Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter
The Washington Post ^ | 1/7/2015 | Ishaan Tharoor

Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: billdonohue; catholicleague; charliehebdo; insultmohammed; islamophobia; muslimbaiting; muslimworld; whatajerk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last
To: annalex
This being said, freedom of speech is a good thing when reasonable people speak.

And who decides what is "reasonable." Censorship is a "cure" that's even worse than the disease.

261 posted on 01/12/2015 2:58:31 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"...removal of special protection of free speech from agitators..."

That's a blade that can cut both ways...

262 posted on 01/12/2015 3:05:34 PM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Kevin C

Hey Bill, did Christ provoke his own crucifixion?


263 posted on 01/12/2015 3:06:30 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

Well, either that or we wait till the likes of Charlie Hebdo recognize that they are evil and apologize to everyone they insulted, and close shop for good.


264 posted on 01/12/2015 7:33:13 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Really? Closing down that miserable rag is worse that having 16 innocent people dead and a country under martial law?

You miss this big point. France will have government either way. It is not a libertarian society. You either have slaughter and the government running around in ninja suites hunting the terrorists down or you have a country where an average Catholic can live free from insults AND terrorist attacks.


265 posted on 01/12/2015 7:35:48 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Really? Closing down that miserable rag is worse that having 16 innocent people dead and a country under martial law?

Yes, because it won't stop there.

266 posted on 01/12/2015 7:36:38 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Does anyone deserve a free speech protection?

(Should we be stupid about this or should we use our brains?)


267 posted on 01/12/2015 7:41:04 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Neither the leftwing calumnies and the martial law.


268 posted on 01/12/2015 7:45:08 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Yes, a voice of reason deserve a free speech protection. There have been plenty of Atheists and Marxists who nevertheless presented coherent arguments, and that is protected speech. Blasphemy and pornography are not in that category.


269 posted on 01/12/2015 7:46:39 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Problem is, you assume someone like you will determine what is offensive speech. Far more likely someone like Obama will determine what is offensive and use the power of the IRS to shut it down. Oh, wait. That’s already happened.


270 posted on 01/12/2015 7:54:28 PM PST by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: kevao

271 posted on 01/12/2015 8:02:13 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: annalex

And what happens when a hundred different groups argue over a hundred different definitions of reason?


272 posted on 01/12/2015 8:04:06 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Yes. Obama is a problem. The idea that Hebdo Charlie is protected speech is another problem.

Obama, however, is a product of a certain culture, the kind where Chicago thuggery is normal politics. In other words, a cultural and legal problem, — what is free speech and what is trash, — gives us a country where Obamas can get elected and re-elected. I propose we strike the root.


273 posted on 01/12/2015 8:05:20 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: kevao

No, nearly anyone can tell the difference between insults and speech. Courts make more subtle determinations daily, and for the most part we trust them.


274 posted on 01/12/2015 8:26:47 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

A hundred court cases. I don’t see the downside.


275 posted on 01/12/2015 8:27:27 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: annalex

So you’re going to arrest Don Rickles?


276 posted on 01/12/2015 8:27:27 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The idea that Hebdo Charlie is protected speech is another problem.

The question remains, Who decides? Based on what standard?

Yes, there have been certain moral standards -- regarding, for example, profanity and pornography -- *currently* based on Judeo-Christian principles. But, frankly, while I may agree with those, I am uncomfortable with them.

Why? Because our Judeo-Christian principles might not be the accepted moral standard forever. It is not inconceivable that in our lifetime, even the preaching of the Gospel could be ruled "blasphemy."

I don't want the government to have the power to silence *anybody*. That's the *only* way I'm guaranteed to never be silenced myself, no matter who's in power or what passes for the current moral standard.

The answer to offensive speech, is to answer the offensive speech. Censorship? Well if you can guarantee me that only angels will rule over us. Otherwise, no thanks.

277 posted on 01/12/2015 8:35:16 PM PST by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No, nearly anyone can tell the difference between insults and speech.

Perhaps you mean libel and slander? In which case yes, the courts rule on those.

But insults? If you could sue for being insulted, the court system would grind to a complete halt.

278 posted on 01/12/2015 8:45:21 PM PST by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Kevin C

For all of Donahue’s talk about how violence should be condemned, I didn’t see where he did.


279 posted on 01/12/2015 8:46:56 PM PST by gogeo (If you are Tea Party, the Republican Party does not want you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Insults are the antithesis of free speech.

Maybe you should define "insult" as you are using it.

How about this? "Obama sucks!!!" Is that an insult, free speech, or both?

280 posted on 01/12/2015 8:53:09 PM PST by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-320 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson