General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Jews have to stay in France. The Muslims as well.
The only ones who should leave alone us, the 66 milions of destinys are....
THE BIGOTS
THE LE PENS
THE HATERS
THE FASCIST.
Nous sommes Juifs.Musulmans. Chrétiens. Athées. Laïcs. Noirs. Arabes. Pauvres.Riches. Vieux. Jeunes. Hommes. Femmes. Enfants.
Nous sommes des etres humains.
Et nous n'avons pas peur.
WeAreNotAfraid.
We are Charlie.
ann---
(1,933 posts)I am NOT "Charlie" or any other news media that desecrates the religion of ANYONE. However, I support the right to publish whatever is legal, because no on has to read it if they don't want to.
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)Or does religion get a special pass?
I don't support or want to see the desecration of anything or anyone. Some people find that funny. I don't. But, I believe everyone should have the right to legally express their feelings and thoughts about religion or anything without being killed for it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's OK right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They are public figures and can be satirized. That is something they understand when they seek public office.
But it is not okay to mock their ethnicity, religion, families etc.
Do you think it IS? Far as I knew this country suppresses free speech more than most free countries.
Should Imus have been fired eg?
Should a journalist be jailed for refusing to reveal his sources?
And I agree with the poster you just addressed.
Satire is mean to target the powerful.
That publication targeted the powerless.
Some people enjoy that kind of humor, some do not.
I'm not saying it should be illegal, but you asked if it was okay.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I just notice that the folks who are all 'oh, don't dishonor any religion' are never around to comment about the various religious figures in various religions around the world that say terrible things about LGBT people and those who actually carry out terrible actions against us.
Can't help but notice that. They rush to the defense of religion while human beings are left to fend for themselves.
I don't think anyone or anything should be desecrated in cartoons or otherwise, but I ALSO said that everyone has the right to legal expression of their thoughts and feelings.
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)I don't think that you can desecrate something that isn't sacred. And vice versa. The word really has no meaning, except to point out a type of unveiling that makes people angry.
ann---
(1,933 posts)the "art" displaying a cross in urine and the cartoon of a naked Muhammad in a suggestive position would be "desecration" to me. Or any other word you want to use to describe something that is not respectful to the person being depicted in the art/cartoon.
Something doesn't have to be "sacred" in order to be debased like that. Again, I repeat - it is NEVER cause for violence or murder against those who use free expression to create those distasteful depictions.
If people don't like to see those things - don't go see them or buy the paper to look at them.
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)Art often pokes at our sensitivities, and our response says a great deal about ourselves. That's the point, really - self-examination, the opportunity to learn something, to have our assumptions challenged, our prejudices questioned, our weaknesses laid open. Not everyone wants that, and even open-minded people will have times in their lives where they need comfort more than question, but it does serve a real human purpose.
to me. That's why I won't look at that kind of art or read that kind of media. However. violence is not the way to express disagreement.
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)Why should this category of insult (as opposed to non-sacred insults or satire) get special consideration?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)then however you choose to represent it is not considered desecration (to you).
ann---
(1,933 posts)it shouldn't be done. Freedom of legal expression is a right. I'm saying I am not Charlie because I don't read or enjoy debasement of anyone or anything.
tblue
(16,350 posts)et les gens violents et les armes à feu.
PCIntern
(25,642 posts)at least that's what I read around here from time to time...
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)most of them would probably immigrate there. That would be a result that an Islamic terrorist would not want to be associated with.
I then wondered if decreasing the Jewish population in Western countries might weaken Western support for Israel in the long run. Even if Israel itself were strengthened by an influx of Western immigrants a decline in external support might be a win for its opponents.
Response to PCIntern (Reply #5)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
pampango
(24,692 posts)They believe in "France for the French". For the NF it does not matter that you may have been born in France or have a French passport, Jews and Muslims do not qualify. Until recently the NF was virulently anti-Semitic. Of late they have focused more on being anti-Muslim. But there is no fondness for either in the ranks of the right.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)More jews have been killed in France in terror attacks in the past 6 months than in Israel.
Hekate
(91,005 posts)I'm so sorry for the grief in your country.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,984 posts)Je suis contre le fascisme
Je suis contre le racisme
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)The political leaders throughout the world who derive power from keeping religious extremism alive. Those who refuse to seek political solutions to the issues that give rise to grievances.