One question is should people be murdered for expressing satirical views. The answer to that is no - nobody should be killed for expressing views on religion or on any subject.

The other question is what is the value of what Charles Hebdo was doing - was it good or bad? Was it sensible? Was it valuable critique or childish juvenalia?

The first question we all more or less agree with - I don't believe that even those who are most critical of Charles Hebdo believe they deserved what happened to them.

The second question there is a wide range of thought on - from complete support to thorough condemnation. As such that's the one that can provoke the fiery back and forth that DU loves. So that's where most of the debate is happening.

I personally think though that this is not a good time to be considering that second question - I can understand the temptation. It will provoke discussion, and that's what we like around here. But once you start considering the merits of what Charles Hebdo was doing, there's no question but it can come off as a faint endorsement of the murders that occurred.

And nobody should be murdered for expressing an opinion.

Bryant

We don't have to like it, we may be disgusted with it, but it makes us THINK. Thinking goes out the window for those who agree with others too quickly, before forming their own opinion. Those who have a difficult time seeing the grays in between black and white.

The French have had a disdain for organized religion since the French Revolution, their experiences with the Catholic Church during that time were horrific. Freedom of expression is important to them and we should all respect their desire to be able to do so without repercussion. I personally do not 'like' Charlie Hebdo's brand of satire, but who am I to judge? No one is in a position to judge.

"And nobody should be murdered for expressing an opinion".

Live and let live.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] But I wanted to say I agree with you here.[/font]

and thank you for the kind words.

I don't dislike everybody or even most who participate in that room, just the ones that I do dislike drive me right over a wall.

Bryant

People are debating whether it's inflammatory, racist, anti-semitic, Islamophobic etc.

It doesn't draw a simplistic black/white dichotomy and its message can be quite uncomfortable.

Perhaps when we really look into the mirror the enemy looks an awful lot like us. Then, perhaps, we can learn how to actually try to live the Golden Rule and see if that works better than what we have been doing throughout history.

And is he really going to describe as "moral" the question of whether or not American torture in the Iraq justifies self-censure of French cartoonists who lampoon all religions equally? The French rejected the Iraq War, and the American response was to call them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".

This guy is off topic on all counts. No logic, all heat and no light, all "tyranny of the emotions", and it's not even funny, unlike Charlie Hebdo.

with hooked noses resembling Nazi caricatures of Jews from the 30s or Muslim women as pregnant with Boko Haram babies and angry about losing their social welfare benefits.. Nope, no racism here, nosireee. Just move along now.

The journalists were discussing an Anti-Racism issue when they were shot in that meeting. Your head should be exploding right about now. You don't know what you're talking about, even if you can't know that. No hard feelings, eh? I won't educate you, but I will mention that I speak French fluently and have studied in French university at the Master's level.

The point of the Charlie Hebdo magazine is that they have the freedom to offend and ridicule everything and everybody, and they use it. It's an anti-politically correct magazine, that's the point.

The "racism" trump card is a "thought-stopper" here. French humor doesn't need to satisfy American tastes, the French are free.

I don't notice any difference between the Jewish and Muslim noses in this cartoon. The caption says "You must not laugh at us" (if you care)

to defend Hebdo's anti-racist credentials and keep a straight face:



Given all your French, I don't think I need to translate the headline text for you. But for the benefit of our non-Francophone audience:

African Americans are a race, and Muslims are a religion. They are not equitable. Do you understand that?

lineage to North Africa.

with an issue of their magazine devoted to denouncing rascism. They are guilty of being accused of being innocent, I suppose.

Charlie Hebdo is anti-PC, and jokes don't translate well or even at all. Personally I don't get this joke, so I can't explain it, but I'm going to go with Voltaire on principal, and defend their right to be offend.

France sent troops to Africa to fight Boko Haram, unlike the USA. Why would a rascist culture engage militarily to save Africans from Islamic extremists? Lots of head exploding should be happening...

The job of satirists is to expose the ridiculousness of the world. Charlie Hedbo and its artists and writers are taking part in trying to change things that make life so hard for so many. Not all agree on some of their targets (organized religion, for example - holy books don't stop bullets), but others - especially in much more secular and not-awed-by-religion Europe - do.

The cartoon is disingenuous because no, "driving into the sea" all of those who share any characteristics (ethnicity, religion, etc) of the terrorists is stupid. Killing French cartoonists because of Americam actions at Abu Gharaib is also stupid ... sort of like declaring war on Iraq because the US was attacked by Saudi nationals. It's all so frustratingly stupid that all some people can do is point it out with mean drawings.

And exactly what I would expect from that particular cartoonist.

I imagine if the victims of the attack were "Zionists" the response would be quite different.

in order to do it.

You nailed it. Bravo and thank you.

I am glad most people still embrace the sentiment behind the actual quote and not the satirical one you've presented here. Regrettably, many seem to prefer the latter.

Speaks volumes.

It's French anti-clericalism. It's gonzo journalism, which began with Jean-Paul Marat (not Hunter S. Thompson.)

But people want to throw it under the bus. As the kids say, I can't even.

There's something else Voltaire said, by the way --- ecrasez l'infame -- destroy infamy. It's a slogan properly addressed to all priestcraft and dogma, but we should remember, he used it first in reference to Islam. Oh yeah, I went there.

Are you sure?

have time to chase down the relevant material about his thoughts on Jews' 'innate character,' but this LTTE in the NYTimes recapitulates the terms of the debate rather nicely (and includes some examples):

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/30/books/l-voltaire-and-the-jews-590990.html

than right after a whole bunch of people were brutally murdered by offended people over stuff they said?