Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

name not needed

(11,660 posts)
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:29 PM Jan 2015

We are all Charlie Hebdo, except those of us who aren't

This morning four cartoonists, including the magazine's Editor-in-Chief, and eight other people were shot to death in an attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo.

The magazine often ridicules the likes of the Virgin Mary, the Prophet Muhammad, and that general crowd. There are those who think Muhammad, Mary, and religious icons in general, should be beyond such light hearted criticism. In 2011 some religiously minded souls firebombed the magazine's offices, the day after it rather wittily announced the Prophet Muhammad as its new Guest Editor.

It appears - that is all we can say yet - that today's fatal gun attack was carried out by Islamists, which is of course not at all the same thing as saying that it was done by Moslems. Your average crazed gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" generally has about as much in common with his local Imam as Pope Frankie does with the most demented loon to attend one of Youth Defence's anti-abortion demos in Dublin last year. It could be said that the Catholic church's stance on abortion gives licence to the crazy fringe elements who go about the place with colour photos of aborted foetuses; as it could be argued that Moslem leaders who do not openly come out and say that a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo has every right to ridicule any aspect of any religion, including their own, are guilty of helping create an ambivalence on this issue which makes it easier for the crazies to pretend, to themselves and others, that they are in some way representative of Islam. You are either for free speech or you are against it; it is, more or less, that simple. About Moslem leaders who unequivocally condemn the murders in Paris but go on to say that they do not believe that a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo should be allowed publish what it does, it can credibly be argued in mitigation that no organised religion - at least none I am aware of - has ever actively campaigned for the right of others to ridicule it.

Back in 1979 Malcolm Muggeridge and the gay Bishop of Southwark argued on national television against the right of the Python comedians to make the film, The Life of Brian, which ridiculed both Christianity, and perhaps more dangerously for members of Actors Equity, the Workers Revolutionary Party. The internet is awash with right wing Christians, and a few Jews, shouting about how the Paris events prove that Islam is fundamentally different to either Christianity or Judaism. Well, yes, different in the way that Mr Ceausescu was different to Fidel Castro. We'd all have chosen Stalinism of the more sultry Cuban variety, if the only alternative was its much uglier Romanian cousin. But it is a difference of degree rather than a fundamental one.


http://www.mentioningthewar.blogspot.ie/2015/01/we-are-all-charlie-hebdo-except-those.html

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We are all Charlie Hebdo, except those of us who aren't (Original Post) name not needed Jan 2015 OP
I love this part.... MicaelS Jan 2015 #1
I like how the article called the absurd and vulgar cartoons "light hearted criticism"! Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #2
Well, this is not remotely true: brer cat Jan 2015 #3

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
1. I love this part....
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:36 PM
Jan 2015
Long before I ever heard the words Charlie Hebdo, I knew that many such peace activists have a troubled relationship with free speech. Like Priests or Imams, these people tend to take themselves immensely seriously. I suspect though that in quiet moments they privately realise that they are in fact quite silly and that, if the laughter started, the whole world might join in. If they held state power, which is admittedly a long way off, a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo would likely be banned or certainly censored. In the interests of the revolution, comrade, don't you understand.

brer cat

(24,578 posts)
3. Well, this is not remotely true:
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:53 AM
Jan 2015

"There are those who think Muhammad, Mary, and religious icons in general, should be beyond such light hearted criticism." I have attended many churches of several denominations (including the dreaded Southern and Primitive Baptists) and they were all able to take light hearted criticism of their foibles, even delighting in a bit of self deprecating humor.

I have looked at many of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo and I saw none that could be described as "light hearted." Do I think they should have been killed for the cartoons they published? Of course not, but let's be truthful in describing what they did. They pushed the envelope as far as possible, it was a poke in the eye to the jihadists, and they were well aware of the risks they were taking. I don't think Stéphane Charbonnie said that he would prefer to die standing because he was afraid they might come break his pencils.

I admire them for their courage in support of freedom of speech, especially since they obviously knew the risks were huge, and I totally abhor the violence of the jihadists here and elsewhere. I join in grieving for their deaths, but I find their "art" totally lacking in taste and decorum, and I believe that the world would be a better and safer place if we exercized a bit more civility.

Ah well, I'm an old lady and I find much that is lacking in taste and decorum.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We are all Charlie Hebdo,...