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 ...
I’d just like to know if their tack would be the same if some extremist Christians murdered Bill Maher. Would there be all this sympathy and understanding for the attackers? Would they say Maher “had it coming” and “provoked” the murderers?
What if a fringe group of Mormons shot up the studio where South Park is made? Would there be all this sympathy and understanding for the attackers? Would they say the South Park folks “had it coming” and “provoked” the murderers?
If not, they’re hypocrites of the first order. Muslims have no special right to murder as a response to satire and ridicule, no matter how badly they may have thought it was deserved.
He’s not infallible. I agree with him 90% of the time, but think he’s wrong this time. Doesn’t mean I will thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Your hero Donohue is WRONG, in that he equates Charlie Hebdo with intolerance. Free speech and satire are NOT intolerance. Read my post a second time before you decide to play fast and loose with my words, a liberal’s favorite pastime.
Or 100 years ago, it was happening and never talked about. Shame has been around for as long as sin.
Thank you, biggirl. You and I and Bill Donohue are in agreement on that.
Very true. Thank you for this and for many other thoughtful and intelligent comments. Always glad when you get on a thread!
I may or may not agree with him, but he is no spokesman.
There’s a few comments here that are a bit like the things Bill Maher says or said in the past. Whatever, free-speech is important and that Catholic League has addressed such things as what Bill Maher has said. It is a bit of a prologue to this statement by Donohue.
Donohue is using this incident somewhat to point out the irreverence he sees in the media. In a way, he is being opportunistic but at the same time, he is somewhat stating a truth. This would not have happened if the magazine did not publish these things HOWEVER in the end, Terrorists don’t need a reason to carry on their murders or at least, use skewed reasoning to do so, their Koran. And they certainly had NO right at all do act this way.
If 3 Christians had gone out and killed 12 people because of the cross dropped in urine, I don’t think the media would be sympathetic.
Nothing wrong with that — any journalist, publicist or citizen-activist has the same aim: to reach the broadest public possible with the issue at hand.
So what caused 9/11?
If there was nothing out there that offended Muslims, they would make something up.
I agree with #52, as well ... nice to reach a point of convergence.
“ox and ass before Him bow, and He is in the manger now”
That’s a cute nativity. Whether those were actually among the critters present nobody knows. You didn’t have coolers back then, your food walked along with you. But lying in an animal feeding trough kind of puts the capital H on Humility.
I agree, I said they need no reason to commit their acts.
We aren't mohammedans. That, in itself, is sufficient "provocation" for mohammedans to murder people. In fact, being the wrong kind of mohammedan is sufficient "provocation" for mohammedans to murder people.
He said that anger against obscenity is justified, but not carrying out massacres.
Don't do WaPo's work for them.
I find it very appropriate that the Bread of Life was laid in a manger, and that the Lamb of God was born in a barn. Where else?
Catholicism’s existence provokes Islamist murder.
Go kill yourself.
Let’s just say that even us “breathing” offends Muslims.
The Catholic Church, governed out of the Vatican, is a new religion. It is nothing like Christ's church that survived for 2,000 years. The church is now entirely secular-humanist-modernist garbage with a new 'pope' who will prove to be even more heretical than his successors back to Pius XII.
Many of us have left the new religion and found solace and a home in sedevacantism. Those who hang on will eventually see what Francis the talking mule is all about. He and Bronco Bama are two peas in the pod scolding those who question gorebal warming which they consider 'settled science.'
Jesus wept.
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.