# France and the cartoons of Mohammed; what's your take? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2020, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221 "2020-10-29T16:49:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/421 "2020-11-05T10:22:01Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m not a aware of a state sanction for public displays of hate. “I’m not aware”, the mating call of the racism-oblivious. Of course, you won’t see [these](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-muhammad-samuel-paty-teacher-france-b1224820.html) as displays of hate. Unless “a aware” is a subtle double negation, not a typo… > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is not necessarily a fallacy. It all depends whether there is a reasonable and plausible link between one action and a future consequence. Yes. “Possible” is not a substitute for “reasonable and plausible” > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Both of course risk confusing correlation with causation where there is actually another larger force at work. I’m not saying cartoons _cause_ gas chambers. That would be stupid. I’m saying the kind of society that _allows_ (and encourages) the cartoons _is the same one_ that builds the chambers. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Then I question your reading of history. Yet there the history is. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Plus, you assume that the restrictions being applied are sensible and that the targets of those restrictions are necessarily “racist”. They _are_ racist. Even people on your side of this argument admit as much. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Lots of societies in the past have and continue to tolerate potentially offensive publications (Racism being just one aspect of this) and yet managed not to descend into totalitarian regimes. Well, not totalitarian to _you_, at any rate… _you’re_ not the one being dictated to and having absolute subservience to a particular state ideology demanded of you. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > What is it about a lack of belief in god that would lead a person to want to stamp out religion? Fear of persecution would be a big one. “Get them before they get us” kind of thinking. Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking? How could it be, when atheism itself is a prime example of a not-completely-thought-out idea? > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Seriously, draw me the line here. Feel free to refer to the tenets of atheism that would take someone there (hint, there are no tenets). _Atheism_ doesn’t have tenets. _Atheists_ frequently do have beliefs, often unspoken yet visibly manifest. One of those is a (grossly unfounded) belief in their inherent superiority over the theistic, either intellectually or morally, merely for being atheists. This often manifests in outright hostility (see posts in this thread for textual examples). But your otherwise-slippery-slope-believing self thinks that will always stop at mere words? Why? It didn’t for theists. (meanwhile, my non-theistic, non-atheistic ass is laughing at both sides) > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Atheism is _not_ an ideology. No, but it definitely [contains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) distinctly atheist ideologies. Ones that _could_ be corrupted just like any other. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If someone does not believe in the Loch Ness Monster they could think that racist paedophilia is fine. Dumb analogy is dumb. There’s no link between the two, like there definitely is between _atheism_ and the _theism_ mostly practiced by brown people that is Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/422 "2020-11-05T11:03:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking? No. It is neither a proof against dumb thinking nor a guarantee or a result of clear thinking Atheism makes no requirement of any thought beyond “I don’t accept the proposition of a god” > [@MrDibble](#): > > _Atheism_ doesn’t have tenets. _Atheists_ frequently do have beliefs Then you’ve just proved my point. You are having to shoehorn extra beliefs in there that…to state it again…_are not contingent on atheism_. > [@MrDibble](#): > > One of those is a (grossly unfounded) belief in their inherent superiority over the theistic, either intellectually or morally, merely for being atheists. So feel free to draw a line from such a mindset to malicious actions and I’ll agree wholeheartedly. However what you won’t be able to do is show how that mindset _arises_ from atheism. > [@MrDibble](#): > > But your otherwise-slippery-slope-believing self thinks that will always stop at mere words? > > Why? It didn’t for theists. I find this interesting, you criticise slippery slope thinking while appealing to the slippery slope > [@MrDibble](#): > > (meanwhile, my non-theistic, non-atheistic ass is laughing at both sides) Either you are a theist or you are not. there’s no third option seeing as theist and atheist are direct negations. Something is either “p” or “not p”. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, but it definitely [contains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) distinctly atheist ideologies. Ones that _could_ be corrupted just like any other. No matter how many times you state such things it it wont become true. Atheists individually may _have_ other ideologies, but atheism doesn’t _contain_ or _necessitate_ ideologies. You simply can’t draw that connecting line from atheism to racism. You can’t and smarter people than both of us have tried. It is neither sufficient nor necessary. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Dumb analogy is dumb. There’s no link between the two, like there definitely is between _atheism_ and the _theism_ mostly practiced by brown people that is Islam. Why is it dumb? It is a lack of a belief and subsequent harmful behaviour. You think it is ridiculous that you can start with “I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster” and get to “racist Paedophilia is fine” because, as you admit. There is no link. How can there be from a simple non-acceptance of a premise? It is an exact analogy to the “atheism can lead to racism” claim. You think otherwise? OK, stop dancing and show me the steps. Start with “I don’t have a belief with god” and show me how that gets you to racism. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/423 "2020-11-05T11:13:14Z")
The idea that atheism exists independent of atheists is so ridiculous, I’m going to forgo my usual line-by-line just to point out that I originally said “_atheist_-based racism”, not “atheism-based racism”, and so all that verbiage about how perfect Platonic Atheism is, is irrelevant. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Either you are a theist or you are not. “atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/424 "2020-11-05T11:29:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The idea that atheism exists independent of atheists is so ridiculous, I’m going to forgo my usual line-by-line just to point out that I originally said “ _atheist_ -based racism”, not “atheism-based racism”, and so all that verbiage about how perfect Platonic Atheism is, is irrelevant. Doesn’t matter how ridiculous you find it. If you intend to imply that the “atheist racism” is somehow arising from atheism itself you are wrong. You haven’t shown how that logically follows and I challenge you to do so or admit you cannot. > [@MrDibble](#): > > “atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance. They absolutely are. If someone asks you “Are you a theist?” and you answer “no”. You are an atheist _at least_. You may also be many other things besides. And atheism has no burden of coherence as it is simply a negation of the “theist” position. Someone who does not believe the claims of extraterrestrial visitation has no burden of coherence either beyond the statement that such claims have not met a burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/425 "2020-11-05T11:58:36Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Doesn’t matter how ridiculous you find it. If you intend to imply that the “atheist racism” is somehow arising from atheism itself you are wrong. No, I successfully showed how “atheist racism” could possibly arise from _atheists_ themselves. Not the thing you’d prefer I said, but what I actually said. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You are an atheist _at least_ . No. You are merely not a theist. Atheism is not a passive state. It requires actually _taking a position_ on the existence of deities. Rocks are not atheist. Birds are not atheist. Flowers are not atheist. And neither am I. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And atheism has no burden of coherence as it is simply a negation of the “theist” position. You can’t negate an incoherent position and remain coherent yourself. Not when the term you’re negating is itself incoherent. > [@](#): > > Someone who does not believe the claims of extraterrestrial visitation has no burden of coherence either beyond the statement that such claims have not met a burden of proof. They have a burden, which they’ve already met. The minimum coherence would be explaining what the concept of an extraterrestrial is, in a coherent way. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/426 "2020-11-05T12:17:42Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, I successfully showed how “atheist racism” could possibly arise from _atheists_ themselves. Not the thing you’d prefer I said, but what I actually said. if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality. If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No. You are merely not a theist. Atheism is not a passive state. It requires actually _taking a position_ on the existence of deities. No, no, and no. I don’t take a position on the existence of deities and I am most certainly an atheist. Consider the marble analogy that has been used elsewhere. A massive jar of marbles is placed in front of us. We’ve never seen it before and neither of us has any special knowledge about it that is denied to the other. You say it contains 14,897 marbles. I say that I don’t accept you are right. I’m _not_ saying that you are wrong, I’m _not_ saying that it must contain another specific figure and I _do not_ have the burden of giving an estimate myself. I have not taken a position on the number marbles in any way, just that I do not accept your claim to be right. In the case above, you are the theist and I am the atheist. > [@MrDibble](#): > > You can’t negate an incoherent position and remain coherent yourself. Not when the term you’re negating is itself incoherent. negate in the this sense just means the negative, the “not” position. You can be in the position of _not_ accepting an incoherent position without any requirement for coherence yourself. We do it all the time. > [@MrDibble](#): > > They have a burden, which they’ve already met. The minimum coherence would be explaining what the concept of an extraterrestrial is, in a coherent way. No, the person who claims ET’s exists has the burden of proof and coherence. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/427 "2020-11-05T12:32:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “I’m not aware”, the mating call of the racism-oblivious. Of course, you won’t see [these](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-muhammad-samuel-paty-teacher-france-b1224820.html) as displays of hate. > > Unless “a aware” is a subtle double negation, not a typo… They don’t show the actual cartoons that were projected in the video. Were they the “goat fucking” cartoons, or just ones depicting muhammed at all? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/428 "2020-11-05T12:33:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking? How could it be, when atheism itself is a prime example of a not-completely-thought-out idea? Lol, this one i got to hear. How is atheism a not completely thought out idea? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/429 "2020-11-05T12:35:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > > > Either you are a theist or you are not. > > “atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance. You haven’t displayed one of those yet. Just “anything that’s offensive to people who matter is bad, and I, MrDibble, am the sole arbiter of what is offensive and which groups we care and do not care about causing offense to”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/430 "2020-11-05T12:47:20Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality. > If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case. Can, and did. Note, I’m not making the case that something about atheism as a belief motivates the hypothetical racism. I’m saying something about a person being an atheist does. There’s a difference. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Consider the marble analogy that has been used elsewhere. My position is not covered in this analogy at all, and can’t be, which is where it falls apart. The proper analogy would be if there’s a xewic junbundit of flimmeries, and someone say it grittenates. You say to them “I don’t accept that it does”. That’s your atheism. And I say to them “What the fuck are you talking about, mate? Come back when you’re coherent.” That’s not negating their statement. That’s not atheism. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You can be in the position of _not_ accepting an incoherent position without any requirement for coherence yourself. There is the third position - where the question is itself meaningless (in the strict sense - it carries no meaningful information). This is not the same as not accepting the incoherent position. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, the person who claims ET’s exists has the burden of proof and coherence. I don’t think you understand what I mean by coherence. If the a-ET-accepter has a shared meaningful concept of ETs with the ET-believer, then it’s coherent for both of them. > [@Babale](#): > > They don’t show the actual cartoons that were projected in the video. Were they the “goat fucking” cartoons, or just ones depicting muhammed at all? They were the hateful racist caricature ones (including racist hateful Jewish caricatures) > [@Babale](#): > > Lol, this one i got to hear. How is atheism a not completely thought out idea? The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/431 "2020-11-05T13:06:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Can, and did. can’t and haven’t > [@MrDibble](#): > > Note, I’m not making the case that something about atheism as a belief motivates the hypothetical racism. I’m saying something about a person being an atheist does. There’s a difference. And the “something” could not be said to come from their atheism. Glad you agree with me. > [@MrDibble](#): > > My position is not covered in this analogy at all, and can’t be, which is where it falls apart. The proper analogy would be if there’s a xewic junbundit of flimmeries, and someone say it grittenates. > You say to them “I don’t accept that it does”. That’s your atheism. > > And I say to them “What the fuck are you talking about, mate? Come back when you’re coherent.” And you walk away not accepting the claim they were making. You are in the exact same state regarding that claim as I am. > [@MrDibble](#): > > There is the third position - where the question is itself meaningless (in the strict sense - it carries no meaningful information). This is not the same as not accepting the incoherent position. In which case you have not been moved from the default position. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I don’t think you understand what I mean by coherence. If the a-ET-accepter has a shared meaningful concept of ETs with the ET-believer, then it’s coherent for both of them. The only person who has a requirement to create a coherent concept is the person making the positive claim. If they can’t do that, for whatever reason. If they choose to communicate it via nonsense words, whistles, smells or the medium of modern dance and the concept is not communicated in a way on which a judgement can be made then the claim is not supported and potentially not even identifiable and the other party walks away in the exact same belief state as they started with…i.e. none…i.e. unconvinced, i.e. without the belief…i.e…the equivalent of an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/432 "2020-11-05T13:10:00Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does. I would tell you that you’re absolutely wrong here, but given how you roll, I doubt anyone could tell you the time of day. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/433 "2020-11-05T13:32:46Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They were the hateful racist caricature ones (including racist hateful Jewish caricatures) Notice how you didn’t answer my question? Just like you didn’t here: > [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > > > if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality. > > > > > If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case. > > Can, and did. Your “did not!” “Did too!” style of debating is quite grating outside a 2nd grade classroom. I am done here. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/434 "2020-11-05T13:34:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does. > > I would tell you that you’re absolutely wrong here, but given how you roll, I doubt anyone could tell you the time of day Yeah. I have no idea what TF he’s talking about. Most atheists I know adopted atheism precisely because they realized the conception of God presented by their religion wasn’t sensical. But of course MrDibble is gonna come here and tell us we’re both wrong without elaborating, so I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/435 "2020-11-05T13:43:56Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > But of course MrDibble is gonna come here and tell us we’re both wrong without elaborating, so I’m done. In this case, as well as in many other cases, there cannot be a “great” debate in the absence of a formal set of rules and an arbitrator. (In my opinion, of course.) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/436 "2020-11-05T14:08:15Z")
For that I refer you to: _MrDibble’s Undisputed and Diabolical Compendium of Knowledge About All Things Trite and Ponderous_, aptly subtitled, ‘-Often Wrong But Never In Doubt-’. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/437 "2020-11-05T14:25:25Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > {…} Most atheists I know adopted atheism precisely because they realized the conception of God presented by their religion wasn’t sensical. {…} Gonna step out onto a limb here and suggest that MrDibble takes the position that no conception of (G)god presented by any religion is sensical . . . and the fact that no one is using the, relatively, common phrase that describes that view is telling. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/438 "2020-11-05T14:28:49Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Gonna step out onto a limb here and suggest that MrDibble takes the position that no conception of (G)god presented by any religion is sensical . . . and the fact that no one is using the, relatively, common phrase that describes that view is telling I have no idea what phrase you are talking about or what you think the fact that no one used it implies. I would agree with the statement that no conception of God presented by any religion is sensical. I don’t see how in the world that would make me “not an atheist” as MrDibble claimed with no explanation. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/439 "2020-11-05T14:32:09Z")
The thought of what America would be like If the Classics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had a wide circulation Troubles my sleep ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2020, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221/440 "2020-11-05T14:33:48Z")
_ **Moderating** _ Let’s knock off the atheism/ET /can too/ can not tangents. Start another thread if it’s a topic you really want to argue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-and-the-cartoons-of-mohammed-whats-your-take/924221.md?page=23)