Another thing that hasn't been pointed out enough are the reprisals against Muslims like Ahmed who have integrated with France. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/charlie-he...s-attacked-magazine-massacre-backlash-1482536 Or the strong unequivocal condemnation of the events by some of the largest Islamic organizations in the world.
Pure lip service. Ask these same organizations about the punishment for blasphemy or apostasy, and see where they truly stand. It's not that these organizations would carry out tangible violent attacks. The problem is these organizations that claim to be moderate share plenty of the bad ideas that fundamentalist who tangibly carry out violent attacks have. Many of the condemnations by Islamic organizations go as follows: "I condemn these atrocious attacks but...."
Was Ahmed doing pure lip service? Be careful assigning your thoughts to millions of people, you may find that people will surprise you.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Every dull-witted, preening "pen is mightier than sword" cartoon this week proves exactly the opposite.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/553971513766854657" data-datetime="2015-01-10T17:47:55+00:00">January 10, 2015</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Look buddy, you are being extremely naive if you honestly believe that many of these "moderate" organizations don't share some of the same ideology that those who committed these violent acts in the name of defending their prophet's name have. I have been a part of the muslim community in the U.S. all my life. Even though the United States holds the most secular group of Muslims in the world I still hear even my own mother state that these people should be condemned but then she goes on an includes a "but". "But they insulted the prophet.". Sure there are millions of secular Muslims who choose to ignore explicit commands to punish apostates and blasphemers, but don't be so naive to believe that many of these imams condemning the acts don't share some of the very same core principles about Sharia law and the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy.
So are you saying the difference between moderate organizations and those who have those same bad ideas means the difference between violent attacks or integration with society? Should all citizens of France regard Muslims with suspicion merely because they carry the same loose thread of thought?
Charlie Hebdo was on the verge of bankruptcy. Now Google, le Monde, even the French government have stepped in. From going to extinction to a million-circulation issue, from 300,000 Facebook likes to 1.5 million, from almost nothing to a rally that raised the Republic 700,000 strong. If money is speech for you, then money has spoken. Cynics like the IowaHawk score easy, trite points on platforms built by the true defenders of freedom of expression--technologists who enable the world's mightiest pens. Nobody may remember his trite points, but they will remember the platform and philosophy of the platforms that enabled him to communicate them across the world, along with the thoughts and ideas of a billion others. A platform that helped light a bonfire under Tunisia, and which the closed regimes of the world fear above all else.
They wanted to put France on her knees: instead, they raised her up. Photo reads: 12 dead, 66 million wounded.
his point was, if you are printing "pen is mightier than the sword" cartoons rather than the actual cartoons, you are proving that phrase false
many of the same people who printed those cartoons are also reprinting the same Charlie cartoons. Many of them are dear dear friends of the Charlie cast, and have done more to support journalistic freedom than IowaHawk would ever do in a million years. Freedom of expression is a luxury, instead of being snide, the dude should use whatever following he has to do something about it. I say should because I respect his freedom to represent himself as a cynic, but I want to slam his stance as useless, shallow, and trite. On that point, has he reprinted the Charlie cartoons? Donated to Charlie? To the CPJ? Been to a Charlie rally? One would hope so. I respect journalists like Glenn Greenwald who ACTUALLY risk their welfare to disseminate their views, not snide commenters who think their trope of old, stale, "unpolitically correct" points made in absolute safety makes them in some valued position to comment cynically on the sacrifices required to defend freedom of expression.
Sorry, hit submit too quickly. The link is basically to "pen is mightier than the sword" cartoons in the Middle East. How does that show the phrase false? In your mind, the only way to support the notion is to post something you might find personally insulting, instead of by standing up for the rights of others to post something that might insult you personally?
They didn't want to kill critics, they wanted to kill the idea that religion, no matter what religion, deserves our honest disrespect, a concept that is at the core of France. They can't kill every critic, unless their attacks kill the idea of criticism. If nothing else, I am glad that people are finally realizing how French journalists have been at the very cutting edge of defending that idea. Hopefully it makes people think twice when then go into a broad tirade against marginalized groups and misrepresent what they are doing as some sort of bravery, when in reality it is at the margin of safe state and socially sanctioned discourse.
Yes, I shall second guess those who believe that the punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is death. There are millions who don't explicitly carry out violent acts yet still hold that belief. There are also millions of Muslims who are secular and invoke their secular morality over Islamic morality and choose to flat out ignore all the commands for violence in the religion. Again, I am not going to judge a Muslim just because he or she is Muslim. Individual merit applies. I'll first know the individual and what their convictions are. If that individual is a Muslim who believes that there should be a punishment for apostasy or blasphemy I will put my distance between them and not trust them. As an apostate, it's only natural that I am wary of those who believe a corporal punishment should be applied to me, even if they don't actively apply the punishment themselves because they are perpetuating this notion to their family, their children and their community. For every Muslim cleric who openly condemns these attacks a follow up question should be asked. That question is: "What is the Islamic doctrine regarding blasphemy and apostasy?". The video below is a prime example I am referring to. Richard Dawkins is having a debate with a Muslim cleric who repeatedly has condemned violent acts in the name of Islam, yet when Dawkins asks him a direct question:"What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam?" he flat out ignores it several times until he gives in and acknowledges that under Sharia Law the punishment for apostasy is death. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/r018ohLUuL4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's not a "loose thread of thought". If someone thinks the penalty for "blasphemy", "apostasy" and homosexuality should be death, then that defines them. It defines them in that they are driven by intolerance and ignorance, and that they put their rules above those of a civil society.
If someone becomes a police officer and a Muslim, and puts the freedom of expression to insult his religion before his own life, does that define them?
Should we ask every Jewish religious figure if they still believe in the punishments accorded by the Old Testament? Does that define them?
