The French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris was firebombed this week by what are believed to be Muslim extremists for printing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad in a four-page supplement with other cartoons as part of its “freedom to poke fun” series.
No one has claimed responsibility in the attack.
The cartoon of Mohammad showed a speech bubble with the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.”
The publication of cartoons of Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 sparked unrest in the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.
To his credit, the head of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, denounced the attack: “I am extremely attached to freedom of the press, even if the press is not always tender with Muslims, Islam or the Paris Mosque.”
He and others however criticized the decision to run the cartoon. As stated in the past, I do not believe it is right to criticize such authors because they choose to mock religion or religious leaders. We have seen an increase in blasphemy prosecutions, including the support of the Obama Administration in such laws. While defending free speech in the 2005 controversy, the West has steadily rolled back on free speech rights, particularly with respect to criticism of religion.
18 thoughts on “Extremists Firebomb French Newspaper After Publication of Mohammad Cartoon”
Sorry for the grammar errors – “Mocking is inherently mocking the person themselves – should be ‘mocking religion is inherently mocking the person themselves*
Sorry for the late reply – didn’t know this got lots of attention! @Carol Levy Firstly, I don’t think mocking politics is the same as mocking religion. Mocking or discussing other political views is what makes those people accountable and can change by day or government. Mocking is inherently mocking the person themselves, their background and their roots – hence why I say tread slowly on these grounds. So mock other political views with no violent repercussions but with Religion we just don’t know – that’s my caveat.
@Lottakatz By no means do I believe that it should be written in the letter of the law – I just feel mocking religions, can have consequences from those radicals only. This could lead to extremists and therefore violence and deaths – which surely is not desired by anyone?
RE thelawcourt: troll alert.
Thelawcourt, It’s OK that you think people like me thinking that all religion is hoodoo and a fount of great historical and present evil, shouldn’t say that by way of mocking religion. So long as you don’t want it to be a law.
@carol levy, I’m not so sure the god who delivers boils and kills you family on the basis of a dispute with the devil is so much better. And I always “liked” the part where he hardens Pharoah’s heart. Who the heck wrote these “rules”!
Thelawcourt, so let’s see, if I mock say someone else’s political position to which they hold very strongly, satirizing that should also be prohibited?
That is why Freedom of speech is so important, what matters to you so very much may be oppositional to what matters to me or to what I believe; so then who decides which position is the one that is sacrosanct?
Personally, I am against those who satirically about religion as it just seems rather immoral. I mean is it not essentially mocking someone else’s belief system? Especially following the religious fundamentalist attacks of 9/11, I think any plain satirizing of religions should be prohibited – as it just causes more dislocation.
What Gene said … with a touch of culhealth
As a member of the Holy Order Of Dyslexia I pray all adherents will spay their acts and gods.
Amen Gene. And a G-d tat would bribe someone with 14 vestal virgins if he kills…that has got to be farce.
What Gene said!
Any god that can’t take a joke isn’t much of a god. Any god that can’t take a joke and has followers dumb enough to think that they – as some how being special to said humorless entity – should personally take violent action in retribution in the name of said all-powerful being (who should by definition be able to stand up for him/her/itself in the face of humor) is not much of a god. If I were such a god, I’d be embarrassed that my followers were so stupid and weak as to think that *I* needed help defending myself from a joke. Just who do you think *I* am? Fire bomb? Trying to kill cartoonists? *I* am *I*! *I* can send plagues! *I* can send floods! *I* can send a comet that would sterilize the face of the Earth!
Or maybe, just maybe it’s the *I* that’s the problem.
When anyone says to you “*I* speak for God because he/she/it speaks to me better and truer than he/she/it speaks to you?”
Is completely full of shit.
It’s about their personal *I* when people do bad things in the name of religion, but it most certainly isn’t about a god.
A god doesn’t need your help with humor; from a whoopie cushion to a funny picture to an acid witted barb to a prop comic (which some would argue is proof a god doesn’t even exist).
A god can take care of themselves.
If people like Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), from your previous post, have their way this intolerance (and worse) could be America in the future.
Free speech is in the eye of the beholder …..
Ok…..So when does the trial start for the Newspaper…..I am sure that is blasphemous….
Hebdo had to know it was coming. Brave, but I hope they moved their files and had religious nutcase coverage.
You say “I do not believe it is [ok] to [mock] … authors [who] mock religion.”
Comments are closed.