Dear Josephus,

You are correct about the biblical saying 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword'.

Jesus probably got that from his knowledge of the Jewish Bible. King David was forbidden to build the temple because he had been a warrior:

1 Chronicles 28:3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.

.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

.

You wrote (on page 10 of this thread) :

« … they [the Charlie Hebdo writers and artists] are not the freedom of speech martyrs the media is claiming. They only wanted the freedom of speech to criticize religion. Charlie Hebdo was leading the fight AGAINST freedom of speech in other areas. »
.

The facts you are looking at are perfectly correct, Jay, but your interpretation of them calls for a few comments : firstly, as you point out yourself in your post, Charlie Hebdo waged a vigorous campaign to dissolve the extreme rightist political party “Front National”. That had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with politics.

While it is true to say that Charlie Hebdo regularly attacks religion, religion is by no means the sole target of their satire. It is directed at every “sacred cow” you can think of, without the slightest exception. As I indicated previously on this thread, the cartoonists attack and ridicule only those who are in a position of superiority and authority, capable of defending themselves. Also, the magazine prides itself on its secularism.

To cite another example, as you have surely noticed, successive presidents of the French Republic always present themselves draped in a cloak of dignity and integrity, sometimes in company with their wives and children. Then the news breaks of their extramarital relations with their multiple mistresses. This is the sort of satirical fodder that Charlie Hebdo relishes.

Secondly, the magazine has a permanent in-house lawyer who vets everything before it is published. It is often attacked in the courts but is rarely, if ever, condemned. Not only does it respect the (French) law, but also, as you rightly point out, « it leads the fight AGAINST “freedom of” speech" in other areas » such as racism in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, hate crimes, speech crimes, etc.

What better proof than that which you indicate youself: « Sinet was prosecuted for speech crimes, and Val fired him from Chairle Hebdo magazine ».

No icon is spared or exonerated.

.

Do the French want to live with Muslims who resent such Muhammad cartoons and will feel alienated or worse, irrespective of what their leaders said in the aftermath of the massacre?

Do the French not rather want their Muslims to get out of their own Middle Ages (a hopeful development that the cartoons did not facilitate at all), because they are certainly not going to get out of France/Europe?

I think the danger of inhibiting the integration of millions of decent Muslims is as serious as that coming from the violent reactions of militant crackpots among them. The latter will feed on the former, but police can fight only the latter, not the former.

.

Dear George,

.

You asked :

« Do the French want to live with Muslims who resent such Muhammad cartoons and will feel alienated or worse, irrespective of what their leaders said in the aftermath of the massacre? »

No. I think the French Muslims will listen to their “leaders” and adopt whatever attitude they recommend. There are numerous on-going debates in the media since the terrorist attacks and the leaders of the major religious denominations appear to be mostly preoccupied with avoiding any possible amalgam of jihadists and Muslims in the minds of the general public.

The message is clear: there should be no discrimination among French citizens according to their religion. I have not heard or read a single word of criticism of Charlie Hebdo by any of the leaders of the three major religions (Catholicism, Islam and Judaism) since the attacks.

Nor have I heard or read a single word of criticism of the French Muslims by the French Jewish leaders in relation to the attack on the Jewish grocery store during which four Jews were killed.
.

« Do the French not rather want their Muslims to get out of their own Middle Ages (a hopeful development that the cartoons did not facilitate at all), because they are certainly not going to get out of France/Europe? »

Some marginal right-wing French commentators are demanding that the government deport the Muslim population “en masse”.
.

« I think the danger of inhibiting the integration of millions of decent Muslims is as serious as that coming from the violent reactions of militant crackpots among them. The latter will feed on the former, but police can fight only the latter, not the former. »

There seems to be a quasi consensus in France for full integration of Muslims and Jews, i.e., everybody should accept Charlie Hebdo and ignore it as the Catholics do.

The majority of Catholics do not take it seriously. Nor are they amused by it. The quasi-consensus is that the Muslims and Jews should do likewise. That is considered part of their integration.

.

The problem that Europe is having with its Muslims seems to me in some respects similar to the problems the US is having with its Tea Party Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans are imbued with fundamentalist religion and reject modernity. Televangelists like Pat Robertson blame hurricanes and other natural disasters on God punishing the wicked US because most Americans have rejected his brand of fundamentalism. Huckabee, a Republican with presidential ambitions, wants to modify the US Constitution to insert mention of God. They reject the findings of science regarding evolution and climate change. Founding fathers of the US such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were men of the Enlightenment who advocated separation of religion and state. Tea Party spokesmen such as Rick Santorum reject that, too. Rick Santorum falsely links church-state separation to communism. David Barton rewrites history to make Jefferson, Madison and Washington fundie bible-bashers. Some of the Christian fundamentalists resort to violence and blow up abortion clinics. They would set up a Christian sharia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology describes some of their theological basis.

In Israel the religious parties want the country to adopt a code of strict Orthodoxy and accept God as a real estate dealer who has assigned them the territory.

One difference between Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that the proportion of those who reject modernity in Islam is much larger. A reactionary Catholic in the US referred to the Dark Ages as the Golden Age of Faith. Maybe we're headed back there.

How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hedbo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world.
Im beginning to think that the people who work at this useless gutter rag are nothing more than socially retarded morons.
So what has been the result of this latest insult?...Only more unnecessary death, injury, mayhem and a guarantee of more terrorist attacks and lives lost in Paris. I hope its all worth it just to sell a few magazines.