Can you not see that Voltaire was no Charlie Hebdo? And are you truly ignorant of the psychological damage incurred as a result of what Voltaire wrote?
As your argument is based on a mandate for reasoned discussion, I have a suggestion. Commence to clawing amidst the thorns and thistles around you—search in earnest for the tiniest bit or remnant of reason that might be lying beneath the noxious dust of the disordered, whimsical idea that you can magically read the mind of cartoonists and know their intentions.
No competent judge of any courtroom would accept otherwise.
That is what I said. Re-read, please.
clawing amidst the thorns and thistles around you
I see, for example, atheists who make rational arguments. I see Protestants who make rational arguments. At times, even Muslims, -- religion not known for attachment to reason, -- make rational arguments. But I also see a legal climate of absolute off-the-cliff identification with any kind of unreasoned insult-laden speech that has no value and should not be protected.
Note, too, that it only works for select politically correct causes. Religious speech is never protected by the left-wing governments of today in the same way as atheist speech is protected.
At a moment when, because of the terrorist killings of the Charlie Hebdo staff and six other victims in Paris, free speech -- no matter how provocative -- is being defended with almost religious fervour, it is deeply ironic that a sincere Christian is being persecuted for publishing views which, until five minutes ago historically, were absolutely mainstream.I am Kelvin Cochran (but I'm not Charlie Hebdo)