After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter

The Washington Post ^ | 1/7/2015 | Ishaan Tharoor

[Kevin C]

In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That is an interesting point, as do the murderous imams really represent valid anger at immorality, or just a bunch of hypocrites?

Drawing moral parallels is something that Catholic luminaries have done, but is it right. It’s possible to “hate the right thing for the wrong reason.” Muslims are not thinking of eternal souls needing salvation, trust me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If the throne of Peter has been empty since in 1958, there is now no Catholic Church nor will there be a Catholic Church ever again, since all its papal electors and bishops have been consecrated or elevated after 1958, and thus --- by this logic --- none of them are valid.

This "logic" is Donatism, which was condemned by the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and is itself heretical.

It violates reason, since it ignores the difference between infallibility and impeccability. It is unjust, because it rhetorically universalizes non-universal faults of individuals and institutional components, and imputes them to the whole.

Most importantly, it makes a liar of Christ, which is why I cannot accept it. Sedevacantism will be the ruin of souls.

Keep in mind this maxim by St. Francis de Sales: "Those who give scandal commit spiritual murder; those who take scandal -- who allow scandals to destroy their Faith -- commit spiritual suicide."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bless you, Redneck.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for your help!

[CynicalBear]

CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Same God ey?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree with 99% of what you said, but still strongly disagree with your MAIN point: which is that Donohue should keep his mouth shut when he's trying to make a reasoned distinction between "being angry at obscene provocation" (which we ought to) and "killing people" (which we ought not.)

He didn't wait for the most favorable rhetorical mise-en-scene, true. ("Not NOW, Bill, you knucklehead. Not now!) But what he lacks in prudence he makes up for in valor.

[SIRTRIS]

>>>In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims.

Donohue, suddenly rushed to religious exuberance while silent on "'Piss Christ' Photo Removed by AP After Journalist Points Out Double Standard"

[sitetest]

Dear Mrs. Don-o,

There is nothing valorous about being an apologist for murderous barbarians.

The islamics have no right to be angry, and thus the moron Donahue is wrong. They have no right to be angry because they and their religion deserve ridicule and mock. They deserve to see their prophet “profaned” (how, precisely, does one “profane” a fake prophet?), for the very reason that they are barbarians.

Think about Flannery O'Connor and her justification for her literary style. For the nearly-blind, you paint in bright, bold colors, for the nearly-deaf, you shout. The moslems are the blind and deaf of the world, blindly murdering good people and human decency, deaf to the pitiable cries for mercy of the murdered, whose innocent blood cries out to God in Heaven for vengeance.

To insult them and their “prophet” is the decent, the moral thing to do. It is a kindness. It is far better than they deserve, which is unrelenting death. It is their inability to hold polite conversation except with the implied threat of the rusty knife to saw off the head of the infidel that makes them deserving of contempt and ridicule.

I have seen polling from all around the world that demonstrates that the concept of “moderate islam” is a lie. In nearly all islamic-occupied countries, large, huge majorities of these filth are just peachy keen on the idea of beheading/raping/enslaving the infidel, the insulter of the “prophet,” along with the gay, the adulterer, and anyone else that provides the offense of the day.

But I suppose, it's that extremist fringe 95% that give the moderate 5% a bad name.

Those unwilling to refrain from murder, rape, incest, buggery, bestiality, etc. against those with whom they disagree have no right to complain that others treat them and their “holy” things with scorn and contempt. It is beyond blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

Good manners, polilte discourse, consideration for the sensibilities of another's religion or beliefs are the rewards for those willing to act in a civilized manner. Thus, the world of mohatmatism is excluded in its entirety from these considerations. Donahue the ass is wrong. The savages have no right to be angry.

The ass Donahue should shut his yap, retreat into a corner, say a Rosary, and pray that God will give him an extra 75 IQ points to get it up to room temperature.

Donahue is a boob.

sitetest

[metmom]

muslims are offended by us being alive and breathing the same air as they.

What a bunch of BS.

And simply being offended is no reason to attack and kill someone.

Blame the muslims for lack of self-control. Don’t blame the victims for being attacked and killed.

[metmom]

Both things are true. That the Muslims as a group keep breeding violent criminals is true, but that anti-Christian and anti-Muslim Left do not deserve a free speech protection for their cartoons is also true.

Considering the Catholic church's past, we could say the same thing about them. They say things that offend people, so the RCC doesn't deserve free speech protection either.

[cherokee1]

Are these the same Catholics who ran the Inquisition for 500 or so years and set progress back a thousand years by burning all the smart people at the stake? Shutting the bleep up would be good advice for that bunch simply because , at one time or another, they’ve pulled the same vicious, cheap krap that the mzzies do.

[Lurking Libertarian]

that anti-Christian and anti-Muslim Left do not deserve a free speech protection for their cartoons is also true

So we should go back to having laws against blasphemy?

[HomerBohn]

Don’t believe there’s a proper ‘pope’ installed in the Vatican and that Vatican II was a direct move to ‘modernism’.

[HomerBohn]

This is still against a Commandment.

Impossible to understand your meaning. Elucidate.

[FourtySeven]

If he had written this a year or so later I might (note the word “might”) be willing to give it some thought, but this was waaaay to early to be taking like that.

It’s the classic case of a woman dressed provocatively who ends up getting raped. Did she deserve it? No. Can anyone understand *why* it happened sure. But is anyone going to go up to that woman the night of the rape and while she’s laying in the hospital after having a rape kit done, say to her, “You know honey, you really shouldn’t have let your thang hang all out like that”.

Of course NOT!!! But this is exactly what Mr. Donahue has done, said a really (at best) controversial remark right when the wounds are fresh. Before even the bodies are burried. It’s classless and a real disappointment coming from him, after all I’m a Catholic and have appreciated his defense of the Church in the past. But a real disappointment here.

I don’t care that they published cartoons of the Pope engaged in sex acts, nothing deserves DEATH, except life threatening situations. Goodness the hypothetical woman I describe above would have a greater case than any disgruntled member of any religion.

Real stinker Bill, really.

[GeronL]

The left has totally turned against free speech, except leftist speech of course. You will never hear them complain about leftists making fun of Christians or Republicans.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"There is nothing valorous about being an apologist for murderous barbarians."

That's where you, Donohue, and I would agree.

"The islamics have no right to be angry."

This is where we disagree.

It feels good in the mouth, as short, over-generalized, over-puffed statements often do. However, it is not true in the form stated. Even if Muhammad were a rapist, war criminal, and demon-possessed --- all of which can be reasonably inferred from the Hadith --- Muslims can reasonably be angry about pictures of him being buggered.

There's probably hundreds of millions of them who don't even know what their own Hadiths reveal about their antichrist "prophet." As far as they know, you're just blaspheming a man of God, and they feel humiliated and violated by it, just as we feel violated by the way CH portrayed the Most Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary, demeaned by obscenity.

Here's a video made by a Muslim kid who attends East Tennessee State University "I Believe in Jesus" by Mo Sabri...

and another made by anti-jihad Muslim artists in Pakistan: "Ye Hum Naheem" ("It Isn't Us") --- do you think they even know what's in the Hadiths? And, accounting for their ignorance, don't you think they'd be angry about a cartoon of their "prophet" taking it in the ***?

Will you look at these?

Would you willingly subject these people to obscenities?

Is this an evangelization strategy?

This doesn't stop our united and unequivocal opposition to the global "Allahu Akbar" murder campaign. If Muslims are offended, let them respond with the pen, the magazine, and the manif. Let them put down the goddamn guns.

[usconservative]

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day.

If Mr. Donohue is to be taken seriously in his comments, then the day is coming when Catholics will begin beheadding and otherwise persecuting those who offend Catholicism? Another "Inquisition" perhaps?

Comments like Donohue's validate my decision to leave the Catholic Church more than 20 years ago.

[usconservative]

Donohue is right in what he said, He is only wrong in what people think he'd said, imply he'd said, or wish he'd said.

And I quote:
Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day.

Oh, it's absolutely clear that Donohue blamed the victim for his own death, there's no mistaking it. There's no misinterpretation at all. He blamed the victim. You are pissing in the wind trying to defend him.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.