live there if you don't like the rules. That obviously doesn't seem to work. So we have people being upset in one country about what people in another country are doing. Happens all the time — we got rules for that at the UN. They don't seem to work either. Compromise is not an option, because both religion and freedom of speech are all-or-nothing kind of ideas. So there really are only two choices left. Getting over it or going to war. Most people don't like war, but apparently that changes if all you ever saw was war.
It's really not as simple as that.
You have the "freedom" to do anything, what matters is what kind of consequences there will be after exercising that freedom. If you say antisemtic or racist things, you're going to get your platform taken away from you. If you're a CEO, you'll be fired (and if you control the board -- well, other companies will distance themselves from you, boycotts will take place, etc.). Would you say the laws governing antisemitism contradict freedom of speech? Indeed Charlie's cartoonists were fired for this, see:
1) http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired...
2) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
> Like every american stand-up ever?
I don't know of any popular American stand-up who can get away with saying anti-black things. Mel Gibson ruined his career by saying a few n-words and some antisemitic slurs, and he was a pretty big guy in the industry. Helen Thomas ruined her legacy by saying something antisemitic. No, there's no such thing as absolute, true freedom of speech. You can't say bigoted things in this day and age and survive.
Shouldn't be too hard to find many american comedians saying pretty outrages stuff on youtube. You can look that up yourself I guess. Mel Gibson isn't funny.
> You can't say bigoted things in this day and age and survive.
But that's exactly how comedy works. The point is comedians don't mean it. Mel Gibson probably did mean those things, but the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists didn't. They literally made a living drawing funny things they didn't mean. And everybody knows that. You don't have to think they're funny, of course, but we as a society have agreed upon that stopping them because of that can't be an option either.
Do let me pre-emptively say: I unequivocally condemn the recent killings of the cartoonists. I unequivocally support the right of anyone to say anything.
Okay, so there is something to consider here: indeed there are now more than a billion Muslims in the world who would not have killed these cartoonists, or even approve of the act of killing these cartoonists (I understand some will take issue with the latter part of my statement, this is just my current reading). Insofar as the 'I am Charlie' statement can be interpreted as approval of the supposedly offending cartoons, the statement could be said to be needlessly confrontational. It's turning things into a combative us (non-Muslims) vs them (Muslims) orientation. Look no further than this very cartoon for proof of this -- this is how these Muslim hacktivists interpreted Notepad++'s 'I am Charlie' stance.
I don't think this is strictly a freedom of speech issue. I saw a good example of this in a Reddit comment: when you enrage someone by calling them racist epithets, and they strike you back ... are the rest of you going to take the racist's side by repeating the racist epithet that invoked the retaliation? Mohammad is a very sacred symbol to Muslims, re-publishing offending material (and similarly approving of the cartoons by saying "I am Charlie") is just needlessly insulting and distressing the plenty of other moderate Muslims. The more this is done, the more those moderate Muslims will feel pressured and start to feel the need to also take a position... and guess whose side they will incline towards? They're surely not going to just throw away their religion, they'll probably verge toward an extremist position.
I'm only suggesting that the 'I am Charlie' sloganeering is a little too hastily thunk, a little too unthought. Of course absolutely everyone should have the right to say such a thing, but a mature and reasonable person would practice caution before saying it. I do admit though, that it's a bit of a challenge packing a sentiment like "I don't think Charlie cartoonists should have been killed, they should have the right to say or mock anyone, but I do generally disapprove of content that's racist, antisemitic, holocaust-denying, sexist, etc." into a nice 3-5 word long slogan.