The violence at Charlie Hebdo underscores how we all need to treat each other better (free speech, Jesus)

[creepy]

I am sad and unhappy about the violence and murders at Charlie Hebdo. However why do people who can use their minds and hearts as well as anyone else choose to make such bad decisions about how to conduct themselves as the people who worked there did?

I have been hearing many rally free speech and some right after the murders talk about how "self censorship" is wrong and I have to disagree. Self censorship is how we get along with others, some might call it manners, might call it "walking in another's shoes". Many aspects of respecting others goes into self censorship.

Do we applaud when a grown man walks into a daycare and pulls his pants down to show off his underwear? No. Do we respect someone who goes into a business meeting for the welfare of animals and wears a dead dog around his neck? No.

Yes funny examples but I am making a point.

We are at a time in our US and world society that we feel that if we think something clever we should say it, perform it, do it. Why? If we think something evil or just not think much at all we should say it because "we thought it". Why?

In just the 1970's/80's when I was "coming of age" there was a phrase that was very popular it was "mixed company". It was used then to signify what one should discuss with the present person's nearby. For those to young to remember or not in the world yet it was used like this. A person would say "I'll tell you later-we have mixed company". It was a choice to not bring up certain things till later because it might offend. It reflected the individual observing the group and deciding what to talk about. It was a common politeness but also a censorship. Many times it did reflect a sexism-some things were not considered polite to talk of in front of women for example. However it was overall good I remember.

Now we live in a time where for example a Great-Grandma 78 yo comments on a cat video and a 12 year boy comments that she should be murdered back to her. We live in a anti-self censorship world mostly.

I see Charlie Hebdo as being a part of that. I found it sad and ironic that I heard the first cover post massacre had Mohammed on it. I may be wrong but don't Muslims believe there should be no drawn or visual representations of Mohammed? I have never verified this-maybe someone here can but why would self Charlie Hebdo disregard the most common decency to a religion by drawing Mohammed? It would be like someone going thru the bible and picking out one of the most sacred parts and going against it just because they wanted to be anti-Christian.

We no longer live in the 1970's where you can make a zine and have it be within your little city. Charlie Hebdo's covers and material was spread far and wide. Their shtick was to magnify, examine, satirize and I am all for that. However why not do that with some respect?

[verybadgnome]

Having the first amendment (in the U.S.) means that no religion is free from criticism.......You may find it ironic but religious institutions need criticism, both internally and externally, as a way of keeping them on the right path. There has never been a federal blasphemy statute because it would be almost impossible to craft one that was constitutional.

Also Mohammed is not just a religious figure, but like Jesus he is also an historical figure. He belongs not just to one religion, but rather is part of a human history and narrative that is shared by billions of people. He can be criticized by anyone, regardless of affiliation, just like any other pope, prophet, or rabbi. Sorry, but there are no boundaries or compromises in this regard.

[LS Jaun]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Having the first amendment (in the U.S.) means that no religion is free from criticism.......You may find it ironic but religious institutions need criticism, both internally and externally, as a way of keeping them on the right path. There has never been a federal blasphemy statute because it would be almost impossible to craft one that was constitutional.

Also [b]Mohammed is not just a religious figure, but like Jesus he is also an historical figure[/B]. He belongs not just to one religion, but rather is part of a human history and narrative that is shared by billions of people. He can be criticized by anyone, regardless of affiliation, just like any other pope, prophet, or rabbi. Sorry, but there are no boundaries or compromises in this regard.

True, Jesus doesn't belong to Christians anymore then Mohammed belongs to the Muslims. Just because some unintelligent people who had no concept that the earth is round says some religious fanatic was a prophet doesn't mean we have to believe their fairy tale.