Charlie Hebdo Massacre

'Je suis Charlie'? No, You're Not, or Else You Might Be Dead

|

One of the spontaneous social-media reactions to the Charlie Hebdo massacre today was the Twitter hashtag #JeSuisCharlie ("I am Charlie"). It's an admirable sentiment, resonant with the classic post-9/11 Le Monde cover "Nous sommes tous Americains." It's also totally inaccurate.

If we—all of us, any of us—were Charlie Hebdo, here are some of the things that we might do:

|||

* Not just print original satirical cartoons taking the piss out of Islamic-terrorist sensibilities, but do so six days after you were firebombed for taking the piss out of Islamic-terrorist sensibilities (pictured), and do so in such a way that's genuinely funny (IMO) and even touching, with the message "Love is stronger than hate."

* Not just print original cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad—a historical figure, lest we forget—but then defending and winning the right to do so after being charged with offensive speech.

* Not just survive such crucibles, but stubbornly resist letting them consume your very being, either by becoming an anti-Islamist obsessive, or a semi-apologetic convert (remember: even the unfathomably brave Salman Rushdie converted to Islam for a while there), or disappearing yourself in the witness protection program, a la the Seattle alt-weekly cartoonist Molly NorrisCharlie Hebdo kept being what it has always been—a satirical, juvenile, and funny check on power and authority and pomposity of all stripes. Do a Google Image search on "Charlie Hebdo" and "Jesus," and then ask yourself which media entity in this Culture-War-scarred country, with its stronger free-speech protections, would have the courage and latitude to blaspheme both major religions.

|||

Look at the cover of this recent Charlie Hebdo collection, which sits proudly on my desk: Those aren't the heads of ancient religions, those are heads of the French state, dressed up like gangsters. The newspaper didn't just run cartoons, it blasted authority and piety of all stripes, beginning with the pompous asses who tend to run France, and the equally pompous (but more subservient) hacks in the national press. The paper actually got its start in 1970 when another satirical publication was shuttered for its disrespect at the funeral of Charles De Gaulle. It frequently published stuff that most journalists know, but are too afraid to stand by.

The cartoonists who were killed today—Wolinski, Cabu, Tignous, Charb—were some of the most beloved figures in modern French life. Contra some of the nonsense being mouthed today by fools on Twitter, these weren't some kind of Andrew Dice Clay acts looking for ever-more vulnerable minorities to kick; Cabu, for instance, is most famous for creating the provincial, typical-French character Mon Beauf, who he mocks for being crude and bigoted toward minorities. My French father-in-law, whose Gaullist-flavored politics were certainly satirized by Cabu over the years, said that today felt like being stabbed in the heart.

So no, we're all not Charlie—few of us are that good, and none of us are that brave. If more of us were brave, and refused to yield to the bomber's veto, and maybe reacted to these eternally recurring moments not by, say, deleting all your previously published Muhammad images, as the Associated Press is reportedly doing today, but rather by routinely posting newsworthy images in service both to readers and the commitment to a diverse and diffuse marketplace of speech, then just maybe Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have stuck out so much like a sore thumb. It's harder, and ultimately less rewarding to the fanatical mind, to hit a thousand small targets than one large one.

And it's not just those of us in the media business who have failed to be Charlie Hebdo. Every person in the broader West, whether it be a Financial Times editor or the president of the United States, who wrongly thinks that speech should not offend, and falsely believes that artistic commentary can somehow incite murderous violence, are also contributing to an ever-worsening cultural climate of speech, and therefore freedom.

Today is an awful day for the basic project of free inquiry. Do you really wanna be Charlie Hebdo? Then get on out there, live and speak bravely. And God help you.

NEXT: Catholic League President Bill Donohue on Charlie Hebdo: 'Muslims Are Right to Be Angry'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. May want to finish this thought

    “Do a Google Image search on “Charlie Hebdo” and “Jesus,” and then ask yourself which media entity in this Culture-War-scarred country, with its stronger free-speech protections, ”

    and cut this extra ” It’s harder, and ultimately less rewarding to the fanatical mind, to hit a thousand small targets than one large one.hose Gaullist-flavored politics were certainly satirized by Cabu over the years, said that today felt like being stabbed in the heart.

    1. That’s Lucy-grade stuff right there. Bravo, Matt. Bravo.

      1. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!

        1. You know who else shouldn’t have talked about Lucy…

          1. Charlie Brown?

          2. The Beatles, w/Lucy in the Sky?

          3. Lucy AL 288-1, the pre-human fossil woman?

  2. Well, now we know who edits the editors.

    1. Yes, and it’s good to be reminded of our own cowardice when it comes to satire. Email parodies judged inappropriate have now been criminalized in New York

      (see the documentation of one leading case at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/ )

      without a single editorial comment from any newspaper, and our hypocritical politicians were quick to condemn a little film satirizing the Prophet Mohammed.

      In general, groups like the ACLU have backed down from their aggressive defense of free expression rights over the past decade, and we live in an atmosphere of foolish complacency, with people simply shrugging their shoulders if some kind of speech that we “really don’t like” is censored or suppressed. If you don’t stand up for everyone’s rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when your own rights ultimately get trampled on.

      1. If you don’t stand up for everyone’s rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when your own rights ultimately get trampled on.

        This. I almost feel the best thing this country could do is bring back civics in a Heinlein sort of way.

      2. “If you don’t stand up for everyone’s rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when your own rights ultimately get trampled on.”

        Well that’s what you should tell these now-dead “heroes of free speech” because their view of free speech was more along the lines of “I want the freedom to say what I want – and ridicule your religion -, but I couldn’t care less about your right to do the same” than “I respect your freedom to say what you want and offend me, so that in turn you do the same for me”.
        There were quite ready to call for censoring of those they politically opposed (e.g. “the far-right”).

        Anyway legal protection for free speech is decreasing by the minute here, so I hope what you yanks take away from this is that you should indeed defend the First Amendment while you still have it.

        1. Actually they have a nice little system now (with which they’ve replaced serious investigative journalism), whereby free speech means having “two points of view” expressed, one by a “liberal” and one by a “conservative.” One spokesperson for those who oppose torture, one for those who support it. Etc. You’ll look in vain for any real debate taking place in an American university, nowadays everything is equivalent, including virtually any degree of charlatanry: one mustn’t say or do anything that could diminish someone’s “reputation,” precisely as the New York Court of Appeals explained in the Golb decision. It’s a very limp vision of free expression, and part of the problem has to do with the fact that the words “free expression” and “freedom of conscience” are not included in the First Amendment… There’s freedom OF religion in America (= rampant religion in the public square), not freedom FROM religion. A very different system from French secularism. The gentrified NYTimes has now captured this perfectly, by refusing to post images of the cartoons because they might offend certain readers. The excuse given, of course, was that the cartoons don’t meet NYTimes “standards.”

  3. “Because, C3PO, a protocol droid won’t rip your arms off and beat you to death with them.”
    The world is FULL of protocal droids and we just lost a bunch of actual people today.

  4. Do a Google Image search on “Charlie Hebdo” and “Jesus,” and then ask yourself which media entity in this Culture-War-scarred country, with its stronger free-speech protections,

    Saying something Welch?

    And did you forget the whole Reign of Terror and Dechristianization campaign?

  5. Not just print ogirinal cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad

    I don’t really care about your typo, I care more that everyone keeps calling him “The Prophet Muhammad…” Grinding my gears, Matt.

    1. What else would you call him?

        1. The most common name on Earth?

          1. Wouldn’t that be ‘Chan’?

            1. More likely “Zhang”.

          2. The most common name on Earth?
            ————–
            Perhaps, but in the proper context (i.e. terror), it’s easy to know which one is being referred to.

        2. Do you have any idea how many Muhammads there are?

          1. There’s a number of Jesus’ down south I hear. I guess to identify him we should, by convention in the media, call him The Son of God Jesus every time we talk about him. That wouldn’t be a capitulation or anything…

            1. “Jesus Christ” is generally used when people want to make it clear which Jesus they are talking about.

              Muhammad is a Prophet. That doesn’t mean he actually was in contact with God or deserves any respect. Just that he wrote down some crazy shit. As long as they don’t start adding PBUH, or whatever it is, Prophet Muhammad seems reasonable.

              1. So, should we start writing “Prophet crazy-guy-who-lives-outside-my-apartment” when necessary?

                1. bwhaaaha

      1. Yeah seems like the thing to call him. Got to distinguish him from all the other Muhammads. Like most prophets he was some asshole who used people’s natural desire to believe in something beyond the crappy world we live in to manipulate people to do his will. The problem is assuming that being a prophet is generally a good or commendable thing.

        1. Crappy world we live in? Crappy compared to what? Know of a better one?

          1. I don’t know of one, but a lot of religions promise one. I actually rather like this world.

      2. Propho Momo!

        1. M-dog. That’s good

      3. How about “the merchant warlord muhammad”?

        -jcr

        1. That would be most correct.

      4. What else would you call him?

        The mad prophet of Islam?

        1. Prophet mad moobs?

      5. “That Raving Pervert”?

    2. Prophets are generally insane or evil and manipulative people who write down crap that they say came from God. Doesn’t that describe Muhammad?

      1. No. He was illiterate and everything about him was written centuries later.

    3. “*A* Prophet Muhammad”

  6. the courage and latitude to blaspheme both major religions

    Ah – Buddhism AND Jainism….yes

    1. That’s spelled J-A-Y-N-E…

      1. Follow the hat!

  7. Do a Google Image search on “Charlie Hebdo” and “Jesus,” and then ask yourself which media entity in this Culture-War-scarred country, with its stronger free-speech protections, would have the courage and latitude to blaspheme both major religions.

    Considering the Reign of Terror and the Dechristianization campaign, actual Cultural Wars mind you, attacking Jesus isn’t particularily brave or unusual on Charlie Hebedo’s part.

    1. Attacking Jesus is tolerant since Christianity is the religion of intolerance. While Islam is the religion of peace. I mean, there’s like nothing more peaceful than murder and stuff, right?

      1. The religion of peace – the peace that comes with death.

      2. “Attacking Jesus is tolerant since Christianity…”

        I don’t know where you live but it can’t be here in the Bible Belt. As a devout atheist, I have been confronted with violence numerous times for ridiculing The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Prophet Moses. I agree the Muslims are more barbaric in defense of their beliefs, but Christians (and Jews) are not as far behind as they would like to believe.

    2. France has a long history of anti-clericalism and anti Christianity. It is difficult to imagine anyone in France paying any kind of price for attacking Jesus in France anything in the last hundred or so years.

      He is of course perfectly free to do so of course and some of them may have actually been funny. But whatever they were, they were not courageous.

      1. It is difficult to imagine anyone in France paying any kind of price for attacking Jesus in France anything in the last hundred or so years.

        Well there was that movie theatre that showed the Last Temptation of Christ…

        France has a long history of anti-clericalism and anti Christianity.

        Yeah, the French Left has had that from the beginning so Charlie Hebedo isn’t doing anything really all that unusual in attacking Christianity.

        And what was with the “this Culture-War-scarred country” bit? France has had actual religious wars and government-sponsored repression and massacres of religious groups.

        1. That is just Welch letting is ignorant American fly. Yeah, we haven’t had a no shit culture war since the Civil War. France in contrast massacred the Cathers, later the Hugonauts and then of course there is that whole French Revolution thing and that unpleasant event we like to call Vichy France.

          1. Jason and the Hugonauts is a great story.

            1. Well played. Some of John’s creative spellings are too good to let pass by.

            2. I liked the Golden Fleece part. Where WJB gets all worked up on the Gold Standard. Classic stuff.

              1. Wasn’t that Space Odysseus?

          2. And we can go a whole year without someone flipping over or setting fire to a Citroen.

            1. To be fair, all you have to do is try to start a Citroen to set it on fire.

              1. I can’t imagine it takes much more to get one to flip over either.

                1. People just assume that those Citroens were flipped over and set on fire by protestors, but really they just tend to do that sometimes.

                  1. Jacques, can you come help me, my car flipped over during the night.

                    And bring the fire extinguisher.

              2. Unsafe at Zero Speed.

            2. Giles had the ugliest Citroen ever…and the best looking one. What’s up with that?

              1. You misspelled Citron.

          3. The St. Bartholomew’s massacre was some messed up shit.

            Although, keep in mind that a lot of the “religious” persecution was highly political.

            I view the crusades as politicized religion. It’s not really about the religion, it’s about the power.

            1. Ehh…The Crusades were a lot more complicated than that. Yeah, its about power in broad terms, but so is everything in politics, its not that special. There are a helluva lot of people with drastically different motives taking part in the crusades. That’s a large part of why they failed. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

            2. This assumes that religion isn’t political and about power. When was that true?

    3. Considering the Reign of Terror and the Dechristianization campaign, actual Cultural Wars mind you, attacking Jesus isn’t particularily brave or unusual on Charlie Hebedo’s part.

      That is true, but not relevant to Matt’s question. He is asking what publication in the US, where Christians are more influential, would do the same.

      1. South Park.

      2. Family Guy

        Book of Mormon

        Countless shows that attack the Religious Right.

      3. Mencken

        Elmer Gantry

      4. Piss Christ

        1. Which one of those mocks Islam? South Park, I guess.

          1. Shifting the goal posts…

            Also the left used to not like Muslims very much, until they got all multicultural and such.

            1. The French Communists used to oppose Feminism, homosexuality and immigration but now they do.

            2. No, just poorly stated. I didn’t realize that insulting Islam wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the quoted passage.

      5. New York Times, New Yorker, pretty much any MSM outlet on any given day.

        Along with some of the columnists at Reason.

  8. this Culture-War-scarred country

    Comparing the US to a country with actual religious wars and government-mandated attacks on religion?

    1. If you don’t want to make an omelette, you have to throw some eggs.

  9. You could always paint an image of Mohammed on the surface of the moon and let that element spend themselves into the poorhouse building a space program to get up there and erase it. Or, I suppose, nuke the moon.

    1. Good idea, or at the bottom of a volcano (or just tell them it’s there)

    2. Or better yet, take a picture of a Martian rock formation that when viewed from the proper angle kinda-sorta looks like it spells God is Great in Arabic and let them spend a fortune trying to build a spaceship to get there and build a temple.

    3. Force them to nuke Muhammad’s child molesting face.

      1. Cause we all know that space program is a long ways off for them.

        1. Nah, they’re good with bombs – they’ll just build a Wang bullet.

          Space access is easy – as long as you don’t need your cargo to be ‘alive’ at the end.

          1. As a number of a dogs and chimpanzees have learned.

          2. They’re saving their wangs for the 72 virgins.

    4. Wouldn’t it be easier to get the moon-landing hoaxers back together to convince Muslims that North Korea had created a giant statue of Kim Jong Un stepping on Muhammad (add Jesus, Buddha, and the Ten Commandments, just to be safe). You know, to prove his superiority over the rest of the world’s superstitions. Then we hijack their internet and create a fake Nork social network where all their leaders say horrible stuff about Muhammad all the time.

      1. Hmm, from Popehat’s experience you’d get a lot of support from the MSM – they don’t seem to be able to tell parody from truth when it purports to come from NK.

    5. Yes sir, Muhammed is at the bottom of the well, he personally sent me to tell you to go down there. All your friends are waiting down there for you, just dive on in.

  10. Twitter was idiotic from the start, but the utterly effortless hashtag social-signaling shit is orders of magnitude worse than average Twitter. It has to be the emptiest, most meaningless, sacrifice-free social signaling bullshit there has ever been. So of course it’s now used for EVERYTHING.

    1. #jesuisepisarch

        1. Your mom? Well, whatever that is in French.

          1. Ta mere?

            And you know who else would say, “Deine Muetter!”

        2. Royale wit’ cheese

    2. #bringbackourgirls

      #illridewithyou

      1. Been away from Reason a lot over Christmas so don’t know if the, ahem,
        misunderstanding over the origins of the latter was covered.

        Warning: autostart video.

        1. #iwouldridethat

    3. What is the alternative? They could go out and bust some heads I suppose. But I don’t think you would like that very much either.

      Other than endlessly and constantly slandering Muhammad and reprinting these cartoons, what are people supposed to do besides nothing or resort to violence?

      1. Huh? Is this in response to me? Because the “alternative” is to not pretend, using just a fucking hashtag, that you are actually doing something about, well, anything in this case. It’s just more moral narcissism.

        1. I wasn’t sure what you were bitching about. Yeah, a hashtag is a waste of time. Put the fucking cartoon up over and over again. Make these people understand that all murdering these people did was make the cartoons more common not less.

  11. It sounds fairly craven for the AP to be deleting all their previously published Mohammed images, but I wonder how much they feel threatened by radical Muslims as opposed to how much they feel threatened by their own lawyers.

  12. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise

    Le Point reported French police were focusing on two suspects that the magazine described as “French-Algerian.” According to Le Point the two men, who were 32 and 34-years old, returned to France from Syria last summer.

    1. Jesus fucking Christ. The NSA captured every cellphone call and e-mail the murderers ever made. They stop. Every. Terrorist. Attack.
      Obviously, something other than terrorism was going on here.

      1. But only in America.

        Because, warrants, or something.

  13. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..arlie.html

    Here is the Daily Mail’s coverage of the demonstrations against this in Paris. There do not seem to be any French Muslims in the photos. Maybe they are there and are blending into the crowd. And I have yet to read of a single instance of demonstrations against this act occurring in any Muslim area of France.

    So the question is, why not? I assume it is because the Muslims in France see no reason to demonstrate against this act because they don’t see anything wrong with it even though they themselves would not actually commit such an act. If that is not the case, then what evidence is there to say that it isn’t?

    1. “NOT AERAID”? Me either.

    2. Either they agree with it or they’re afraid of being beaten up by the mob. Knowing nothing really about the climate in France, I’d guess the later is plausible.

      1. The ones in the center of Paris, sure. But there are plenty of places in France where they are the mob. What about those places? And Muslims in the UK or America could come out couldn’t they?

        1. I would prefer not to believe that a moderate Muslim is one who wants an extremist Muslim to murder me, but that may be how a lot of them think. I dunno. I will say that Muslims who don’t care about their nominal religion are a lot of fun to party with, that’s about all I know.

          1. Well I hate to poop on your party, but here is this link

          2. I would prefer not to believe that a moderate Muslim is one who wants an extremist Muslim to murder me,

            Me too. But no one ever said the world is always the way you want it to be.

    3. I think part of it could be fear of repercussions. Either way it reflects badly on Islam.

      1. or I should say it reflects badly on the Islamic community

      2. That is the thing. I suspect any such demonstration would get you killed in a Muslim neighborhood. So, yeah a good number of them probably are just as appalled as the rest of us by this. But apparently a good number are not.

        1. I went to Morocco once as a solo traveller. I wasn’t killed but obviously I was extremely lucky. What was I fucking thinking?!

          1. Did you walk around with a cartoon of Muhammad on your shirt? If not, then what the fuck are you saying here other than you are an idiot who doesn’t understand metaphors?

            1. Close. My t-shirt said ‘Fuck Mohhammed VI and his dad Hassan Ii’. Because the biggest problem with Morocco is that it’s a police state, not that most of its citizenry identifies as Muslim.

              1. Your shirt said nothing like that and you are just talking out of your ass shitting on the thread because it points to facts you don’t like. Well, too fucking bad.

        2. But apparently a good number are not.

          Polling of “moderate” Muslims. No small proportion of them are supportive of murdering any western men, women and children.

        3. Well, the orthodox belief is that insulting the Prophet means you die, no?

          From my perspective as a non-religious non-believer, of course the attitude of Muslims who think this is OK is terrible. But if I try to look at it from the perspective of someone who does believe that God sets rules that the world must live by, it seems to me that you had better do what God says, even if it seems immoral and evil to our puny human minds.

          1. It would seem to me that they have always been much more interested in having you do what THEY say God says.

            1. In the case of Islam, I think God tells them to make you do what God tells them you should do.

      3. Islam reflects badly on the Islamic community.

        1. Pakistani community in Houston hangs pretty close to the Indian community. Haven’t read too much about them killing each other in this city with a pretty good economy and good work opportunities. I’m a bit dismayed sometimes how people posting on a free minds blog assign people to respective ant farms. True, ant farms exists, but that’s up to the individual to cede himself to the identity.

          1. If they object to this, why aren’t they saying anything? If they are, show me a link to where they are and make your point.

            1. I was pointing out that their are many different Islamic communities and they are mostly more different by associated place of origin than they are similar by the glue of religion.
              Indians and Pakastanis dress similarly, speak essentially the same language, shared the same colonial overlords and eat the same food.

              1. Indians and Pakastanis dress similarly, speak essentially the same language, shared the same colonial overlords and eat the same food.

                Yet, as soon as they got they chance, they split into two separate countries with frosty (at best) relations

                1. I’m trying to point out that most of them who live in America could give a fuck about all that except maybe in a cricket match.

            2. I’m not sure why they are obliged to say anything.

              Do all Christians have to explicitly condemn everything bad that anyone does in the name of Christianity?

              1. Yes Zeb they fucking are. And you would expect them to. Give me a break.

                1. As a white American male, am I obligated to apologize for the previous enslavement of blacks in America? Or the death and destruction of Native Americans and their tribes, and the encroachments on their lands? Am I obligated to do so?

                  I’d have thought that libertarian types were more in favor of indvidual rights and responsibilities, and less into group discrimination. So some radical Muslims engage in terrorism. Let’s go after them, instead of blaming moderate Muslims for not making themselves bigger targets in a bigoted society.

              2. This is my thought. If every member of every self-identifying group has to apologize for every immoral act of other people self-identifying with them then we’d all spend all day saying sorry to one another and get nothing done. Moreover, these aren’t concrete groups with selective membership and top down control. How the fuck are they going to collectively but, also individually call John and say sorry for something they didn’t do, to someone they aren’t aware exists, for someone they had no control over being in their “group?” The entire idea is asinine.

                Honestly, I like you John, on the rare occasions I post anyone, we agree more than we don’t but, you’ve trotted out this argument numerous times and it really doesn’t make any sense.

                1. I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Comparing believers of a religion with people with a certain skin color doesn’t quite work. The latter was born that way. You can’t choose to be white or black. But you can choose to be a muslim. You can choose to be a christian. You can choose to be a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian. You can choose to be a feminist. You can choose to be a humanitarian. And you can choose to not be any of these things. You get the idea. There are extremists in practically every group. But most groups denounce acts of extremism and try to disassociate from those extremists. If they don’t then the extremist position may become the face of the group. While I think individually, muslims don’t have to apologize for actions they haven’t done. I think on the larger scale, muslims need to make it known that such acts of violence are unacceptable. The problem is that I hear about moderate muslims not accepting violence, it’s difficult to see them. When these acts occur, they are silent on the matter. They are letting these acts of violence define their group and they are silent. And by defining themselves with that group they are tarnishing their reputation. So no need to apologize, but it would be better for them to denounce such violence, especially when others commit such acts in their group’s name. Individually, they don’t have to do anything. They just shouldn’t expect that people trust them when the public side is the extremist side.

          2. I’m a bit dismayed sometimes how people posting on a free minds blog assign people to respective ant farms.

            Sometimes what seems like base hatred, is actually rational antipathy based on cultural characteristics of that particular “ant farm” of beliefs.

            1. I don’t worry much about hatred. I worry about proscribing a religion, an idea, etc. because of x y or z. I don’t believe that a religious sect is a part of anyone’s dna. Perhaps religiousity in general, but not a particular sect.
              Ergo, I think that it is dangerous, in the protection of freedom, to assign people to a particular creed by accident of birth. Expression through speech and action are the only way to determine one’s credo and I accept that most people are capable of change of weltanschauung during their lives.

            2. Libertarians should have a more specific issue with Islam, not just rational antipathy based on religion.

              Islam is much more than a religion; It’s a system of government and law, one which happens to conflict with basic Libertarian values like secularism, negative rights, and individual liberty.

              1. Yes, this. To modify a phrase, “Libertarianism is not a suicide pact.”

    4. because they don’t see anything wrong with it even though they themselves would not actually commit such an act.

      I really want that link to the poll of “moderate” western Muslims that Reason published, at least on the site. It was pretty indicative of this point you make here.

      1. Muslims are people too. Do they want to live in a world where you can be killed for blaspheming Muhammad? If not, then they have just as much reason to be angry as anyone else.

        1. it would appear they are comfortable in a world where you can be killed for mocking Muhammad. Whether they want that or not seems immaterial.

          1. I think we all agree that most people are sheep. Muslims certainly aren’t exempt. But it isn’t exactly fair to single someone out that was accidentally born a Muslim.

        2. Muslims are people too

          They’re also the ones peddling the belief system that does thusly. They ought to direct their anger towards the nearest mirror.

        3. Do they want to live in a world where you can be killed for blaspheming Muhammad?

          Apparently, yes.

          1. I recall recently reading about a youth from India and another from Syria that were recruited into ISIS and defected as concientious objectors. Wish I had the links. Not every German from WWII is guilty of Kriegschuld. Not everyone from the South is virulent racist.

    5. Because you do not see what seem to be any Muslims in photos in a Daily Mail article covering a demonstration you’re concluding there are no Muslims involved in any demonstrations in Paris?

      1. are you serious? If there were Muslims demonstrating, some media outlet (likely many) would be racing to show you that “see, most muslims really are peaceful; they don’t condone this act.” And yet, that is not happening. Just stop. There are way too many media outlets today.

        1. There must not be any because if there were the media I distrust would have shown them!

          1. at some point, Bo, silence is acceptance. Were there any protesting Muslims, some outlet would have covered it. You feel free to put all media outlets into a neat little pile that lets you confirm your biases, though.

            1. I do know that many Muslim organizations, clerics and scholars have denounced it and that’s been amply covered (google it).

    6. There do not seem to be any French Muslims in the photos.

      Uhm, John – how *Could you tell*?

      The sneaky thing about muslims is *they look like everybody else*.

      1. I am willing to admit there might be a few. But show me one woman in those pictures with a head scarf. Show me one person holding a sign saying they are a Muslim. Many Muslims in France really do dress and look different than your typical Frenchman. So, yeah, if they were there in large numbers, you could tell.

        Are you so narrow minded you didn’t know that? Do you not know that Muslims often dress differently that other Westerners?

        1. lol, this is great!

          1. Wow Bo. your ignorance of the world is really fucking amazing. Have you ever been to France? If you had, you would understand that anyone saying “hey they could be there and you just might be able to tell its them” is being ridiculous. There are Muslims all over Paris and they stick out.

            Jesus fucking Christ, maybe there were some Hasidic Jews in those photos too hiding out in plain clothes or something.

            1. You know that point about Hasidim is a good one – you know who wears ‘muslim dress’? Their orthodox muslim counterpoints.

            2. John, it’s ridiculous.

              Here’s a picture from newspaper coverage of the famous March on Washington, 1963.

              http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/08/26/…..ic-justice

              Since I can see no white persons in it, I can deduce that no white people were involved in the march!

              That’s the level you’re arguing at here.

              1. No. But if that were the only evidence available, that would not be an unfair assumption.

                You are just assuming there must be Muslims there because Muslims are wonderful. If there are, show me the evidence of it. Until then, fuck off.

                1. You’re fantastic. You claim Muslims must not be there because you can’t see any in any picture in a single paper’s story, and when called on such absurdity your response is ‘well, can you prove they were there, show me evidence they were!’

                  You made the silly claim John, not me.

                  1. I am asking you to prove a positive you fucking half wit. I can’t prove the negative that they are not there, but you can prove the positive that they are.

                    Do yourself a favor and figure out the difference between proving a positive and a negative.

                    The bottom line is you know my claim is true and you can’t prove the positive and you just won’t admit it. If you had evidence proving they were there you would show it.

                    Stop insulting everyone’s intelligence for once in your life.

        2. Dude, I lived in Italy, been to France many times, Spain, and Greece (among other places). I currently live in a place with an extended muslim family (uh, they live in the same town, not with me).

          I’ve been to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, worked in Oman.

          I’ve seen muslims. Lot’s of muslims.

          No, they *don’t* tend to dress differently, outside of the head-scarf for women – which a lot don’t wear because they live in a western-culture nation.

          You know who wears the ghotra and thobe? People who live in hot fucking climates, regardless of their religion.

          1. What the fuck are you talking about. Half the men in Public in the Gulf are wearing man dresses and the women are always in head scarfs in public. And the other half of the men that are in suits have the Arab head scarf thing on.

            I have been to those places too. And you are full of shit. Moreover, the Muslims in France are generally black Algerians or very Semitic looking. They look nothing like your typical Frenchman.

            1. Uh, that was my point about the thobe – *everyone* wears it, Christian, Mulsim, whatever, because is not a *muslim* thing, its a *hot-fucking-climate* thing.

              Youcould say its an Arab thing and therefore muslim – but that would be like saying the sombrero is catholitc because Mexicans wore them.

              Moreover, the Muslims in France are generally black Algerians or very Semitic looking.

              1. You’re painting North Africans (and arabs) with a broad brush – Islam is the majority religion, its far from the only one and several types of Christianity have large groups.

              2. How would you know if Pierre, the 4th generation French-Algerian was actually muslim? Is it a ‘one-drop’ thing? ‘Coon in the woodpile’?

              1. I wouldn’t necessarily know that, except that if his wife was wearing a head scarf I would. Again, if Muslims are protesting this, show me where they are. Don’t sit there and play this “well they might be there” bullshit.

                1. My playing ‘they might be there’ is just going by your ‘they’re not there’ rules.

                  And what if Pierre’s wife wasn’t muslim? What if Giselle and Pierre were only nominally muslim but were not strict adherents and Giselle just didn’t want to wear the damn scarf today.

                  1. What if? If they are show me. If not, shut the fuck up an stop talking out of your ass. I am not asking you to prove a negative. If Muslims are angry about this, show me where they are. Otherwise stop wasting my time with “well what if”.

                    1. I’m not asking you either – I’m pointing out to you that your premise (I can tell muslims by looking at them) is horribly flawed.

                      That picture doesn’t prove anything either way – though I will admit that its likely 99.9% non-muslims and .1% muslims who got lost on the way to the bus station.

                2. Some Christian sects demand head scarves. The whole head scarf thing is lost on western culture. Head scarves hide hair which is very very sexy in different cultures. Kinda like how some people get freaky about tits and toplessness.

          2. Hajib is very common in the Netherlands and Germany, and I see more Muslim in Houston, Texas wearing them. I even seen fully veiled women the mall in Houston.

            1. But the *lack* of a hijab is not a guarantee of someone not being muslim.

    7. What evidence? Oodles of muslims who have said that they are afraid to voice opposition to the radicals because they will be killed. There is that.

      Also, no muslims in that crowd because they are afraid of the frogs too after what happened.

      Those are two possibilities, but I will grant that your reason is the most likely.

  14. Ya know, after all the derp this morning about “Islam bad” I feel compelled to point out that every Abrahamic faith (for those at home Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) is guilty of the same sad chapters in human history. Starting with Exodus and the genocide of innocent native peoples. That is not only part of their faith but lauded. Also, “Islam treats women badly” mantra, for fucks sake both Jews and Christians have some fucked up ideas about vajayjays and periods and what not.

    I get it, people are pissed and want to lash out at a group. But ignoring the EXACT SAME FAULTS THEIR RELIGION ONCE WAS AND SOMETIMES STILL IS GUILTY OF is absolutely mind blowing. And I am not even an atheist. Just because your religions figured out that shit was bad doesn’t mean others can’t too. And I bet your ideas on Islam echo Saladin’s ideas on Christians so how did that help them become civilized? Just sayin’.

    1. That is ridiculous Bandit. What is going on today matters. What happened 3500 years ago in Egpt, not so much.

      And please show me where Christians and Jews are forcibly circumcising young girls or doing anything approaching the level of misogyny that goes on in many Muslim countries.

      The three religions are equivalent today by any objective measure. Appealing to “but what about something that happened 3000 years ago” doesn’t balance the scale.

      1. Almost all Christians today happily ignore what Christians are supposed to do, and the Maccabees would slaughter almost all of today’s Jews for being apostates. The progress the civilized monotheims have made is entirely because they’ve lost their religion, I’d argue. Someday Muslims will grow up, and that will be exactly the day that they quit being Muslim.

        1. “The progress the civilized monotheims have made is entirely because they’ve lost their religion, I’d argue.”

          I agree. Most modern Christians gleefully ignore the stated precepts of their own Gospels. That’s a good thing.

          Hopefully Islamists will one day become similarly delusional and pretend to be religious when they actually aren’t.

        2. Yes, they ignore what Christians are supposed to do. They don’t give up their possessions, they don’t love their enemies, they commit lust, they are prideful, they lie, all kinds of things.

          Whatever their failures as Christians, it is not their failure to kill and enslave all non Christians or demand that anyone who offends them be imprisoned or killed.

          1. I’m not arguing. The Koran is way more appalling than the Bible.

            1. I’m not sure the Koran is way more appalling than the Old Testament.

              1. +5 Kings of Midian

                1. Good point. Maybe it’s just that god of the bible only ordered his people to conquer Caanan, not the world.

                  1. Well whichever version of Yahweh you prefer, both accounts can agree that he’s a stupendous dick. As scores of dead Amalakite babies cannot attest.

          2. Christians accept the Old Testament as God’s Word too. Doesn’t anyone around here actually go to church?

            1. No they don’t. That is the most idiotic thing people claim on here. The new testament is the new covenant. The old laws and convent are null and void. Its why Christians don’t keep Kosher.

              If you think the old Testament is harsh and contains barbaric rules, Christians agree with you. That is why they don’t follow those rules and consider to have a new pact with God.

              1. If you go to any Christian church this Sunday you are as likely to hear a sermon or homily focused on an Old Testament verse or story as you are a New Testament one. Anyone who goes regularly knows that. The idea that the old laws and covenant are ‘null and void’ to most Christians is flat out wrong.

                1. So what? That doesn’t mean the laws of the Old Testament still apply. And what you will mostly hear are passages from the Old Testament that are consistent with and considered to be precursors to ones in the New Testament.

                  Whatever sins Christianity is answerable for, the fact that the Old Testament says it is okay to enslave people or beat your wife isn’t one of them.

                  1. You mean they ignore some awful parts of the Old Testament or interepret them in light of later verses that ameliorate their awfulness? Well, this is exactly what moderate muslims do about awful parts of the Koran.

                    I mean really. You do realize that about 90% of the child raising advice from the Bible that Christians point to is from the Old Testament?

                    1. Except that the vast majority (Shia’s and Sunni’s), as I understand it put precedence to the later verses, based on date of writing (Koran is not chronological). And in case you didn’t know, Mohammad started out weak, and peace loving, and ended powerful and pretty much a war-monger, who preached essentially enslaving, or killing those who refused to convert, or submit.

                  2. “Whatever sins Christianity is answerable for, the fact that the Old Testament says it is okay to enslave people or beat your wife isn’t one of them.”

                    and you gotta love when Christianity is blamed for slavery, considering Christians were the main reason it went away for most of Western Civilization.

                    The ancient Hebrews were blas? about slavery because slavery was a mundane fact of life for thousands of years.

                2. You hear sermons based on parables or examples of people with faith in God. You don’t hear sermons on the laws of the Hebrews in Leviticus.

                3. Mmmm – nope – what John said, basically. Old Test is history and preamble – once the Savior came, everything changed. He who believe in Him etc. etc. etc.

                  That’s why Abraham’s descendants don’t take their Isaacs up to mountains to sacrifice to God any more….among other things. No need to do so…

                  Your understanding apparently tells you something different, Bo. I’ll keep you in my prayers, Brother…

                  1. My “nope” was to Bo, not JEP

                  2. Almanian, you might want to check out Matthew 5:18.

                    Many of the important denunciations of homosexuality, fornication and the like come not from the New but the Old Testament, and Christians certainly rely on them when talking about how those things are not excused today.

                    1. I responded specifically to your point about “ignoring the Old Testament”. I’m familiar with Matthew’s work, thanks 🙂

                    2. People who read his stuff also enjoyed Books by Mark, Luke and John.

                4. Of course the Old Testament is important in Christianity, but mostly as a backdrop to the story of the Resurrection. You’re most likely to hear the sermon or homily reference a story in the OT as a foreshadowing/prophecy to Jesus’ coming. See: Abraham and Isaac, Daniel, Joseph, Noah.

                  1. That’s just not true. The stories are told in the first place because they demonstrate certain lessons. So the story of Abraham and Sarah demonstrates faith in God and his miracles. Etc.

                    But they are most certainly also referenced as laws and word of God. For example, most child raising based sermons will invoke Old Testament rules and laws.

                5. It isn’t flat out wrong, maybe frequently misunderstood. It is fairly clearly stated in the New Testament, that Jesus brought a new covenant, and the old is obsolete. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good lessons in the old Testament, worthy of being repeated in church. In fact, that the old is obsolete, is one of the primary lessons in the life and teaching of Paul.

                  1. Yes, the reason why so many Christians are pushing to have the Ten Commandments displayed is because Christians find them, along with the rest of the Old Testament laws, to be obsolete.

                    Sheesh guys.

                    1. The point about the ten commandments being on display is legit. And to be honest, I grew up in the South and definitely don’t fit into the Bible Belt stereotype of Christianity.

                      I have a feeling the there’s a lot of overlap between the people who think Jesus was white and the Bible was written in English and the people who are gung-ho about displaying the ten commandments.

                      OTOH, there’s nothing in the ten commandments about stoning slaves or women bringing turtles for sacrifice when on their periods.

                    2. It’s literally in the same section as the crazy kind of stuff you’re talking about.

                    3. No, it’s because it’s a sign/monument/connection to a Christian history that many feel we have in this country. Although you’d be correct in thinking that many Christians seem to incorrectly think that the ten commandments still apply in a new covenant world, as anything more than good guidelines.

                    4. So you admit ‘many’ Christians still see the 10 Commandments as rules to follow, but they’re just wrong in their understanding.

                      So, when moderate Muslims say radical ones are wrong about their awful version of Islam, why not accept that?

                    5. I would, were I to see many saying that. I don’t. Mostly I see moderate Muslims saying they support the awful acts, they just wouldn’t do them, personally..or something similar. Then there is the fact that their guiding text fairly clearly calls for the subjugation of non-Muslims, or their execution, if the fail to submit.
                      Until a significant portion of Muslims start saying that the later surah’s are wrong, and those we call radical Muslims, are an abomination, I’m going to continue to think that Islam is a pox on the modern world.

                    6. Additionally, is there anything inherently wrong with following a list of positive rules, even if you don’t see them as binding in some way?

                    7. My point, Bo, is that the ten commandments, regardless of which “section” of the Bible they are in are not a radical list of rules to follow and are generally socially acceptable.

                      Even not committing adultery is generally a smart idea, even by today’s standards. “Having no other gods before Me” has a wide array of interpretations including “don’t become a slave to material things.”

                      The problem occurs when you try to force other people to follow them against their will.

                    8. Thou shalt not lie with an animal. Not a commandment. But somewhere else the OT recommends swift execution for such a transgression. Ignorance is no excuse…even back then.

                    9. To Bo for his remark about the Ten Commandments.

        3. the Maccabees would slaughter almost all of today’s Jews for being apostates.

          Great. Now all that’s missing is that 2500 year time machine.

          Sheesh.

        4. Warty nails it.

          Wait…I mean….well, you know what I mean.

      2. I never said they were ‘

        forcibly circumcising young girls or doing anything approaching the level of misogyny that goes on in many Muslim countries”

        I said it is dumb to think that just cause you shed EQUALLY DISGUSTING PRACTICES centuries ago that it can’t be done today, with another group.

        And I am not

        ‘Appealing to “but what about something that happened 3000 years ago” doesn’t balance the scale.’

        My point, ignored, was that people keep claiming it is a fundamental attribute of Islam. Well, the old testament has some really nasty shit in it, like kill adulteres on sight type shit. The xians and jews have grown up. They conveniently ignore some of the more barbaric passages in the bible/torah. Many muslims conveniently ignore many of the passages in the koran. I had a muslim boss that fucking drank. He still fasted during ramadan but he drank the rest of the year. Islam will grow up too, and quicker if we stop painting them all with the same brush.

        And to those impeaching the non-involved,I do not equate this with the good cops don’t stop bad cops rational. They are different animals. I don’t recall a ton of Dobsons focus on the family people publicly demonstrating against abortion clinic bombings…and I don’t hold that lack of involvement against them. But with cops, they have a moral duty as a function of their oath and source of compensation.

        1. My point, ignored, was that people keep claiming it is a fundamental attribute of Islam.

          You know who owns the fundamental attitude of Islam? Muslims. Not you and not me. Just because you think it is something different or should be something different than what it is today, doesn’t mean it is.

          I don’t recall a ton of Dobsons focus on the family people publicly demonstrating against abortion clinic bombings.

          I do recall them condoming the bombings and making it clear that they do not support such. Moreover, we have had like tow abortion bombings in like 25 years. If some nuts showed up and murdered 12 people in a pro abortion magazine’s offices, your God damned right I would expect Dobson to be out there protesting about it. If he didn’t, it would be fair game to assume he was happy about it.

          If anti abortion people ever did anything approaching the violence Muslims engage in, you would be shitting your pants wanting something done about it and expecting everyone associated with the movement to show they are not responsible. Why you go so far to excuse Muslims is beyond me.

          1. condoming the bombings

            This is why I love John and could never stay angry at him no matter what we agree/disagree about.

            “Put a glove on that 500 pounder, soldier!”

            1. That might be the best one ever.

          2. You mistake me for someone who cares about either side. I do not. I just cant fathom one side,whom I agree has wholly re-imaged themselves in the last 150-200 years but is guilty of the same level of atrocity, barbarism, ignorance, and depravity and still lauds these things it their religions texts, lacks the perspective to see that most people in a different group making similar mistakes can’t also be brought to enlightenment.

            Holy run-on sentence batman

            p.s. For fucks sake I have not once made an equivalency…stop with that straw man. I have pointed out a hypocrisy using historical fact to provide perspective.

            1. “Put a glove on that 500 pounder, soldier!”

              That’s my go-to line now.

            2. For fucks sake I have not once made an equivalency.

              Then what the fuck is this?

              I just cant fathom one side,whom I agree has wholly re-imaged themselves in the last 150-200 years but is guilty of the same level of atrocity, barbarism, ignorance, and depravity and still lauds these things it their religions texts, lacks the perspective to see that most people in a different group making similar mistakes can’t also be brought to enlightenment.

              That is nothing but you saying “I think both sides equally suck. Seriously, did you think no one would notice that?

              1. +1 Cathy Young

                1. +1 internets to OMWC

                  lulz!

              2. No John, work with me here:

                What I am saying is for people from a religion that has killed and tortured millions of people (often themselves) but then realized the error of their ways to condemn an entire other religion of the same crimes but not afford them the same possibility that they could have the same realization of their errors is quite honestly insane.

                Here is the only equivalence – If all muslims are bad cause Islam has fundamentally bad things in it then all other religions are bad cause they too have fundamentally bad things in them.

                1. And in case my intention was missed…the above equivalency ISNT MINE it that of those condemning and entire group.

                  1. And the pint is you’re wrong.

                    While all religions have their book, their sings/chants, their rituals, their beliefs, etc, etc, etc…

                    How everyone really defines any given religion is defined by how the majority within those religions behave.

                    You may disagree with this, but it’s true of everything. We view a football team’s brand is by the behavior of the players.

                    The way you define the brand of corporate HR, is by the overall behaviors of the….

                    Therefore, arguing past sins of certain religious peoples, which are no longer practiced and openly condemned by today’s practitioners, is irrelevant to any discussions about that group today other than a historical discussion.

                    Much like every American who opposes any slavery still in existence today, is not hypocritical due to the US’s past.

                    1. Way to continue to miss the point, Michael. I actually loled.

        2. I have never once claimed it to be a fundamental attribute of Islam. I’ve claimed it’s a much more common attribute of Islam *today* than it is with other religions.

          “Islam will grow up too, and quicker if we stop painting them all with the same brush.”

          Oh, fucking bullshit. You can’t seriously think that people saying mean things about Islam is what’s keeping that religion backwards.

          The problem with Islam is that not only has it not advanced, it has regressed. The Ottoman Empire was a horrible state, but it was actually much less barbarous than the current breed of fundamentalist Islam.

          Islam has gotten more brutal over time. The argument that it will certainly turn around is based on wishful thinking, not any sort of empirical evidence and certainly not based on any actual sign of improvement in modern times.

          1. Islam is much more likely to have adherents from a lesser developed country. I think that’s an important part of what’s in play.

      3. What happened 3500 years ago in Egpt, not so much.

        what about what happened on our own frontier during the expansion across the continent?

        What about American Christian support of slavery?

        What about Australian Christianities attempt to destroy the aborigines?

        That shit ain’t so far in our past as you seem to think.

        1. And that was terrible.

          And the Trail of Tears was terrible.

          And Japanese internment was terrible.

          Why is it that when people criticize terrible aspects of modern Islam, random other atrocities from the entirety of time and space are brought up as if they are mitigating factors?

          Americans being shits to the Japanese in 1941 hardly mitigates the tendency for violence among modern adherents of Islam.

          1. as if they are mitigating factors?

            Again, was not brought up as mitigating factor (by me). Please re-read.

            1. Which is why I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to Agammamnon. You should reread who I’m replying to.

          2. Because you’re claiming that the differences are inherent in the philosophies, but the philosophies of the Americans in the 40’s or the Christians of the Crusades was the philosophy of Christianity.

            1. Barbarism absolutely is inherent to the philosophy of actual Christianity. Read the Bible. It’s all there.

              It’s just that most people who proclaim themselves ‘Christians’ in modern times don’t adhere to the philosophy expressed in their own Holy Books.

              The Holy Books of Islam are explicitly pro-violence and terrorists are correct when they use them as justification to murder non-believers. Hopefully Islamists will one day be as ignorant of their own religion as modern day cafeteria Catholics and then we can all live in peace.

              1. YES. This is all I’m saying.

              2. Perhaps the tendency to follow Scriptures literally to the point of barbarism has more to do with the cultures and conditions than the Scriptures themselves? This could explain why so many people know so many Muslims working and/or educated here in the states who are not barbaric. Most Muslim nations are poor and rural, something not true for most Christian ones.

          3. I’m not bringing them up as a mitigating factor – I’m pointing out to those who think Christianity’s barbarism is in the far past are sorely mistaken.

            Modern *mainstream* Christianity has been liberalized (that’s a complement this time) but it didn’t happen all that long ago, happened very quickly, and the change in thinking from ‘save, and you save one of Satan’s victims; Kill, and you kill one of Satan’s soldiers’ to ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ was not long separated.

            Hell, how long ago was it considered kosher to imprison homosexuals? That’s a change that happened *within the lifetimes* of a lot of us here.

            1. So the question comes down to how Islam can be liberalized. And that’s something that is going to have to come from Muslims themselves, not some external force attempting to force them into it. Which I think is part of John’s point in a sloppy way.

              1. That’s not quite the extent of it.

                Don’t forget that one of the benefits of liberalism is that it is self-spreading and self-perpetuating. That depends on treating others liberally (free trade and free exchange of thought), however, something which we are unlikely to commit to if we decide that Islam is inherently our enemy.

        2. Shit that happened a hundred and fifty years ago that everyone now agrees was wrong, doesn’t count either.

          Jesus fucking Christ on cracker, you people are just fucking terrifying of admitting that well maybe someone besides evil American fundies might be really shitty people.

          It is fucking pathetic.

          1. 2002 saw the final repeal/overturning of anti-sodomy statutes in the US.

            Stop trying to pretend that your religion has a long history of intolerance towards violence.

            1. Oh yeah, sodomy being illegal and almost never enforced is totally the same as what is going on in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Rotherham UK today. Totally the same. The US in the 1960s was a theocracy.

              Please tell me you are fucking kidding.

              1. Its not the same – I would certainly rather be a gay man in 1960’s AL than a non-muslim in Riyadh today.

                Its still the use of violence to enforce religion mores though and it illustrates my point that Christianity’s more enlightened practices are not that ‘historical’.

                1. It is not the same. You just admitted it. Stop pretending that it matters then. If it is not the same, IT IS NOT THE SAME and the comparison doesn’t matter.

                  1. The comparison matter when you sit on your high-horse and talk about how Islam is an inherently violent religion when your own religion has had periods that were just as violent and has only *recently* turned its back on the use of violence.

          2. I will totally call out douchebags who think blowing shit up or chopping off heads is a legitimate way to conduct oneself. I will even follow along and say that several self-identified organizations that preach that shit specifically are fucked up. No issue there.

            My issue is with the “christians” who are casting the first stone about the entire religion of Islam while ignoring their own excessive, not little, not ancient, but MASSIVELY EXCESSIVE sins. This is not to put down Christianity, which in its current majority form is a very decent way to conduct one’s life. Condemning a religion so very similar to ones own is kinda insane. This goes for all the stupid religious wars through history.

            Except the vikings…they are ok cause they have beards.

            1. they are ok cause they have beards.

              I would like to sign up for your religion. When are the meetings? Can I bring friends? Do I have to wear a tie?

            2. The Vikings weren’t really much for religious warfare, they just liked stealing and pounding strange. And having beards. And who doesn’t, really?

    2. “for fucks sake both Jews and Christians have some fucked up ideas about vajayjays and periods and what not.”

      like what, for instance?

      1. Are you joking?

        1. No, and I assume I’d know what those fucked up ideas were considering I have both Jews and Christians in my extended family.

          1. You have atheists calling themselves Jews and Christians in your family.

            http://www.openbible.info/topics/menstruation

            1. You’re such a hardliner.

            2. So you’re a typical armchair theology expert who doesn’t know the difference between Christianity, modern Judaism, and ancient Hebrew practices.

              1. “expert”

                1. If you want to say that you can ignore a religion’s manual and still follow it, be my guest.

                  1. I didn’t read the instruction manual to my Jeep before I drove it.

                    Why should my religion be any different?

                    1. Maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe religion is just who you hang out with and the book is a decoration. I don’t know, I never pretended to understand this shit.

                    2. I’m just fuckin’ with ya. I DID read the instruction manual for my Jeep? 🙂

                    3. Oh, yeah, couldn’t put it down.

                  2. There is an argument for saying that Christianity is the teachings of Christ, and since Christ didn’t seem to spend a lot of time talking about menstruation, it’s kind of irrelevant.

                    My understanding is that the books in the old testament present an account of all the prophecies of the coming of Christ.

                    There’s also a theological argument that the coming of Christ, and being crucified and all, changed the relationship between God and man. So, sacrificing lambs, etc was no longer required to atone for one’s sins. Also, when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus didn’t say any of the ten commandments, he said love thy neighbor as thyself.

                    I agree the Bible has some messed up stuff in it, but you can practice Christianity without banishing women to a special camp when on their periods.

                    1. Now, to be srsly – what JEP said. I’ve always taken Old Test to be “here’s the way things were, and the prophesies”, and the New Test to be “And now the Savior is here, and will die for your sins, and SHIT CHANGES FROM HERE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THAT.” So – I don’t have to do some of the fucked up shit from the Old Test when I didn’t have a Savior, cause now I do….etc. etc.

                      Of course, I could be wrong and might go to hell, but I don’t think I am wrong….

                    2. Does this mean I’m going to Hell because I got my red wings?

                  3. While the OT law doesn’t apply to Christians in the same way it does to Jews (Jesus being the “fulfillment of the law”), the Leviticus law might still hold true for certain Jewish sects, although I’ve read that devout Jewish women have actually promoted more stringent rules in the last century or so. So is it still “fucked up” to women if the women are in favor of it? I also hold Islam to the same standard, many Muslim women prefer being covered and I don’t consider it a violation of rights if they’re OK with it. On the other hand, some Muslim practices regarding women are blatant violations of human rights, like honor killings or female circumcision. Are there any comparable laws like that in Christianity or Judaism? Not even in the Old Testament.

                    1. I’ve read that devout Jewish women have actually promoted more stringent rules in the last century or so. So is it still “fucked up” to women if the women are in favor of it?

                      No, provided there is a clear right of exit and that the standards aren’t forced (particularly by violence) on women who dissent.

                      I’ve heard stories from friends that they don’t always feel safe walking through Ultra Orthodox neighborhoods because the men get aggressive with them for how they’re dressed.

                    2. “I’ve heard stories from friends that they don’t always feel safe walking through Ultra Orthodox neighborhoods because the men get aggressive with them for how they’re dressed.”

                      would that be like reverse catcalling?

                    3. Catcalling’s more prudish cousin.

                      “Hey girl, you are TOO sexy”

                      “HEY, girl, you’re too sexy.”

              2. So you’re a typical armchair theology expert who doesn’t know the difference between Christianity, modern Judaism, and ancient Hebrew practices.

                Oh gotcha. Warty is arguing that the foundational text contains anti-lady portions, but the direct quote was that Jews and Christians have fucked up ideas.

                Part of the problem is that women are in an improved position wherever practice parts from the foundational texts. The church my folks went to demoted the women pastors because Paul said no women teaching the church. They could at most be Sunday school teachers and were not allowed to participate in the church council (hilariously the denomination was founded by a woman).

                1. Paul was a dick.

                  1. Before or after he had the scales on his eyes?

                    1. Paul was a dick most of the way through. Definitely more of a dick when he was rolling up his sleeves and encouraging the persecution of the early church, but afterwards he was stuck being the practical one following on the heels of an idealist.

                      Jesus seems to have a much more egalitarian view of women than Paul does, which is a shame. Galatians 3:28 is a beautiful sentiment if Paul had been willing (or able) to carry it through to how Christianity should operate, rather than it just being an expression of the relationship between God and the individual.

                      There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

                    2. Frankly, I’m a fan of Ghandi’s view that “I like their Christ. I don’t like their Christian.”

                      There’s a lot of stuff I don’t like about modern Christianity, but mostly it’s the lack of humbleness and how they deal with arising social issues.

                      It gets tiring having to constantly separate the religion from the social and political crap it comes wrapped in.

      2. It depends on if we’re talking just vajayjays or vajayjays as stand in for how women relate to society.

        Leviticus 15 lays out some really weird rules about ritual cleanliness when a woman is on her period.

        Paul is kind of a dick about women, but none of it explicitly has to do with her vajayjay. Head covering and the “I shall have no woman above me” bit are pretty retrograde by today’s standards.

        1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

        1. Paul has a lot of weird ideas. But again, show me how those ideas are put into practice in any sort of horrific way.

          And take up the rules in Laviticus with the Jews.

          1. That’s entirely the point.

            Christianity and Judaism are much much better now that they don’t practice, to the letter, their foundational texts.

            Islam has a crappy foundational text, but nobody really has a problem with Christmas and Easter Muslims.

            1. I know a lot of Turks, and they’re indistinguishable from Christians. They prefer not to eat pork, that’s about the end of their religious feelings.

              1. “Christians”.

              2. My aunt worked in the Balkans. She’d tell stories about Muslim coworkers eating prosciutto (pr?ut). She’d tease them about it not being halal.

                “What, it’s not pork it’s pr?ut!”
                “And what animal does pr?ut come from?”
                “The pr?ut animal! nom nom nom”

              3. I don’t think Erdogan’s supporters end their religious feelings at eschewing pork.

    3. Again, the ‘WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!’ argument is nonsensical sophistry.

      Islam is vastly more likely to cause large scale religious violence in 2015 than other religions. The fact that Orthodox Jews have weird ideas about periods and sometimes Christians say bizarre shit about evolution doesn’t change the fact that those groups aren’t massacring satirists when they make them feel bad.

      “Just because your religions figured out that shit was bad doesn’t mean others can’t too. And I bet your ideas on Islam echo Saladin’s ideas on Christians so how did that help them become civilized?”

      I am an atheist, so when I say Islam is certainly worse in modern times than most other religions it’s not out of a pro-Christian bias on my own part.

      And Saladin was right about Christians being barbarous thugs in the Middle Ages. Read about what they did to Muslims at Tyre and Acre when they conquered those cities. Any criticism leveled by Saladin against the Christians during the Crusades was earned. They were terrible people and deserving of criticism for it.

      Christianity improved. Islam did not. When Islam improves I will cease to criticize them, but I am not going to pretend that they’re just another religion merely because theoretically at some point in the future the Imams might choose to join us in the 21st century.

      1. Criticize perpetrators. Individuals, and ONLY individuals, can have responsibility. The other side of that coin that has Rights on it.

      2. Irish, you’ve argued that the way Christians have ‘improved’ is by not following the awful commands that can be found in their Scriptures. If it’s in their Scripture wouldn’t that make Christianity inherently awful too, it’s just that Christians today don’t follow it?

      3. As Irish is pointing out, the focus should be on moving away from ‘the Koran is the literal Word of God and Islam is the only way to correctly manage a just society’ and more towards ‘this book has some things I like in it but a lot of it is bullshit’. That might be a cynical atheist’s approach, but ultimately religions do shift and change with the times rather than focus on some purity of doctrine.

    4. Starting with Exodus and the genocide of innocent native peoples.

      You’re referring to the massacres of the Canaanites? The massacres that don’t really have any archaeological evidence in favour of them actually happening?

      1. Proof that the Bible isn’t true.

    5. In addition to what everyone else said, who cares? The question is what to do moving forward, in an effort to protect and liberate as many people as possible? If Samson was terrorizing Palestine or Richard was riding for Jerusalem, I’d want something to be done.

      1. What MJ Green said. Get back to me when the West launches a new crusade and starts forcibly converting Muslims.

      2. It’s almost like Western secularism and removing the church from the political power structure has its benefits. Now, after the collapse of the Ottomans, has Islam become less involved in power politics, or more?

  15. And Saladin was right about Christians being barbarous thugs in the Middle Ages. Read about what they did to Muslims at Tyre and Acre when they conquered those cities

    Also, look what they did to the Orthodox when they conquered Constantinople in 1204.

    But, I find this issue of religion & enlightenment interesting. I’m not sure I agree with the argument that Christians today have abandoned their beliefs which has led to relative intolerance. It seems to me that Christian beliefs have been reinterpreted to promote tolerance of other religions (or, indeed, no religion).

    What is most powerful about that is that, in preceding centuries, Christians refused to take on a reinterpretation that led to tolerance. Instead they were led, kicking and screaming into by a-religious people. But, now, that reinterpretation is part of a core belief.

    And, that is a pretty inept explanation as I try to compress the ideas.

  16. Excuse the phrase, but…Amen!

  17. So, Reason’s gonna start the new strip ‘Mohammed and Porky’s Big Gay Wedding’?

    Maybe twits are tweeting ‘Je suis charlie’ because they can’t go over to Paris and be a part of that protest, whattya think Matt?

    1. i don’t think you understand what he’s saying.

  18. Right in the God Damned Feels, sir. In the fucking feels.

    We should also treat these people (the murderers and terrorists) for what they are CRIMINALS. They are not soldiers requiring armies and battlefields. They are criminals requiring trials and due process to determine guilt and punishment.

  19. I will keep all those muredering Muslims, those they murdered, and you all, in my prayers this week. Pax, Reasonoids.

  20. Contact your local paper and challenge them to reprint Charlie Hebbo’s Muslim cartoons. Put them on every front page in the land. Let’s see who the gutless wonders in the fourth estate are.

    1. Start with the Jerusalem Post.

      1. Why there? Why are they responsible for protecting our freedom of expression? Is that some kind of burden the evil Jews have or something?

        1. Maybe because they’ve got nothing to lose?

  21. The Financial Times editorial was the worst of the lot. Imagine, it was not an off-the-cuff remark on twitter, it was Tony Barber’s considered opinion about the matter. Utterly sickening.

  22. “President Obama has decided that the same tactic (i.e., obstructionism) is a swell idea now that his Democrats are a minority in both houses of Congress.

    Obama has been obstructing for a while. He’s just been hiding behind Harry Reid who has refused to consider bills issuing from the House. Now with Reid removed, the new leadership will dust off these bills and begin sending them to the White House. Obama is going to have to come out in the open and publicly own his obstructionism.

  23. Logically, everyone should print some cartoons and then no one would be in any special danger. But it’s the classic prisoner’s dilemaa. You are not sure who all are going to stick together and who are gonna squeal. If most newspapers buckle under and don’t print then you stick out like a sore thumb with a target painted on it.
    And you know what most newspapers are going to do…

  24. Welch might be playing a bit of semantics here.

    There was a “We are Columbine” movement after the shooting there. Obviously none of us were, but that’s not the point. We celebrate fallen soliders and brave people for doing precisely what we couldn’t do.

    “We are Charlie Hebdo” is simply meant to convey solidarity with the victim.

    1. Remember ‘We are the World, We are the Children.’? If not. You are lucky.

  25. I don’t think Reason, of all publications, needs to be criticizing people over pulling cartoons. Some of us still remember the Everyone Draw Muhammad debacle.

    1. Reason talks a big game but doesn’t back it up.

      1. Reason talks a big game, sure and maybe, but very few sites on the entire web that actually have good content yet are publicly viable will tolerate the spewing pool of creative insanity called the Reason thread beasts.

        1. This is true. And while I agree that they wimped out, they do at least still have the link to the winning drawings and an article about it.

  26. I vote for a Prophet Mohammed emoticon. Then we could add his image easily to almost every message. To many of us, Islam, like many religions sucketh much. Many have been tempted to compare and contrast its evils against other religions. The real issue is freedom. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. While we condemn the murder of journalists expressing freedom of conscience (blasphemy against Islam), we also should not impede others from expressing their religious beliefs no matter how retarded they are. Passivity may equal cowardice, but it is not a crime. The criminals are the two or three murderers. They are the ones who broke the NAP. There is no need to indict People accused of being sympathetic of Islam. There is no need to asks journalists to tone down criticism of Islam. Otherwise we’ve thrown the baby out with the amniotic fluid and the afterbirth.

  27. Every publication and media outlet in the western world ought to reprint those Mohamed cartoons. In your faces and up your asses, you damned religious psychopaths.

  28. So no, we’re all not Charlie ? few of us are that good, and none of us are that brave.

    Indeed, the only thing one can say about Charlie Hebdo is that they were brave enough to insult the Islamic religion just as keenly as they were making fun of the others, in a very ugly way. Because that was the only measure of their bravery; making fun of Catholicism, or Judaism, or Buddhism for that matter, is easy. Any idiot can do that.

    1. I want to point out that making fun of Islam is funny and should be encouraged. Just like the piss christ and other silliness. I think Matt’s article is right on about their bravery.

      1. Re: Clich? Bandit,

        I want to point out that making fun of Islam is funny and should be encouraged. Just like the piss christ and other silliness.

        You can encourage it all you want by buying the magazine. The point is that it is not bravery to make fun of people who you know are not going to retaliate against you violently. That’s just bullying.

        Making fun of Muslims is a sure ticket to get your magazine fire-bombed or shot at. That’s more bravado than bravery.

        If Charlie Hebdo were a libertarian magazine advocating for smaller government and against the power of the state, THAT would be bravery.

        1. I don’t understand, are you saying the guys Matt is referring to aren’t brave? Cause uhh, they were. And Reason is a libertarian magazine that advocates smaller government and against the power of the state…color me confused by your comment.

          1. It would be a brave thing to do in France.

  29. This is not freedom of speech, it’s bigotry. Freedom of speech means freedom from prior restraint by the govt. Freedom of conscience means not being held responsible by the state for beliefs. Neither gives anyone license to abuse and ridicule others, nor should they. Of course a newspaper is a weapon of war. The notion that it isn’t drips with hypocrisy, as Tocqueville pointed out nearly 200 years ago. Charb et al are the bigots, not the so-called terrorists. As a French lawyer rejoined a few years ago, they were racists. And they were not engaged in journalism. Bills of rights are aimed at restraint of govt, not others, as both liberals and conservatives would have it. Libertarians should know there can never be a govt big enough to police the world. That’s why we have wars, and the “law of nations” is nonsense. The Christian New Testament says to love God, AND your neighbor as yourself, and that these are supposed to be the same thing. So do unto others and expect the same Matt. Perhaps they should’ve started a magazine, or called them out for a duel, but be realistic. These guy got what they deserved, and were begging for, and it shouldn’t be surprising.

    1. Re: REMant,

      These guy got what they deserved, and were begging for, and it shouldn’t be surprising.

      Kind of interesting that you’re suggesting that these Muslim extremists acted accordingly, as if you agree they did what you could only dream.

    2. Neither gives anyone license to abuse and ridicule others, nor should they.

      There are those in this world who deserve every last iota of verbal abuse and ridicule that can be heaped upon them. I suspect you are an example.

    3. For someone who seems to take speech so seriously, you’re decidedly anonymous?

    4. “This is not freedom of speech, it’s bigotry. Freedom of speech means freedom from prior restraint by the govt. Freedom of conscience means not being held responsible by the state for beliefs. Neither gives anyone license to abuse and ridicule others, nor should they.”

      No, freedom of speech means EXACTLY the right to say what you want to say… maybe not without consequences (like getting kicked out of my house if I called my wife a cunt), but VERY MUCH without getting physically harmed or killed for it. “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

      I would never want to wish death on, or justify the death of, anyone who didn’t kill someone else, like what you just did in that last sentence.

  30. Let’s all hang out across the street from Reason’s nice So Cal digs and wait for the fireworks to begin.

    1. Or we can all make cheese sandwiches
      until we see a good depiction of Christ.

      I always like those on the news.
      And really, they’re never in the funnies-
      what a satire opportunity!

  31. I’ll be happy to publish cartoons that turn peace-loving Muslims into maniacal terrorists. But, you’re going to have to wait until my parents are no longer potential targets.

  32. The thing is, the Islamotwits will get away with this right up to the point that suddenly they don’t. The people of Europe only seem more docile unto the yoke of Progressivism run amok than we are. They are more accustomed to deranged governments, perhaps. The French have seldom known anything else. At some point some unwashed fanatic is going to commit one crime too many, and all of a sudden the common folk are going to be decorating trees with islamofruit. It’s going to be really, really ugly, and the leaders of the Islamic minorities who have spent all this time using the violence of their deranged brethren to push for concessions are going to have the nerve, the absolute NERVE to act surprised.

    The Progressives who always cave in to demands to silence this and apologize for that are creating a powder-keg that will blow sky high. And the disgusting part is that when it happens they will protest loudly that it isn’t THEIR fault; it’s all those miserable reactionaries!

  33. “… then just maybe Charlie Hebdo wouldn’t have stuck out so much like a sore thumb.”

    He still would have stuck out, Matt. Very few people are brave standing on their own. Collectively, people find the strength they need to find their voice. Maybe, he wouldn’t have stuck out as much.

  34. Bomber’s veto? Veto the bombers. And maybe we could do something about the religion of peace while we are at it.

  35. A system that advocates intolerance and rule by clergy will inevitably lead to violence.

    A system that advocates theft, central control and “redistribution” will inevitably lead to violence.

    A system that advocates free trade, tolerance and cooperation will lead to prosperity and peace, unless it is compromised by nitwits.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7aml…..arlie3.jpg

  36. Barrack Hussein Obama live as a muslim in indonesia and was taught the koran his fondest memeories are laying on the beach with his Koran.
    What the world faces to understand is the moderate Muslim will not kill you or cut your family head They will do nothing to stop their brothers from doing the cutting!!

  37. So when did “Remember X” (the Alamo, the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Titans) switch to “I Am Y” (Breitbart, Charlie, the Walrus) and why? The case against Matt is that both are expressions of solidarity, not claims of moral equivalence. But after reading Matt’s piece, I like “Remember Charlie” better.

    1. Forgot Spartacus. Maybe that’s the answer.

  38. The cartoonists who were killed today?Wolinski, Cabu, Tignous, Charb?were some of the most beloved figures in modern French life.

    Apparently not “beloved” enough for the French voters to get off their lazy butts and change something in their country.

    1. Wait, last time I checked THE sentence out of everyone’s lips while leaving the airport is :”A manif/march against which what now ? Oh … not again !”
      Aaah but stereotypes strike again. Good for you

      1. Stereotype? The state of France is pretty clear and has been largely unchanged for years: it’s an elite-worshiping, anti-liberal, somewhat epicurean country. No, those aren’t stereotypes, I’ve spent quite a bit of time over there. When such a country pretends to “love” a contrarian satirical publication, it’s at best a fig leaf.

  39. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

    1. Andy, do you need someone to draw cartoons of Muhammed? I understand there’s a shortage.

  40. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  41. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  42. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  43. so, when do we finally drive our destroyers up to those countries and just start firing the cannons until we get unconditional surrender?

    Has no one ever heard of the vegan who went to protest the bull fights, and the bull jumped the fence and killed him? Any idiot knows that it wasn’t the bull’s fault. The bull is only trying to defend itself, and it can’t tell humans apart. It WOULD avoid wasting energy killing humans that aren’t being aggressive to it if it COULD tell the difference, but just because it can’t doesn’t mean it owes the humans an ounce of mercy to avoid collateral damage on the non-dick humans.

  44. “…resist letting them consume your very being, either by becoming an anti-Islamist obsessive…”

    Otherwise known as a realist. I think that, at this point, being anti-Islamist, and perhaps “obsessive” about it, whatever that means, is a good thing.

    It’s us or them.

  45. If the multicultural dogmas prevalent throughout our society, and well-represented in this comics section, had been in force in the 1930s and ’40s, we never would have been able to conduct the total war necessary to defeat Germany and Japan. “Most German and Japanese people are nice people, just like us. They don’t all support fascist, militaristic ideologies! It would be inhuman to bomb civilian targets!”

    And we’d be speaking German and Japanese today.

    A lot of you need to get in touch with your primitive tribal selves. You and your tribe have interests and you have enemies. Apologizing for people of a religion that is spreading the world like a cancer, threatening to destroy not only the Libertarian ideals you support, but your very lives and families, is madness. Killing people is *always* an illiberal act. It takes away everything that person is and ever will be. It takes away all their choices, all their freedoms, but it is not inconsistent with preserving your own liberties and freedoms. We had to kill a lot of otherwise-decent people — people a lot more decent than your average Muslim — to establish the nation we have now. There’s no shame in that.

    1. So is it a matter of simple tribalism, meaning you want your tribe to win simply because you’re a part of it? Because we’ve definitely killed more Muslim civilians than Islamist radicals have killed Western civilians. That would seem to tarnish any claim we might have to the moral high ground, if those are the terms.

      1. You know you’re completely full of shit when somebody with the name Tony in Reason comments manages to successfully rebut you.

        Nice job, Tony.

      2. That would seem to tarnish any claim we might have to the moral high ground, if those are the terms.

        There is no “we” here; you and I aren’t of the same “tribe”. You have shown time and again that you are a proto-fascist and hostile to liberty.

        Because we’ve definitely killed more Muslim civilians than Islamist radicals have killed Western civilians.

        Again, who is this “we” you are talking about? I haven’t killed anybody. I haven’t voted for anybody who has favored these wars. I strongly object to my tax dollars being misused for committing violence, and I most strongly object to the liar who is sitting in the White House who promised to put a quick end to this and has been guilty of worse violence than his predecessor.

        That would seem to tarnish any claim we might have to the moral high ground

        You can’t claim any moral high ground because you worship and endorse violence, as your numerous postings here have shown. I can, because I oppose it.

  46. The article lost me when it mentioned avoiding “becoming an anti-Islamist obsessive”. How can one not become an “anti-Islamist obsessive”, when Islamists have killed 3,000 of one’s countrymen, not to mention invaded and occupied the country of one’s origin for 700 years, and not to mention killed many of one’s military comrades? Count me among the “anti Islamist obsessives”, I guess.

  47. It’s now clear to me that:

    Biblical scholar, Islamic scholar, and Constitutional Scholar is on the resume of some of the personalities here. Where do you find the time to know absolutely fucking everything about everything?

    Now that I got that out of the way. Thought this was interesting. I know, generally speaking, gun laws are tighter in Europe, so I was interested in the AK/Chest rig combos seen on the video. I find it interesting how cheap they are on a black market given their legality.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..rance.html

    1. Responding to your first question, and first one only: that’s what being a journalist is. Research. Oh and … watching the news constantly from many different news outlets and countries. Oh and having the memory of an elephant. It’s ok, that’s why there are schools for it.

  48. Your article is really great. I just think you are missing one point about the message “Je suis Charlie”… What french people want to say and you got pretty close to that when referring to your father-in-law is, we all got stabbed in the heart. French people were so attached to Charlie Hebdo that seeing these 4 cartoonists going feet first is a tragedy. Yesterday I couldn’t stop crying. We all feel like we got stabbed.

  49. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ————— http://www.paygazette.com

  50. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  51. He will be missed. His death should not mean anything. We kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is obvious that all the Muslims are unhappy about it. And when you bash their prophet, you have to expect that you are potentially endangered. Don’t let racism or xenophobia blacken your thinking. These guys were insane to do this. It is the same as Breivik. But you know what, no one talks about all Christians going crazy because of him. Suddenly, all people talk about his insanity. Now sit down and enjoy the fact that our biggest problem in Canada is the overpriced housing market. Drink a beer, and think about all the conflicts that are happening right now in various places of the world. And think about yourself and about your hatred.

  52. til I looked at the bank draft 4 $7692 , I didn’t believe …that…my brothers friend woz like they say realy bringing in money in their spare time from there new laptop. . there neighbor has been doing this for under thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the loans on their appartment and purchased a new Honda . visit their website…

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  53. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link Try it, you won t regret it! …
    ………………………. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  54. Matt, how is it that I get no free-speech cred from libertarians like you for making a suspense comedy in which an al-Qaeda cell has an operative embedded in a Nevada brothel? My feature film Lady Magdalene’s owon Special Jury Prize for Libertarian Ideals at the 2011 Anthem Film Festival, an award I accepted with Rand Paul in the audience. Reason has never once mentioned my movie even though after being trolled so badly I had to pull it off sale from Amazon.com it’s received 85,832 views on YouTube: http://youtu.be/u45Do5gEL2Q

    I think I’m entitled to use the phrase “Je suis Charlie” without being accused of cowardice.

  55. “Being stabbed in the heart”… he’s right. I am both angry and crying, your article brought more tears out. Beautiful article. Although I agree with your sentiment, I don’t agree on the whole. Our hearts were ripped out as a nation that’s why we are Charlie too. Courage now is to not escalate into violence.
    I started a student satirical paper long time ago, gone now. I had put my pencil in a pencil case, time to bring it back out.

  56. We ARE all Charlie Hebdo. Because we are not Muslims. We are infidels. What does the Koran command Muslims to do to infidels in over 100 references? I’ll send you my underlined copy if you need some help with this. Be thankful there are many ‘reformed’ Muslims out there who are happy to live and raise a family in peace.

  57. I think you’re missing the point here or your French is not good enough to understand the subtlety of “Je Suis Charlie”.

    Je suis Charlie doesn’t literally and physically mean “I am Charlie”, no-one would pretend to be. It simply means “I am with”, “I support Charlie”, and also “I am hurt”. It also means “I follow”, je suis from the verb suivre “to follow”.

    Je suis Charlie

    😉

  58. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  59. One wouldn’t believe.

  60. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  61. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  62. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  63. Better? Je suis Charlie

    me
    (? – ?) Mohammad
    ? \\ __(? – ?)
    _?? _?? \\ ”

    Better? Je suis Charlie

  64. CHARLIE DON’T SURF!

  65. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    CHECK FREELY …. MAKE FREELY ….. http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  66. Part One
    Before everything, I am French, I live in paris and I’m not to the National Front.
    What we have experienced in recent days is a tragedy. Nothing justifies the killing that we have experienced this week.
    However, I’m not Charlie. Those who claim that Charb was a hero should read or reread Deerhunter who said, “Oh, of course, if I had the aggressiveness biting committed artists who dare to criticize Pinochet less than 10 000 km of Santiago …”. Never Charb not be faced with an Islamist with remarks similar to his drawings.
    Charlie Hebdo is a leasehold. It is a business. The attack against Charlie Hebdo is not an attack against freedom of expression. It is a fundamentalist attack against comic attacks against fundamentalist Islam. I think there is an outfit border between caricature and insult. Charlie Hebdo has often taken the plunge. Others, including Plantu, have never crossed. One can speak without insulting. I’m not a believer. However, I respect religions as they do not fall within the radical.
    Charlie Hebdo does not attack only fundamentalists. It is enough to not share its ideas. Are Buddhists fundamentalists ? Is the Pope fundamentalist ? I do not think so. Anyone has the right do not agree with the marriage for all without being cataloged fundamentalist. Not be for does not mean being against. Charlie Hebdo is hemiplegic. If you are not with it, you are against it. You are inevitably a “redneck”, reference to Cabu and all the cops are alcoholics.

  67. Part Two
    Journalist talk talk about freedom of expression but it is those same journalists who condemn to death Eric Zemmour, Denis Tillinac, Michel Houellebecq, etc. for their writings. These same journalists who confiscate information. They do not give the truth. They give the information they want to share with us. Compare Lib?ration, Le Monde and Le Figaro. Every information is different when a fact is a fact. It will take 10 years for citizens in France to learn that Mitterrand has a “hidden” daughter and a cancer. The press has long knew.
    Stop to the collective bleating. What citizen would accept to be caricatured in Charlie Hebdo ? I do not think most claiming freedom of expression agree to be caricatured by Charlie Hebdo, for example, being sodomized by the pope or anyone else. I do not think that journalists would have reacted as if it were an attack against Minute (Extreme right french magazine) with so many dead. France 2, France 3, France 5, Canal Plus, etc. impose Charlie logo on their TV channels but do not forget to remove it during commercials. BUSINESS IS BUSINESS.
    Freedom of expression is a lure for the elite. Why it is reserved for artists and journalists ? If I make a Nazi hello in the street, I would be convicted. At right. If I am an “artist”, I would not be convicted. I take refuge behind a pseudo “Happening”. Read the press in recent months. Same thing if I publish a cartoon on my website with the level of Charlie Hebdo. I would be convicted.

  68. Part Three
    I also think of those policemen who died to defend the right to Charlie Hebdo to be what it is. On the day of the attack, ONLY Le Figaro had a word for the dead police officers at “fight”. It was a complete silence on Liberation and Le Monde. Ditto on France 2 and Canal Plus.
    More dramatic is the attack on the kosher grocery store. This is an anti-Semitic attack. This is an attack against living together. These same intellectuals and journalists who condemn anti-Semitism are the first to stick a “yellow star” to the Jews. There is no rest until journalists present an author as a Jewish writer, a Jewish director, etc. A few years ago, Jerome Charyn has sent “gaze” a journalist who insisted to present him as a Jewish author. He replied that he is American.
    I do not accept that one creates first-class citizens and others second-class citizens. Why the left extremists have the right to march and not the right extremists ? Stop to the Stalinist trials and to the recovery by many parties.
    Finally, I would like to remind a true story. A few years ago, at the exit of a stadium where North African whistled the Marseillaise, a French television interviewed one of them who said: “I am a Muslim before being French.” In 2011, in USA, to commemorate the Sept. 11, 2001, American Muslims who were tired of being stigmatized marched through the streets with the slogan “I am an American before being Muslim.”

  69. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $14825 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read More Here……
    —- http://www.work-reviews.com/

  70. The biggest danger to free speech is the antipathy towards it that is established in our colleges and universities. These nests of political correctness are where our future educators, politicians and government minions are being indoctrinated.

    What chance does free speech have when several generations of future “leaders” will be too cowardly to exercise their rights, much less defend them?

    Charlie Hebdo would not be allowed on any college campus in the US no matter how many “Je suis Charlie”s students tweet.

  71. Matt, forgive me for making an obvious correction, but I believe the full ‘hashtag’ name is:
    JeSuisCharlieMARTEL. and that, I am.

  72. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  73. for what its worth, i published the “offensive” pictures on my website the day of the attck. i agree with matt completely, and I have been disgusted by the cowardice of a numbet of news outlets in response to this attack. now is the time to gird your loins and to act like fucking Newsmen.

  74. http://thejournalistsmemorial.rsf.org/

    Plenty of people have lived and died for decades. Preach more carefully.

  75. The biggest danger to free speech is the antipathy towards it that is established in our colleges and universities. These nests of political correctness are where our future educators, politicians and government minions are being indoctrinated.

    What chance does free speech have when several generations of future “leaders” will be too cowardly to exercise their rights, much less defend them?

    Charlie Hebdo would not be allowed on any college campus in the US no matter how many “Je suis Charlie”s students tweet.

    http://wikdz.com/category/dz/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.