THAT is satire.
Now, go look up Charlie Hebdo's anti-CHRISTIAN cartoons ...
Posted on 05/17/2015 8:27:51 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been accused of hypocrisy after it suspended a journalist who has received death threats for her articles attacking Islamic extremism.
Zineb El Rhazoui, 33, was called to a preliminary dismissal hearing to remind her of her “obligations” towards the French weekly following “numerous incidents”.
The French-Moroccan columnist accused her employers of trying to “punish her” for speaking out about the direction of the magazine four months after the jihadist attack which left 12 dead.
“I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,” she told Le Monde. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Charlie n’est pas Charlie?? Quelles putes.
Charlie obviously got the message.
She was fired for publicly criticizing the magazine’s financial practices. From a public relations viewpoint, the publisher may have made a mistake, but I don’t think there are many magazines that would let a writer get away with that.
So you don’t want Mahomet (pbuh) “blasphemed”? OK.
You might want to investigate the other subjects of Charlie Hebdos drawings. Mad Mo is hardly their only target.
Should Christians go in and shoot up their offices like the Muslims did, therefore? The left would have a field day. God can avenge Himself, remember.
Source?
Did you look up some of their anti-Christian cartoons? Do you agree that “blasphemous” is a reasonable description of them?
Let’s get the description straight. Charlie Hebdo does not engage in satire. It really publishes juvenile attempts at blasphemy and attention-getting.
...
I thought that’s what Pam Gellar did.
THAT is satire.
Now, go look up Charlie Hebdo's anti-CHRISTIAN cartoons ...
Therefore . . . what? Stand back and let the Muslims do their thing, so to speak?
I said God can (and will) avenge Himself, did I not? (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19)
Can we stand to call things by their right name?
Charlie Hebdo: Crude, vulgar, obscene, and often blasphemous.
Mohammedans: Violent murderers, rapists, torturers, vandals and thieves.
Is there some reason you didn't actually answer my question as to whether the anti-Christian cartoons qualify as "blasphemous"?
I don’t deny any of that.
To be sure, the OP is not in praise of M. Hebdo.
I did answer.
Did you note the meaning of “quelles putes”, too?
Also, take note of Matthew 12:31 and Mark 3:28.
2) It seems more than a bit of a stretch to go from from "Hebdo are blasphemous" to "Hebdo should be killed". At least, for Christians. Also a bit of a stretch to go from "Hebdo are blasphemous" to "So you don’t want Mahomet (pbuh) “blasphemed”?"
3) I think it's important that we defend the right of free speech. That doesn't mean we surrender our own right of free speech. "Hebdo was attacked" doesn't mean "Hebdo can't be criticized".
4) "Quelles putes." Indeed. And I missed that first time around.
5) I think, even in the case of Hebdo's anti-mohammedan cartoons, there's a legitimate criticism. Many of them are simply vulgar or obscene depictions of mad mo. They may shock or amuse, but they don't reveal or criticize any particular truth about mad mo, or about mohammedanism. The contrast between them and the winning entry in Pam Geller's "Draw Mohammed" contest is stark.
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.