Charlie Hebdo: eleven dead! Press freedom in question!

[manet42]

Precisely if they are childish ... There's nothing to whip .. Who ??

There may also be a 4th degree ....

Question stigma ... take a look:

http://www.cfcm.tv/

[Janic]

just a little theological clarification.
In principle, blasphemy can only concern the believer speaking with respect to the god he is supposed to revere. It is a kind of rejection, of interruption of a link so far real. We can compare this to the parent / child or husband / wife link with the nice words of birds that accompany the breakup. It is therefore an internal matter which only concerns interested individuals. (for example in the relations between the Muslim and Allah, his god only and not his representative whatever it is), the Christian and the same god, the Jew and the same god always. The rest is cultural deviationism which has developed over the centuries. *
The prophets concerned, themselves, clearly distinguish the insults proffered against them (which are therefore not blasphemies in the literal sense) from those proffered vis-à-vis the message brought. On the other hand each one considers as blasphemous ONLY what is directed against the word, of origin, of divine inspiration. Clearly it is God who is blasphemed through inspired speech, speech intended to free individuals from the chains of their fears, their superstitions, their traditions impossible to bear.
So outside this framework, insulting or simply demeaning words are only profanity against what, according to the unbeliever, has no existence of its own. If I say that Mr. Dupont is an idiot when I don't believe in the existence of this Mr. Dupont, these are only empty words. To be insulting, it is necessary and sufficient that this Mr Dupont exists and even more than that I know him personally.
Most of the time, therefore, these abusive words are turned either towards a religious system by globalizing it (the media have a lot to do with it), or by an emotional reaction towards unfortunate direct or indirect relations.
I hope this will bring a different vision to those who don't really understand these blasphemy discourses.

* For the concrete example, a little story concerning Judaism (but remains applicable to many other things)
A pious scholar, crushed by the number of laws which regulate the life of the city and of faith; one day piles up all these books on camels and a long column then heads for Sinai, he then dumps all this literature at the foot of the mountain and raises this plea to the sky: "I can't take all these laws anymore that you imposed on us "Then a hand comes out of the sky, rummages in this mountain of books and comes out a single sheet and saying" I take back what belongs to me, the rest is not mine! "

[pedrodelavega]

In 2015, in France, being killed for "blasphemy"!
Muslims really should take matters into their own hands and clean up their religion.

[Obamot]

* For the concrete example, a little story concerning Judaism (but remains applicable to many other things)
A pious scholar, crushed by the number of laws which regulate the life of the city and of faith; one day piles up all these books on camels and a long column then heads for Sinai, he then dumps all this literature at the foot of the mountain and raises this plea to the sky: "I can't take all these laws anymore that you imposed on us "Then a hand comes out of the sky, rummages in this mountain of books and comes out a single sheet and saying" I take back what belongs to me, the rest is not mine! "

Very good ... To meditate.

just a little theological clarification.
In principle, blasphemy can only concern the believer speaking with respect to the god he is supposed to revere

This is precisely the case if we take the concept in the broadest sense (the Semites concern Muslims as well as Jews and even more ...)
This is precisely the case for more than half of those killed ...

If we speak of the moral concept, we can hardly deny that there is repeated attack on human dignity. As Ahmed recalled, the question of "Freedom of the press" is quite relative.

As the Duck Chained said, we can laugh at everything, but not with anyone ...

[chatelot16]

a few centuries ago in France we were burned at a stake for blasphemy or witchcraft

[Christophe]

http://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/ ... -leur-tour

The duck chained threatened in turn ...

Nobody hopes for a #jesuiscannard made by #jesuisconnard !!!

[Janic]

Obamot hello
As the Duck Chained said, we can laugh at everything, but not with anyone ... I prefer this formula: "We can laugh at everything, but not just any old way"
Another point: Charlie Hebdo does not present the prophet in the headlines, but an individual dressed according to Arab culture. Yet the media (which are not just about the usual) interpret this image as being no other than ...!

[sen-no-sen]

There is something a little surreal about invoking "freedom of the press" for these puerile drawings, of which one can, with good reason, wonder whether they should be taken in the second degree or if, on the contrary, they. do not have a third degree, unconscious, defending a dominant system via the stigma of its competitor?

Very just!
Charlie Hebdo represented "freedom of expression of power", that is to say that allowed within the limits of what the politically correct can support, all wrapped in a very liberal-libertarian tendency inherited from "68".
Their propensities to ridicule religious currents, a fortiori Islam was not trivial, and the attack they suffered was not either ...

The repeated provocations, legitimate in themselves, but little indicated in the current context, aimed "maybe" (I'm nice!) To invoke unconsciously an agression.

There is therefore no plot behind this affair, but rather a strange phenomenon of societal psychology.


"We can laugh at everything, but not with everyone" Desproges

[Janic]

all right. It is like the children who provoke the adults to draw attention to them and in this case each party has done the same!
The shot of the "forgotten" identity card, but clearly visible, reveals it well.
I'm going to be as cynical as some comedians other than charlie hebdo: 3 million copies for a dying newspaper, it's a great resurrection! And a magazine that no one cares about becomes the best seller of the moment. Fate takes curious paths!

[Did67]

Obamot hello
As the Duck Chained said, we can laugh at everything, but not with anyone ... I prefer this formula: "We can laugh at everything, but not just any old way"

Let us return to Desproges what is not at the Duck [Desporges delivered this sentence during his "indictment" at the court of flagrant delusions, broadcast there was a time on France Inter, facing Jean-Marie Le Pen, physically present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ0csrxB5n4]

[Court of flagrant delusions during which, in another edition, Luis Régo asked Georges Moustaqui if he happened to wake up between two musical notes]

The Duck's motto is "Freedom of the press is only worn out if it is not used!" [Pastiche of an ad for Wonder batteries]