Post pictures of the slain satirists along with the headline: The Free Press: Killed by Islamic Extremists.
Could you maybe wait until the bodies of the policemen who died in the attack have gone cold before you get on your hobby-horse?
Nah that’s too brave. More likely we’ll get a meaningless twitter hashtag showing solidarity with the victims.
That sounds great, but I don’t think it’s how the real world works – I think it would do more harm than good. It’s difficult to understand, but I believe that there are actually lots of people who oppose violence in most cases but, for some reason, think blasphemy can deserve a violent response.
That is true. We used to have that problem here. It was trained out of them through sheer saturation and the majority standing up for the 1st amendment.
Whatever we do, it should be a knee-jerk response spewed out by the most emotionally enraged among us.
Fuck Yeah!!
Oh? Many people favored death, or some other form of bodily harm, as a punishment for blasphemers in the United States, after 1791? Who?
An Egyptian newspaper has published a selection of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical cartoons on the web this afternoon.
Moderate muslims - the huge majority - are going to be as shocked and disgusted by this attack as anybody. From the BBC’s coverage:
[QUOTE=BBC]
Hassan Chalghoumi - an imam of the Paris suburb of Drancy, visited the site of the attack at Charlie Hebdo headquarters.
Of the attackers, he said: “Their prophet is Satan. There is no connection between the Islamic faith and this minority.”
[/QUOTE]
I suggest a subtler approach:
-
Officially enter into the record a ream of certified statements from assorted imams that such acts are “contrary to Islam”.
-
Officially declare that the usual religious accommodations for prisoners are therefore inapplicable.
-
Bacon-and-beer diet (pureed and poured into gullet if necessary). (Optional: Translate the old Bac-O’s doggie treat commercial “IT’S BACON!” line into French, play at Concorde-takeoff volume at dinnertine.)
Only if you define “moderate muslims” as only those muslims who are shocked by this attack. Plus, your argument says nothing about the idea of mass-publishing the image(s) or some other picture or article that makes fun of Islam. We see this over and over again that so-called “moderate” muslims support barbaric practices, included death for blasphemy.
That is a stupid thing to say. A religion that doesn’t revolve around murdering thousands of people is clearly better than the Aztec religion, for one obvious example.
What number is that huge majority?
My position is that such muslims are the overwhelming majority.
If that’s me, then I choose that they be imprisoned forever, and forced to watch cartoons that make fun of Mohammed all day. Then they are tested to make sure that they payed attention, and if they don’t pass, they get waterboarded with pig urine.
My position is that you’re deluding yourself.
Don’t be coy. You’re not too stupid to know that:
. . . this insightful analysis, taking one data point of one event and expanding it into a sarcastic jab at a public policy choice that no one in this thread had brought up, is the partisanship of which you’re being accused.
[/QUOTE]
But facts would indicate that there is a connection between Islam and murderous fuckhead barbarianism. Sorry, imam. Care to try again?
Islam is not a sacred cow. It’s just an idea and that’s it. I reserve the right to mock it and those who follow it. Just as I reserve the right to mock Haredim who want flights segregated by gender, Catholics who care more about ectopic pregnancies than actual people and the Amish who don’t let their kids go to high school. Fuck all this shit.
Not true. Some religions are worse than others (no-one’s lying awake at night worrying about the Jains or the Quakers), and Islam is one of the worst we’ve got.