Why some aren't Charlie.

I've been thinking about the attacks in France on the Charlie Hebdo magazine of recent.

I never heard of that magazine before the attack. Doing a Google image search, I saw that the magazine has had covers that disgustingly mock the Holy Trinity as well as other religious and political figures. I understand that they are a satire magazine, but it seems to me that they go out of the way to cross the lines of decency.

For me, freedom of speech is freedom to praise God, not freedom to blaspheme. That is what I think is its intended purpose. When people choose to abuse that freedom to blaspheme, I find it sad, but wouldn't want my freedom limited just because some abuse it. The attacks in France were an attempt by some to limit freedom of speech.

I abhor what they did and even more the ideology that drove them to murder, but at the same time I have a hard time wanting to say "Je suis Charlie" because to me Charlie represents the abuse of freedom of speech.

I saw this news article and thought it interesting for 2 things. One, that it discussed the sentiment that I just shared and two, in it one can observe why so many 'peaceful' Muslims aren't decrying the so called 'radical' Muslims and that's scary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/they-are-not-charlie/2015/01/13/7c9d6998-9aae-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html?tid=hybrid_sidebar_alt1_strip_1

I'm in agreement with you and have been saying the same thing the last week. Some of the cartoons of Mohammed were quite disgusting as well and not for family viewing.

“I know some kids who agreed with the attack,” he said. “I did not, but I also cannot say that I support what Charlie Hebdo is doing.”

That is exactly how I feel about this. I don't encourage terror by any means, but some things I have seen by Charlie Hebdo are truly disgusting and blasphemous. I mean, free speech is a right, but with that comes the responsibility of respect.

This is another good opinion piece from a Canadian commentator, about the true state of free speech: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/rex-murphy-we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/

I find myself in agreement with you on the freedom of speech bit.  Also, I'm at the point that I have no sympathy whatsoever for the muslim cultists.  They act as victims when others are murdered by their own people.  The reality is is that islam promotes death.  The followers never condemn the attacks on large scale, they always play the victim and find a reason to justify murder.  Further, when Christians feel attacked, we try to stand up, but are defeated anyways as our sources for news or leadership sneers at us as hateful, bigoted and the like.  What happens when islam kills some people?  Politicians take notice and make changes, that empowers other muslims to join in.

The isolation they feel is one of their own making and no one else's.  It's incompatible with western society and either it will destroy us or we will destroy it.  That's it.

Also, interesting fact, I was talking to a friend who was a pastor(It wasn't the right time yet to do it), and he was telling me that in Idaho, the youth there are turning to islam as opposed to Christianity because of the rebellious nature that comes with it.  That's idiotic, but it is what it is.

Peter who was Vaak wrote:Also, interesting fact, I was talking to a friend who was a pastor(It wasn't the right time yet to do it), and he was telling me that in Idaho, the youth there are turning to islam as opposed to Christianity because of the rebellious nature that comes with it.  That's idiotic, but it is what it is.

Did you hear how IS is recruiting using GTA?
http://fusion.net/video/17265/isis-turns-grand-theft-auto-into-propaganda-game/

I did not.  That's interesting.  They are really working overtime to recruit thee impressionable.

I keep having the same "freedom" discussion in a lot of areas and it keeps coming down to these things for me:

1.  With freedom comes responsibility.
2.  Absolute freedom within society is an impossibility.  In order for society to work, we all yield a bit of personal freedom so that everyone's general freedom is protected.
3.  Freedom of speech means you are free to speak your mind without facing imprisonment, but that does not exempt you from other consequences.  In other words, you are free to call my wife a whore without going to jail for it, but you better be prepared to go to the hospital.

messiaen77 wrote:I keep having the same "freedom" discussion in a lot of areas and it keeps coming down to these things for me:

1.  With freedom comes responsibility.
2.  Absolute freedom within society is an impossibility.  In order for society to work, we all yield a bit of personal freedom so that everyone's general freedom is protected.
3.  Freedom of speech means you are free to speak your mind without facing imprisonment, but that does not exempt you from other consequences.  In other words, you are free to call my wife a whore without going to jail for it, but you better be prepared to go to the hospital.

Yep.

I understand the point of the starting post. 

Though my own view is a little different.

I said and wrote proudly "Je suis Charlie" after the attack. And I did it because I am two things: 1. christian 2. journalist.

For me freedom of speech is a right to say and to write and to draw anything you feel obligated to do and what you want to do. And no one, I say no one has any right to prevent that with violence.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of the democracy we have.

I know Charlie Hepdo quite well. The satire has long roots in the history of Europe. It is challenging way of art and it is many times akward because it reveals many things that people want to keep hidden. That is why it is important form of art.

My understanding is that the magazine was never really against personal faith of any kind, but they were against religious terrorism and all the wrong doings of organized religion.

For me religion is not the same thing that living relationship with God.

I am unquestionably against the attack and in favor of such satire being protected by law. However, it just seems pointless. What is the point of mocking the beliefs of a group of people, most of whom are peaceful (whether Islam in it's "purest" form is peaceful or not is irrelevant here)? Pissing people off isn't going to change their minds. It's just distasteful comedy for people who share the view of the satirist. That was worded weirdly I guess, basically I'm saying that from my ethical standpoint, images like that should not be published (no doubt it should be legal and violent retaliation is entirely unwarranted)

Stand against the wind wrote:I understand the point of the starting post. 

Though my own view is a little different.

I said and wrote proudly "Je suis Charlie" after the attack. And I did it because I am two things: 1. christian 2. journalist.

For me freedom of speech is a right to say and to write and to draw anything you feel obligated to do and what you want to do. And no one, I say no one has any right to prevent that with violence.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of the democracy we have.

I know Charlie Hepdo quite well. The satire has long roots in the history of Europe. It is challenging way of art and it is many times akward because it reveals many things that people want to keep hidden. That is why it is important form of art.

My understanding is that the magazine was never really against personal faith of any kind, but they were against religious terrorism and all the wrong doings of organized religion.

For me religion is not the same thing that living relationship with God.

Thanks for your perspective and insight. I never heard of the paper until the attack. My opinion of it is based on what I see in an image search.

I agree that our society must strive to maintain freedom of speech.