Posted on 01/13/2015 2:38:11 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The upcoming front cover for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo will picture the prophet Muhammad holding a sign that says "Je suis Charlie."
While many in a (let's say hypothetical) march would personally like one expression of free speech, but not necessarily the other, should there be marches supporting free speech for both Charlie Hebdo - and let's say works like Serrano did ("The Piss Christ") and not getting mad at either of the depictions?
In other words, temporarily suspending all dislike for either in the name of free speech in this march, as some in the media do support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what they will, but don't believe that it follows the rule of while you can, should you?
One thing is that Charlie Hebdo takes no prisoners. They are an equal opportunity offender...
There should never be such a march.
You are getting these replies because it is you who have missed the point.
The point of "Je suis Charlie" isn't that you can't be angered by sacrilege. It's that your anger doesn't justify murder. As an agnostic leaning more toward atheism, I am actually offended at some of the anti-Christian blasphemy on Charlie Hebdo's covers. Some of it is genuinely vile, whatever your affiliation. [And was deliberately printed to offend, which was the point of the authors.]
Piss Christ is also truly vile. I would not march in support of Serrano per se under any circumstances. But I would march in defense of his rights.
shoot 'im
THAT is the enemy we face, and we ... WE ... cannot win
OUR minds cannot win against Satan's and we had better learn that pretty darned quick
I can't begin to count the times we here in FR have analyzed a situation and answered the problems of the world, only to have another entity do something really, REALLY stupid and / or evil and make more of a mess than what we started with.
DAMNED frustrating.
That is what I am getting to in this thread: evolution of society.
People evolving to where they still have their religious beliefs, but a society where non-murderous types of all faiths temporarily suspend their offense at their own faith being lampooned and marching in favor of free speech rights - in unity.
Will it happen?
For my money? No, not with people who are taught by their religious leaders and their holy book that not only is the depiction of their god cause for murder, but that non believers are no better than animals to be slaughtered.
I've only seen leftwing/atheist sources claim he was a Christian. They're dying to prove the myth of Christian extremism, so they're to be discounted.
Nevertheless, it's wrong for the slogan to be "I am Charlie Hebdo."
If somebody --- deranged or not, religious or not --- ever wipes out the Hustler magazine staff (which I of course firmly and unambiguously condemn), will we protest and show our bona-fides by carrying signs that say, "I AM LARRY FLYNT"?
There is no moral equivalency between the conservative position that FedGov should not pay to support “art” such as Piss Christ and the terrorist position that it’s okay to murder artists you find offensive.
“Will it happen?”
No it won’t. What’s this notion of society “evolving”? Society seems to be evolving right down the toilet as far as I can see.
Prior to the rise of Islamicists there was no need for such a march. There was no need to clarify the idea that artists and journalists had the right to express opinions and even mock sacred beliefs without losing their lives.
Indeed, the piss christ marches have been going on for a long time at the museum where it is displayed, like a sort of artistic mecca for atheists.
Besides, this is not about supporting atheism, this is about free speech in general. But they twist free speech into an atheist cult.
If somebody --- deranged or not, religious or not --- ever wipes out the Hustler magazine staff (which I of course firmly and unambiguously condemn), will we protest and show our bona-fides by carrying signs that say, "I AM LARRY FLYNT"?"
Exactly. We can affirm that the murders are wrong without aligning ourselves ideologically with the magazine.
There is no equivalency.
A depiction that only serves to be offensive is in no way equivalent to a depiction, that although it may be offensive, makes a point.
The majority of people who espouse the practice of free speech really don’t!
Today in the USA, Mark Twain would be censored and censured! Anyone remember Lenny Bruce?
We have lost words because like the muslims certain people/factions are “ offended”.
We ostracize people who do, even here on FReerepublic!
My question is, would our society tolerate a magazine cover with caricatures of feral black youths looting or homosexual child rapists?
No, the fact is what is not tolerated is typically what goes against a protected group and the reason this magazine got away with publishing those cartoons is because France does not place Muslims under such protection (not like England and Sweden do). In the UK however, anti-semitic cartoons are a-ok.
It depends on the society.
Great example!
I doubt it. Look, the society is ‘evolving’ down the toilet. I just cant see the kind of societies we have now surviving into 2100 (not a radical claim as its really been around only a little more than a century).
Je suis Kevin!
Better both than neither.
I don’t think it is just religious people. Outside of Muslim violence the greatest threat to freedom of speech today is progressives in the name of stopping “hate” ala lgbt etc.
Taxpayers were forced to fund Serrano and called small minded and intolerant when they complained about the offense.
The ALCU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al will protest using public funds to honor Christianity but don’t give a damn when it is used to insult it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.