According to Biard;
"We do not attack religion, but we do when it gets involved in politics," Gerard Biard said in an interview with Chuck Todd broadcast on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
In other words, they attack religion. Their reasons might be reasonable in their own minds, but all corporations have to determine if the ends will justify the means. Though so many people support the cause of journalistic freedom, most refuse to touch Charlie Hebdo with a ten foot pole. Several television networks have refused to show the images from the controversial editorial cartoon/magazine and describe the worst of these artistically contrived "attacks" as too offensive to consider showing. To date, most people outside of Paris have no idea of how offensive Charlie Hebdo has been because few news outlets have the courage to support their venomous attempts to defend the value of secularism and freedom of speech all at the same time.
If there exists a reason to engage in an attack, even attacks of conscience, there exists an opposing force that instigated the attack. Islamic terrorism is real. In addition, terrorist are pretty good at recruiting these days and their mission is the exact opposite of secularism. Their methods and means of operating involve terror and war because their goal is to rid the world of infidels- and they interpret Muhammad in a way that justifies their beliefs. Living comfortably in the presence of their opposition is not in the game plan of the Islamic Caliphate, and that truth demands both an honest recognition and a diligent response from the world community.
Islamic terror is most often directed towards other Muslim people. Upshoot domestic terror is unfortunate, but should be somewhat expected in a world that is more than 33% Muslim and 90% angry. Violence is usually not condoned by humanity, but anger is a very human response to offense. Even the Pope would punch a friend who talked badly about his mother. Forgiveness is the cornerstone of most religious experiences, but refusing or forgetting to forgive is a much more human behavior.
 |
| All Is Forgiven? Muhammad Is Charlie Too? Still talking crap Charlie. Still talking crap. |
In the strangest of ironies, Charlie Hebdo benefited from the murderous attack against their staff by gaining a notoriety that inflated their first edition (post massacre) to 3 million copies versus the 60,000 they had been printing prior. Not so ironically, Charlie Hebdo used this opportunity to attack(see;offend) some more with a cartoon of Muhammad holding a sign that says "I Am Charlie" below a headline that reads, "All Is Forgiven".
What Charlie Hebdo deemed as an attack against freedom of speech is in fact the freedom to get hit in the mouth for talking too much crap....especially by Islamic terrorist who need some place to vent their hostility anyway. We know for certain that terrorism will continue to happen, and we also know that foul mouthed Uncle Charlie will always be a part of the family. What we don't know is the next time that these two forces will square off in this violent fashion. Uncle Charlie's insistence on talking so freely ensures a violent response eventually.
Because the world is one community, "We are all Uncle Charlie" and though we prefer a more sober minded uncle, we don't disown him just because he is talks out of his mind so often. Uncle Charlie will always be the guy that somebody ends up popping in the mouth every holiday because he thinks liquor and free speech are a good mix.
They are not, and neither are insensitivity and free speech. The separation of church and state are important statutes of free cultures, but they are not the mandate of every culture, nor should they be. Even in America, the last true bastion of free speech, an ongoing cultural debate rages over how far we have allowed secularism to seclude God from his role in a nation influenced as much in its founding by religion as it was by freedom from religion. As it stands, freedom from religion is winning and "In God We Trust" is just a cool stamp on our cash. Secularism isn't happy about that either.
When the Pope and I make comparisons between the ill-behavior of those who terrorize and those in terror, Charlie Hebdo accuses us of conflating them with the murderers.
"We must not make thinkers and artist the same as murderers", said Biard in a quote of eloquent brilliance. Yet, Biard and his artistic thinkers consider their actions a defense of both the freedom of religion as well as the freedom of speech. "Secularism allows all to live in peace", according to Biard, forgetting that his words defy the caliphate, which demands the death and/or conversion of those who pursue it. Despite the different methods, Charlie's mission becomes similar to that of the murderers.
Those who robustly defend the importance of free speech should realize that, even ideas generally agreed to be true have their opposition. Did not Martin Luther King Jr. expect the violence that he experienced? If your stance has valor, so shall your stance against the opposition you encounter. In other words, you might get shot for wearing the wrong color in the wrong gang territory, but if it matters, you can further everyone's freedom to wear any color any where. The question of valor is always, WHO will be the martyr for the cause. Undoubtedly somebody died to get both red and blue back into certain neighborhoods.
The murderers who terrorized France thought they were hitting Uncle Charlie in the mouth. Fortunate to them (in their twisted way of thinking), they gained heavenly reward for punching Uncle Charlie and dying for it at the same time. Unfortunate for us all is that these terrorist, and those to come, truly believe their ideology. More specifically it is their faith, and to deride any man's faith is much like the attack against his mother.
Freedom of speech and freedom against certain speech are a similar freedom.
Both demand a cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment