Here are the cartoons that got 12 innocent people at Charlie Hebdo slaughtered

you are the problem wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

those who are Muslim (Sunni) yet wouldn't think of killing someone over published cartoons.

There were millions of people in Nazi-Germany who "wouldn't think of killing someone" either. Why don't you liberals ever learn. There will be no peace in our time with Islam. Muslims kill in the name of Allah every day. At the same time Christians are by far the most persecuted of religious devotees.

It's crazy. Idiots like Flagpole will excuse this killing ideology until it hits him or his family.

Incorrect! I don't excuse anything. I was all for getting bin Laden, and I think that anyone who kills others in the name of religion needs serious justice served, and I am not against the death penalty for it.

Fact is though that there ARE peace-loving Muslims. I'm friends with some. Purposefully doing something to poke people of another religion isn't the right thing to do, even if a percentage of them are causing serious problems and killing innocent people. I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue. It's just a respect issue. You CAN respect the people who peacefully practice their religion even if some others are not so peaceful.

Rojo, don't listen to Wejo!!!

He is CLEARLY the weaker twin. Don't back down now. Don't let your brother tell you what you can or can't do. Remember in the 3rd grade when Wejo put you in that headlock and made you eat goose poop? Remember that?!? Huh? NEVER let that happen again. YOU ARE YOUR OWN MAN ROJO.

Were you saying the same thing (poking fun of another religion) when the Virgin Mary was put in urine and there was dung-covered Madonna to make fun of Christians? Or were you silent back then?

Be lending any crediance to the idea that some ideas are sacred and that people have a right not to be offended, you are part of the problem. I'm not saying that you're a bad person or in any way are responsible for what happened today. But moderates like you, in large enough numbers, give cover to the extremists. If your Muslim friends can't deal with satire, they are part of the problem too. They can believe whatever they want, but the that I should censor myself because of their beliefs is pure evil.

wejo wrote:

Nothing is above reproach wrote:

This. If letsrun really wanted to honor the victims, they would make sure that no ideology gets a free pass from critical thought and discussion. I doubt it'll happen though because a lot of influential American runners are deliriously Christian.

Maybe we'll publish this one side by side then:

http://www.christianophobie.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

If we do that some might say we are backing down in our attempt to criticize the people who committed this crime. I don't want this thread to deteriorate to a discussion of our moderation of religious threads. Email me directly on that.

But definitely discuss if we should have on the splash page only a cartoon satirizing Muslims or if we should have one for Christianity as well.

First of all, there isn't "moderation" of religious threads. They are deleted wholesale, not "moderated."

Second, the images that satirize Christianity aren't as relevant right now. It's low hanging fruit. Christians, by and large, aren't the ones throwing murderous tantrums when they get their feelings hurt by drawings they don't like. Post the images that satirize Islam and leave it at that.

Shut up, Flagpole. Wejo, post the pics please!!!

Flagpole I understand your point.

But people don't have a right not to be offended. In a free society, people are going to get offended by the press, you do not go and kill people because of that. If the press starts censoring what is published because they might get killed then the terrorists are winning.

I did think about how images of the prophet Muhammad are offensive to Muslims. Normally I wouldn't try and offend someone just for the sake of offending.

For example, I wouldn't publish a front page with the word N***** on it. Who knows maybe seeing picture of Muhammad is that offensive to Sunnis.

However, I'm a Christian and a lot of Christians would find this offensive:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-01/7/10/enhanced/webdr05/enhanced-8799-1420645882-8.jpg

(translation: “The father, the son, and the holy ghost”."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/charlie-hebdo-front-covers#.jjjl6O1Wrn

)

but if I posted that I don't think Robert is coming on here and chiming in that I'm an idiot and it's a good thing my address is registered with the domain authorities. The whole point is if you are offended you do not go out and kill because of it. That is not how the society I want to live in works. I think in this case we need to offend to make that point. So maybe the better course of action is to try and offend as many people as possible, publish the one of Muhammad kissing a man and another of god, the father, and the holy ghost having anal sex. Never thought I'd put those words in the same sentence. That way I'll show I'm not trying to offend just Muslims. I don't want to live in a society of cowards.

The publisher of Hebdo Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier said, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

Do the splash page wrote:

Flagpole is all ready to submit to the caliphate when it arrives here. I just invented a new religion. It is offended by balding, know it all blowhards that live in ohio. Flagpole should respect my religious beliefs and refrain from posting on this board. Free speech be damned as long as we are tolerant to all religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they might be.

It's not a freedom of speech issue. I'm not saying people CAN'T publish those images. I'm just saying I wouldn't. What's the gain? Your analogy is silly, because I can't help where I live or how much hair I have (though I'm sure no know it all as further evidenced by asking for advice in a currently active thread).

If a religion stated that its members would be offended if their leader were depicted wearing a red ribbon, would you then want to create images of the leader with a red ribbon? Some would. I say it's an easy thing to not do and doesn't compromise any personal or professional integrity.

We don't have to agree with the traditions of others, but where reasonably possible (and this isn't possible even close to all the time), we should try to honor them. In this case, Letsrun could. Again, I say bad form to publish them. I understand the sentiment to do it...show support for the victims and show the TERRORISTS that they haven't won, but in this case, I don't think it does that very well.

wejo wrote:

Nothing is above reproach wrote:

This. If letsrun really wanted to honor the victims, they would make sure that no ideology gets a free pass from critical thought and discussion. I doubt it'll happen though because a lot of influential American runners are deliriously Christian.

I don't want this thread to deteriorate to a discussion of our moderation of religious threads. Email me directly on that.

Translation: Letsrun's policy is that almost ever controversial issue can be discussed freely without censorship (see the threads on race that are allowed to stand) but religion deserves special protection and must not be questioned.

It's your site; you can do what you want. But at least be open and honest about it.

Great reply to Flagpole's comment.

Why should ANYONE be above satire, comedy or offense? Forget your sacred dogma, not everyone cares.

The cartoons really had very little to do with this tragic event. At its heart, what we have here is a clash of civilizations. Most people in their gut realize this, although many are afraid to speak out.

Forget the platitudes about tolerance. Anyone who doesn't think this is the tip of the iceberg is either hopelessly brainwashed or has had their brain cooked by drugs.

1) No one has a right to not be offended, but you have an opportunity here for YOU to not offend. Being offensive to others simply because you can be is not a good reason.

2) Your connection of the N word to how some Muslims view posted images of Muhammad I believe is right on the money; go with that. We don't get to determine if we THINK it should be offensive or not.

3) That many Christians might find the image you provided to be offensive makes no difference. Like a black person using the N word if he wants, he's a part of the group, so it's ok. It IS different when you are NOT a part of the group. Also, if a non-Christian posted that image that you provided, you would have the right to be offended or to NOT be offended. Your personal level of what is offensive is not the point.

4) Being offensive to everyone doesn't excuse you. AND, not posting a potentially offensive image isn't being a coward.

5) If you had a friend who was a practicing Sunni Muslim, would you invite them to your house for dinner and then put up pictures of Muhammad on the walls? Is Letsrun not "your house"?

6) I have a good friend who is a diehard NRA card-carrying Republican, and other than my own father and mother and my wife, he is the person in this world I respect the most. I have some liberal views on gun control. When he's over at the house, I don't proudly display my more liberal readings on the coffee table. He's no shrinking violet, but there's no need for me to do that either.

Anyway, do what you gotta do man (though I hope you go along with your brother's wishes here), but I wouldn't see it as championing any cause. Just unnecessary.

Flagpole wrote:

1) No one has a right to not be offended, but you have an opportunity here for YOU to not offend. Being offensive to others simply because you can be is not a good reason.

2) Your connection of the N word to how some Muslims view posted images of Muhammad I believe is right on the money; go with that. We don't get to determine if we THINK it should be offensive or not.

Flagpole, you are missing an enormous distinction here. Islam is not a race, it's an ideology. The analogy with the "N-word" doesn't apply.

I wish I could remember who said this, but I can't, so my apologies to the author: in paraphrase, "Religious ideologues think that blasphemy laws are good and should be followed. You seem to think that blasphemy laws are bad, but should be followed."

Flagpole I think you are missing a key point.

The people who committed this crime get offended if women intermingle with men, they get offended if little girls get an education, they get offended if other religions exist. A person who commits such a crime is out to end civilized society. They don't get a right to not be offended or to determine what other people can publish.

This editorial I linked to sums it up well:

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7509265/charlie-hebdo-cartoons

"But we shouldn't buy into the bullshit narrative of a few madmen that their murders were a response to some cartoons. We shouldn't buy into it even if we're saying that murdering in response to cartoons is always wrong.

This is related to a point Charlie Hebdo made often and well. As my colleague Max Fisher wrote about the magazine's wonderful cover, "Love is Stronger Than Hate" (pictured above):

'Part of Charlie Hebdo's point was that respecting these taboos strengthens their censorial power. Worse, allowing extremists to set the limits of conversation validates and entrenches the extremists' premises: that free speech and religion are inherently at odds (they are not), and that there is some civilizational conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't).

These are also arguments, by the way, made by Islamophobes and racists, particularly in France, where hatred of Muslim immigrants from north and west Africa is a serious problem.

And that is exactly why Charlie Hebdo's "Love is stronger than hate" cover so well captures the magazine's oft-misunderstood mission and message. Yes, the slobbery kiss between two men is surely meant to get under the skin of any conservative Muslims who are also homophobic, but so too is it an attack on the idea that Muslims or Islam are the enemy, rather than extremism and intolerance.'

Allowing extremists to set the limits of conversation validates and entrenches the extremists' premises. That was true in the criticism of Charlie Hebdo's covers, and it's even truer in today's crimes.

These murders can't be explained by a close read of an editorial product, and they needn't be condemned on free speech grounds. They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators, who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do, and the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong.

This is a tragedy. It is a crime. It is not a statement, or a controversy."

Ahh...hey there big fella. They make fun of our beliefs, they burn out flag, what's the difference? Sorry, you're messed up pal. Wejo (or Rojo) has got it right. Why be a wimp, stand up dammit!We know you weren't saying that people CAN'T publish the images. Do you think that anyone on this thread thinks that YOU have that much power? Please, put the ego back in the cedar chest and wake up.

If you publish, you would have more balls and courage than the hypocritical "defenders" of free speech like The New York Times, who only publish critical items on groups that will not resort to payback. However, as you obviously know, these Islamists are fanatical zealots who really don't have a regard for anyone who stands in their way, as the world has seen time after time. In short, you may find yourselves in the same spot as other targeted groups. Tough decision. I wonder what the founding fathers would have done? Well, actually, that's a silly statement - they would have published and be damned with these people.

Hey France, how are those restrictive gun policies working out for you?

http://www.examiner.com/article/terrorists-take-advantage-of-restrictive-french-gun-laws-to-kill-12

Even the first responders had to run away like cowardly libtards.

This ^

Well said

the word wrote:

Ahh...hey there big fella. They make fun of our beliefs, they burn out flag, what's the difference? Sorry, you're messed up pal. Wejo (or Rojo) has got it right. Why be a wimp, stand up dammit!

Says the coward who can't even stick to ONE anonymous name on a running message board for fear having to be accountable for the content of his posts! LOL!