BBC.com: Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[visionary]

The quote is the result of doing the math from the two questions in the Pew poll to determine a minimal percentage of people that support killing as punishment for apostates in the various questions.

I only see 6 countries (assuming one includes Palestine...all of Palestine?) that fit the statement in the quote.

But back to the statement you made earlier:

PeterMP, on 09 Jan 2015 - 4:46 PM, said:

While I have no clue why Maher didn't bother to get his facts right with respect to the statistics on the polling of Muslims and in that sense, I think he should be criticized, is it bigoted or Islamophobic to point out that ~50% of Muslims living in Arab countries think that apostasy should be punished by death and in many Asian countries, the number is somewhat similar?

Do you really think that accurately portrays the situation, at least as the stats show it?

[PeterMP]

I only see 6 countries (assuming one includes Palestine...all of Palestine?) that fit the statement in the quote.

But back to the statement you made earlier:

Do you really think that accurately portrays the situation, at least as the stats show it?

 

Yes, I think they are counting Palestine as a country, and yes you are right.  It looks like they miscounted by one country.

 

Does it really matter though for the conversation if the number is 6 countries (counting Palestine) and not 7?

 

And yes, I think it does based on the information given.

 

I didn't do the calculation all the way out, but the numbers are low for Tunisia and Lebanon, but they are the smaller and so at a total population number there smaller numbers don't have as much weight and historically more liberal countries.

 

They didn't even survey the more conservative countries in the Middle East.

 

The number might actually be closer to 40% than 50%, but you throw in Saudi Arabia with a large conservative population, and I wouldn't at all be shocked if the number is at 60% for the whole Middle East.

 

If the number is 68% for Egypt, what do you think it is in Saudi Arabia?

 

Might the number even be closer to 35%?  Yes it is possible (though I seriously doubt it), but does it really change the conversation?

 

If you consider killing somebody for switching religions a radical belief, the number of radical Middle Eastern Muslims does not appear to be a small minority.

 

This just in -  war racked and tribalistic countries tend to have values that we Westerners find deplorable.   Many of them are Muslim.   Many are not.  

 

Until a few decades ago, people in the New Guinea jungle were cannibals.  The most common cause of death in remote Amazonian tribes was murder.   Ethnic cleansing is sadly common when African tribes clash.  Approximately 2/3ds of rural Hindu Indians beat their wives.  and so on 

 

The problem is that wife beaters in rural India and rural Vietnam aren't teaming up to over throw governments.

 

And the US isn't putting resources, including people's lives, to support or defeat wife beaters in rural India.

 

When there are US forces on the ground in rural India and dealing with the wife beaters in rural India, I'll be more concerned about that issue.

[No Excuses]

This just in - war racked and tribalistic countries tend to have values that we Westerners find deplorable. Many of them are Muslim. Many are not.

Until a few decades ago, people in the New Guinea jungle were cannibals. The most common cause of death in remote Amazonian tribes was murder. Ethnic cleansing is sadly common when African tribes clash. Approximately 2/3ds of rural Hindu Indians beat their wives. and so on

What's your point? I get that the results of this unbiased poll don't sit well with you. You can keep trying to deflect or reason out of the results.

Pertaining to the topic at hand, it's absolutely necessary to understand that blasphemy is not taken lightly by millions and millions of people across a region.

I really don't know why these threads always end up with people drawing equivalencies. Yeah a lot of the world sucks ass. Because you point out one bad thing in the Arab world doesn't mean you have to acknowledge all the bad things in Africa and India.

[megared]

Problem I do have, is that in the end, I think that people get offended way too much, and are way too much adopting the "victim position". Sometimes it's just best to just move on, and don't even consider those that mean to harm you in such way.

 

I'd agree if everyone thought rationally.  There's certain things you don't do if you value your safety and life.  I mean if you piss off a population consisting of over a billion people once, that's one thing.  But doing it time and time again, with a sizable number in your vicinity is a recipe for disaster.  France is no more or less free than it was before this situation occurred.  The difference is, they'll censor 'royalty's' breasts from being published, which only pisses off maybe an entire country...as opposed to allowing the publication of things that piss off entire regions.  And I'm not talking just censorship, governments and other organizations reach out to publications all the time to say 'I don't think putting that out is a good idea.'  It was a judgement call.  They continually ignored those warnings from high ranking people in the French government.

 

And let's be honest, this wasn't anything rivaling Watergate, or even Snowden's disclosures...these were mean spirited cartoons designed to upset large swaths of people.  Did seeing their prophet depicted in sexually explicit positions add any valuable information to your life, or tangibly put something out there to force an honest conversation?  No, any other day, the vast majority of people would say 'that's disgusting, and while I believe in freedom of press, I also think there needs to be a respect for other cultures and values.'  When you do something that has a consequence of shutting down 20 of your countries' embassies around the world, you can no longer pretend you're some fighter for freedom of speech and that it's just drawings on paper.  You tangibly put a lot of people's lives at risk...for what?  To sell magazines and have yourself in the news, which serves to possibly sell more magazines than you normally would?   Can you honestly justify a small group of people increasing the chances of a terrorist attack in your country, from being stubborn?  Where's the honor in that?  

[Mr. Sinister]

That's not victim blaming. I prefaced it by saying they didn't deserve to die. But when you insult a billion plus people, is it out of the realm of possibility that there's a few crazy ones that will stop at nothing to make you pay?

I agree. I think, to be surprised at that, is halfway

I know some of us live in a world where we expect nothing to happen when we openly make fun of people, or trash beliefs that they hold dear, but when you step into that spotlight, you then deal with everything that potentially comes with that.

[twa]

I agree. I think, to be surprised at that, is halfway

I know some of us live in a world where we expect nothing to happen when we openly make fun of people, or trash beliefs that they hold dear, but when you step into that spotlight, you then deal with everything that potentially comes with that.

 

 

The same obviously goes for those murdering scum and supporters.

 

people certainly do behave badly

[visionary]

What's your point? I get that the results of this unbiased poll don't sit well with you. You can keep trying to deflect or reason out of the results.

Pertaining to the topic at hand, it's absolutely necessary to understand that blasphemy is not taken lightly by millions and millions of people across a region.

I really don't know why these threads always end up with people drawing equivalencies. Yeah a lot of the world sucks ass. Because you point out one bad thing in the Arab world doesn't mean you have to acknowledge all the bad things in Africa and India.

The problem is that these threads quickly turn into sessions for people to take turns making sweeping statements, broad condemnations, and unsupported assumptions about a religion and regions of the world they aren't a part of. Then when other people point out errors or that perhaps the things they're early attributing to religion aren't solely caused by it, those who want to use the threads for a soap box against Islam or Arabs, move onto another complaint.

It's not about equivalency, it's about accuracy, and not jumping to conclusions.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Because I am really enjoying this discussion

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/mourning-the-parisian-jou_b_6442550.html

 

 

Mourning the Parisian Journalists Yet Noticing the Hypocrisy

 

Rabbi Michael Lerner 

 

As the editor of a progressive Jewish and interfaith magazine that has often articulated views that have prompted condemnation from both Right and Left, I had good reason to be scared by the murders of fellow journalists in Paris. Having won the 2014 "Magazine of the Year" Award from the Religion Newswriters Association, and having been critical of Hamas' attempts to bomb Israeli cities this past summer (even while being equally critical of Israel's rampage against civilians in Gaza), I have good reason to worry if this prominence raises the chances of being a target for Islamic extremists.

But then again, I had to wonder about the way the massacre in Paris is being depicted and framed by the Western media as a horrendous threat to Western civilization, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I wondered about the over-heated nature of this description. It didn't take me long to understand how problematic that framing really is.

When right-wing "pro-Israel" fanatics frequently sent me death threats, physically attacked my house and painted on the gates statements about me being "a Nazi" or "a self-hating Jew," and called in bomb threats to Tikkun, the magazine I edit, there was no attention given to this by the media, no cries of "our civilization depends on freedom of the press" or demands to hunt down those involved (the FBI and police received our complaints, but never reported back to us about what they were doing to protect us or find the assailants).

Nor was the mainstream or Jewish media particularly concerned about Western civilization being destroyed or freedom of thought and association undermined when various universities denied tenure to professors who had made statements critical of Israel, or when the Hillel association, which operates a chain of student-oriented "Hillel Houses" on college campuses, decided to ban from their premises any Jews who were part of Jewish Voices for Peace. Nor was the media much interested in a bomb that went off outside the NAACP's Colorado Springs headquarters the same day as they were highlighting the attack in Paris. Colorado Springs is home to some of the most extreme right-wing activists. It was a balding white man who was seen setting the bomb, some reports claim, and so the media described it as an act of a troubled "lone individual," rather than as a white right wing Christian fundamentalist terrorist. Few Americans have even heard of this incident.

 

 

[visionary]

Yes, I think they are counting Palestine as a country, and yes you are right.  It looks like they miscounted by one country.

 

Does it really matter though for the conversation if the number is 6 countries (counting Palestine) and not 7?

 

And yes, I think it does based on the information given.

 

I didn't do the calculation all the way out, but the numbers are low for Tunisia and Lebanon, but they are the smaller and so at a total population number there smaller numbers don't have as much weight and historically more liberal countries.

 

They didn't even survey the more conservative countries in the Middle East.

 

The number might actually be closer to 40% than 50%, but you throw in Saudi Arabia with a large conservative population, and I wouldn't at all be shocked if the number is at 60% for the whole Middle East.

 

If the number is 68% for Egypt, what do you think it is in Saudi Arabia?

 

Might the number even be closer to 35%?  Yes it is possible (though I seriously doubt it), but does it really change the conversation?

 

If you consider killing somebody for switching religions a radical belief, the number of radical Middle Eastern Muslims does not appear to be a small minority.

Actually the number for Egypt was around 64%, you said as much in the other thread too. 

But that's not really important.

 

Country to country differs clearly, there's no way we can make assumptions about the entire Middle East or the Arab world.  There is no basis to assume that's it's over 50% everywhere. And you were obviously wrong about Asia.

 

There's nothing wrong with discussing this stuff, but come on let's not be sloppy about it.

 

 

(sorry, if I'm being a pain, but some of this stuff just gets on my nerves.  I apologize if I'm coming off like a jerk.)

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/10/us-france-shooting-hamas-idUSKBN0KJ0MP20150110

Hamas condemns France attacks, says no justification for 'killing innocents'

 

The Hamas group that controls the Gaza Strip on Saturday issued a condemnation of the deadly attacks by Islamist gunmen in France this week, saying there was no "justification for killing innocents".

 

The Palestinian Islamist faction, which is designated as a terror organization by most Western countries, also challenged Israel's "helpless attempts" to draw comparisons between its activities and the violence in France.

 

In the worst assault on France's homeland security for decades, 17 victims lost their lives in three days of violence that began with an attack on the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper on Wednesday and ended with Friday's dual sieges at a print works outside Paris and a kosher supermarket in the city.

 

"(Hamas) stresses that its position on the latest events in Paris is in line with the statement issued by the International Union of Muslim Scholars which condemned the attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and that any differences in opinion are no justification for killing innocents," Hamas said in a rare statement in French.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/vomit-charlies-sudden-friends-staff-cartoonist-163403612.html

'We vomit' on Charlie's sudden friends: staff cartoonist

 

A prominent Dutch cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo heaped scorn on the French satirical weekly's "new friends" since the massacre at its Paris offices on Wednesday.

 

"We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh," Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant in an interview published Saturday.

 

France's far-right National Front leader "Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place," said Willem, 73, a longtime Paris resident who also draws for the French leftist daily Liberation.

 

He added: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."

 

 

[grego]

Because I am really enjoying this discussion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/mourning-the-parisian-jou_b_6442550.html

He fears those terrifying Christian fundamentalist terrorists.

I laughed. Again.

This isn't helping.

[PeterMP]

Actually the number for Egypt was around 64%, you said as much in the other thread too. 

But that's not really important.

 

Country to country differs clearly, there's no way we can make assumptions about the entire Middle East or the Arab world.  There is no basis to assume that's it's over 50% everywhere. And you were obviously wrong about Asia.

 

There's nothing wrong with discussing this stuff, but come on let's not be sloppy about it.

 

 

(sorry, if I'm being a pain, but some of this stuff just gets on my nerves.  I apologize if I'm coming off like a jerk.)

 

When somebody says ~50% of Americans voted for George Bush to be President, nobody takes that to mean that the ~50% are evenly distributed.

 

Even if I say a state like PA or FL is split 50/50 on some politician issue, nobody thinks the people are evenly distributed.

 

Why would the Middle East and Muslims be any different?

 

Why would you look at any of my comments and conclude that I was indicating that the ~50% were evenly spread?

 

Why would somebody look at my comments and say that all Arabs were the same?

 

I've given the number for Egypt, which clearly indicates that there are countries where the number is less than 50%.

 

What assumption have I put forward that would change because there is variation in the Middle East?

 

Why am I wrong about Asia?

 

What is somewhat similar to ~50%?

 

Isn't that phrase vague and imprecise?

 

I'm not even saying it is similar to 50% or even similar to ~50%.

 

Based on a poll, the number for Muslims in Britain is over 20%.

 

To me considering the country that's shockingly somewhat similar to ~50%.

 

It is better to be precise than not precise in conversations, but I'm making a point that I don't think requires a lot precision.

 

Sure I could look at the polls and even do some research and spend up some time to make more precise statements.

 

But I don't think that's really necessary to make the point that I'm making, and I'm giving every indication that I am being imprecise by using things like the approximation sign (~) and phrases like somewhat similar.

 

There are countries and even regions where there are a lot of Muslims where a lot of the Muslims believe that killing people because they change their religion is good.

 

I find that in a country like Egypt that has been our "ally" for decades that a lot of people think that killing somebody because they change their religion is good is disappointing, surprising, and distressing.

[Elessar78]

ANONYMOUS going after ISIS and Al Qaeda

 

I hope to Christian God this is true. 

[FrFan]

ANONYMOUS going after ISIS and Al Qaeda

 

I hope to Christian God this is true. 

They posted a webpage but they have not detailed the actions they would undertake precisely against these enemies of freedom of expression.

 

1 million "je suis Charlie" are expected to gather today in Paris.

5500 cops including snipers and soldiers will be in charge of security.

[s0crates]

This just in - war racked and tribalistic countries tend to have values that we Westerners find deplorable. Many of them are Muslim. Many are not.

Until a few decades ago, people in the New Guinea jungle were cannibals. The most common cause of death in remote Amazonian tribes was murder. Ethnic cleansing is sadly common when African tribes clash. Approximately 2/3ds of rural Hindu Indians beat their wives. and so on

I'd add that much of Europe and America isn't more than a few hundred years removed from slavery, inquisitions, the subjugation of women, witch trials, etc.

I think the question, "What causes hate?" is a good one. I think "Islam" or even "religion" would be far too simplistic an answer.

[FrFan]

I think the question, "What causes hate?" is a good one. I think "Islam" or even "religion" would be far too simplistic an answer.

I would say that the roots of hatred feed on jealousy, fear and ignorance. Fear often roots on ignorance. Those who have prejudices are prone to twist, to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that contradict their preconceived ideas. These prejudices oftenly carry on from one generation onto another.

 

It also has to do with the ones who simply believe that different people are worthless. Their view is sometimes the result of a single unpleasant experience with someone from another race or culture.

Others are followers listening to others such as medias disinformation and making their opinion through them, or feeding on them to convince themselves they're right.

You'll find some Xs who hates Ys because they have preconceived ignorant ideas about them. Usually those X's never been to Ys country and never took the time to communicate in their own country with Ys.

Their conclusion is that all those who belong to that race or culture must have the same flawes

Why this violence ? is another question, you could seek some answers from the work of Clark McCauley.

 

Unfortunately religion has been a part of the hatred throughout the ages. See all the wars started in the name of the religion during the past and even today.

[FrFan]

France needs to seriously think about the future of France and what it means to be French.

Agreed, we know what it is to be French but we failed to make them all embrace it.

We've got no integration problem with the french from sub-saharan, asian, european descent.

We have this problem with a part of the french community from northern africa descent for a few decades.. It is a problem of generations, we have absolutely no cultural integration problem with the first generation only with the later one. I blame it on the politicians, education and some medias.

There is also a small number of them who refuse integration. The socialists have surrender to too many integrist minorities (school forced to make all the children eat hallal food because of the arab integrists pressure, Ribery and Benzema did the same, until Blanc ended it, politicians letting thousand of cars being burnt during new year's eve). We have a few number of women walking down the streets in niqab, we don't have antimask law for security matters. 

Socialists let this minority of immigrants trample secularism which is a corner stone of our democracy, and therefore contributing to the raise of the national front since 1982. Some medias carry a responsability too. Airing the actions of this small minority on and on week in week out, and therefore contributing to make people who can be easily influenced here and there feel like those integrists are in large numbers. They're contributing to make them haters or to to increase their feelings of rejection and hatred towards the greatest number which doesn't deserve this.

 

I'd like to point at another major flaw from our lousy socialist politicians. Today we're going to gather millions all over the country to pay a tribute to our lost ones. You'll see them holding, wearing "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" signs most of them distributed through associations linked with the government. I'm not jewish myself but how about also distributing "je suis Juif français" (I am french Jewish) signs ?

It seems that our lousy politicians have a selected memory.

 

Edit: See the farternity all over the country among all those people no matter where they come from, immigrants waving french flags, that's the spirit. Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

[ixcuincle]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/10/world/france-market-shooting-scene/index.html

 

The man purported to be Coulibaly, 32, apparently argued with hostages about taxes, RTL's recording shows.

"You pay taxes, so that means you agree" with France's actions in Mali and the Middle East, the apparent gunman says in the recording.

"But we have to pay," another voice says.

The response from the apparent gunman appeared incredulous: "What? We don't have to. I don't pay my taxes!"

"When I pay my taxes, it's for the highways, schools," an apparent hostage says. "We pay our taxes but we don't harm anybody," a person also says.

[PeterMP]

I'd add that much of Europe and America isn't more than a few hundred years removed from slavery, inquisitions, the subjugation of women, witch trials, etc.

I think the question, "What causes hate?" is a good one. I think "Islam" or even "religion" would be far too simplistic an answer.

 

I think at some level this is the wrong question with respect to the topic.

 

Do think Muslims hate more than non-Muslims?

 

Or do you think that there are just factors that result in their hate leading to violent crimes related to the religion?

 

Do you think other religions like not seeing sacred and important religious figures insulting and derogatory cartoons less than Muslims?

 

Or do you think that they have a similar level of distaste for such cartoons and chose not to kill over it despite that level of distaste?

 

I generally doubt that Muslims are more able or prone to hate than other people.

 

I suspect most people see the denigration of important religious figures with the same level of distaste.

 

The better question, I think is what causes killings and/or violence as a response.

 

Now, the answer to that question isn't necessarily simple either (but in the real world, there appear to be few questions that have simple answers.).

[Burgold]

 

 

I suspect most people see the denigration of important religious figures with the same level of distaste.

The dissonance I have with this (which I understand is a purely logical and not emotional response to an emotional issue) is that I was always taught that we are not to worship graven idols... in other words, drawings and man made constructs are not sacred.  So, a depiction of G-d or Jesus or Mohamed, etc. is just a graven image and not an act worthy of rage.

 

Mind you, I do get that spark of anger if I see someone burning an American flag... so, I'm not immune to it.  Still, that step of spark to wildfire is not one I'm familiar with.

[twa]

isn't that along the nature of the prohibition of graven images though?....a standard obviously relaxed and subject to interpretation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism#In_historical_periods

 

the offence is simply mitigated by the predisposition against them in your case

 

anyway, back to the murders

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/europe/paris-terrorist-attacks.html

 

Top ministers in the French government held an emergency session to discuss measures to prevent a repeat of the attacks, which shocked the country and raised questions about why law enforcement agencies had failed to thwart terrorism suspects well known to the police and intelligence services.

Some of the surviving hostages shared chilling accounts of their ordeals at the hands of heavily armed captors, who they said had seemed prepared to die as police forces amassed outside the kosher supermarket and a printing plant northeast of Paris that the Kouachi brothers had seized early Friday.

[PCS]

http://mashable.com/2015/01/10/anonymous-operation-charlie-hebdo/

 

 

 

Anonymous claims first victim in 'Operation Charlie Hebdo'

Hacking collective Anonymous declared war on Islamic extremists after Wednesday's deadly attack on Paris-based satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, and the group has now claimed its first victim.

*Click Link For More*

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30765824

 

 

 

 

France attacks: Million-strong unity rally in Paris

More than a million people have taken part in a unity march in Paris, after 17 people were killed during three days of deadly attacks in France's capital.

The government has described it as the largest march in the country's history.

More than 40 world leaders joined the start of the march, linking arms in an act of solidarity.

The marchers wanted to demonstrate unity after the attacks on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, police officers, and a kosher supermarket.

"Paris is the capital of the world today," French leader Francois Hollande said.

*Click Link For More*

[PeterMP]

The dissonance I have with this (which I understand is a purely logical and not emotional response to an emotional issue) is that I was always taught that we are not to worship graven idols... in other words, drawings and man made constructs are not sacred.  So, a depiction of G-d or Jesus or Mohamed, etc. is just a graven image and not an act worthy of rage.

 

Mind you, I do get that spark of anger if I see someone burning an American flag... so, I'm not immune to it.  Still, that step of spark to wildfire is not one I'm familiar with.

 

That's a bit tangential to my point.

 

Another way to think about my point is to suggest that the killers are more upset than Muslims that don't kill over the cartoons might suggest that they are better Muslims.

 

I think it might be better to suggest that they are more prone to violence.

 

This isn't to suggest that all or even most Muslims are (more) prone to violence.

 

But I think it is clear that some people are more prone to violence, and I suspect that people that are more prone to violence tend to be drawn to systems that say violence is okay or even good.

 

That is people that are prone to violence are going to be drawn to leaders that espouse violent actions as credible solutions to problems.

 

Again, I'm not saying that's the case for all or even most Muslims.  Nor do I think it is the totality of the current problem.

 

But I do suspect that it is a contributing factor.

[Chew]

Netanyahu, involved in a peace march?

[JoeWolf990]

The New Yorker: Unmournable Bodies

 

A northern-Italian miller in the sixteenth century, known as Menocchio, literate but not a member of the literary élite, held a number of unconventional theological beliefs. He believed that the soul died with the body, that the world was created out of a chaotic substance, not ex nihilo, and that it was more important to love one’s neighbor than to love God. He found eccentric justification for these beliefs in the few books he read, among them the Decameron, the Bible, the Koran, and “The Travels of Sir John Mandeville,” all in translation. For his pains, Menocchio was dragged before the Inquisition several times, tortured, and, in 1599, burned at the stake. He was one of thousands who met such a fate.

Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation. Yet European and American history are so strongly marked by efforts to control speech that the persecution of rebellious thought must be considered among the foundational buttresses of these societies. Witch burnings, heresy trials, and the untiring work of the Inquisition shaped Europe, and these ideas extended into American history as well and took on American modes, from the breaking of slaves to the censuring of critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

More than a dozen people were killed by terrorists in Paris this week. The victims of these crimes are being mourned worldwide: they were human beings, beloved by their families and precious to their friends. On Wednesday, twelve of them were targeted by gunmen for their affiliation with the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Charlie has often been aimed at Muslims, and it’s taken particular joy in flouting the Islamic ban on depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s done more than that, including taking on political targets, as well as Christian and Jewish ones. The magazine depicted the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a sexual threesome. Illustrations such as this have been cited as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s willingness to offend everyone. But in recent years the magazine has gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations, and its numerous anti-Islam images have been inventively perverse, featuring hook-nosed Arabs, bullet-ridden Korans, variations on the theme of sodomy, and mockery of the victims of a massacre. It is not always easy to see the difference between a certain witty dissent from religion and a bullyingly racist agenda, but it is necessary to try. Even Voltaire, a hero to many who extol free speech, got it wrong. His sparkling and courageous anti-clericalism can be a joy to read, but he was also a committed anti-Semite, whose criticisms of Judaism were accompanied by calumnies about the innate character of Jews.

Click to read more.