# Je suis Charlie!



## abax (Jan 11, 2015)

We stand together!


----------



## Secundino (Jan 12, 2015)

What happened to my post?


----------



## NYEric (Jan 12, 2015)

Yes. Tolerance is a better way.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 12, 2015)

Je suis Charlie!


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 12, 2015)

I've never heard the phrase but ditto! This particular division of a certain major worldwide religion is anything but tolerant and don't care about offending to insist on toeing to their line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 12, 2015)

Never heard of it either, so thank you. 



cnycharles said:


> I've never heard the phrase but ditto! This particular division of a certain major worldwide religion is anything but tolerant and don't care about offending to insist on toeing to their line
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't care which major religion the intolerance comes from (tolerance and religion does not go well together in my mind), I just hate intolerance and narrow mindedness in general.


----------



## abax (Jan 12, 2015)

Je suis Charlie refers to the attack in Paris on a satirical
magazine that killed 12 members of the magazine's staff and two policepersons. The last report I heard put the death toll at 17. The attack was a direct assault on the freedom of speech and print and thus an attack on all those countries who have managed through centuries of
conflict to ensure that freedom.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 12, 2015)

Good explanation, Angela. I think it has also come to represent opposition to hate of ethnic groups, because of the attack on the kosher grocery store in Paris.

I can't believe people haven't heard of these things.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 12, 2015)

I don't watch news or read papers if I can help it, though I had heard on radio about attacks and do sympathize for the many in many nations who have been kidnapped into brutal slavery in Nigeria (schoolgirls taken from school and being sold into sex slavery) and those being murdered for no real reason at all. I hadn't heard the phrase je suis Charlie but do sympathize completely with all who have suffered and who will suffer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 12, 2015)

The name Charlie come from the name of the satiric magazine called Charlie Hebdo. Even if some people working for the magazine were under police protection because of threats, 2 men attacked on January 7. The phrase"Je suis Charlie" appeared on the web the same day.

The attack on the kosher grocery store (one of the 2 attacks that day) had been 2 days later. 

According to one terrorist, those 3 events could be related to al-Qaeda.

You know, for France, it is somewhat like the events of Sept. 11 2001. For me it is an other important attack against the democratic world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 12, 2015)

Thanks much for the explanation, I appreciate it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## abax (Jan 12, 2015)

Erythrone, thank you for the further elaboration. The
phrase Je suis Charlie has become a symbol for all freedom
loving nations to stand together against repression of free
speech and the freedom of ideas.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 13, 2015)

Still wondering why my text has been deleted. Must have to do with free speach then...


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2015)

Secundino said:


> Still wondering why my text has been deleted. Must have to do with free speach then...



Repost it.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 13, 2015)

SlipperFan said:


> Good explanation, Angela. I think it has also come to represent opposition to hate of ethnic groups, because of the attack on the kosher grocery store in Paris.
> 
> I can't believe people haven't heard of these things.


I had heard about it, but no specifics because I didn't want know about them. I've isolated myself from the world because I'm still struggling with depression and hearing things like this only makes it worse. It only confirms to me that Homo sapiens has to be the most stupid creature to ever walk on the face of this planet, and that I should really look into building a space station on the Moon to get away from all of it.

*That's* why I prefer to live mostly in ignorance until I can deal with the outside world again.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 13, 2015)

Bad news, you would have homo sapiens on the moon then! - Je suis Charlie!


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 13, 2015)

NYEric said:


> Bad news, you would have homo sapiens on the moon then! - Je suis Charlie!


Only me and my friends. I'll be dictator there and choose which ones can live with me and which ones can't. 

I can always dream, right? :wink:


----------



## NYEric (Jan 13, 2015)

Dictatorship..-Sig Heil!! Doesn't sound good to me.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 13, 2015)

NYEric said:


> Dictatorship..-Sig Heil!! Doesn't sound good to me.


There's dictatorship and then there's dictatorship, you know. oke: Not like all the kings we had before were complete maniacs and many of them were in essence dictators. 

Maybe the proper term would be 'autocracy', with me as the ruler. That better? oke:


----------



## NYEric (Jan 13, 2015)

What kind of leader would you be? Could you stop the petty selfishness and greed and other corruption!?


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2015)

abax said:


> Erythrone, thank you for the further elaboration. The
> phrase Je suis Charlie has become a symbol for all freedom
> loving nations to stand together against repression of free
> speech and the freedom of ideas.



Yes, you are right! That is why it is my signature since last week!


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 13, 2015)

NYEric said:


> What kind of leader would you be? Could you stop the petty selfishness and greed and other corruption!?


Ugh, too bothersome. I think I would skip taking other people with me and only bring the orchids and the cats.

But I'll stop derailing this thread now, because it feels it's too serious a subject for this type of posts.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 13, 2015)

I was just playing the Devil's advocate. The frailties of human desire are our biggest fault. if we could be raised to think of everyone as equal, w/ equal potential, our societies could be perfect.


----------



## Justin (Jan 13, 2015)

Je suis Charlie!


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 13, 2015)

NYEric said:


> I was just playing the Devil's advocate. The frailties of human desire are our biggest fault. if we could be raised to think of everyone as equal, w/ equal potential, our societies could be perfect.


Aha, it was lost on me and yes, that sounds like a utopia in many ways, except that I would like to add that not everyone has equal potential, some of us are limited in some ways. A respect/acceptance for/of differences would be a nice thing to have in a utopian society, though.



I've read a bit more about the attack and various thoughts from journalists and columnists and it seems many of them share my feelings and fears of what this will lead to; polarization, suspicion, fear, insecurity, hate, racism, social rejection... 

Hate breeds hate and violence breeds violence... it's a vicious circle that's difficult to break. 


This is why I try to avoid the real world; it's so darned depressing.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jan 13, 2015)

[Censored], they killed Cabu, Wolinski, Charb and Tignouss, and other innocents. 

FYI, the Canard Enchaîné (the chained duck), oldest satyric newspaper in France is under threat since Thursday and protected accordingly (threat to 'kill them with axes'). The cover of the Canard tomorrow is all for Cabu, who was collaborating with the newspaper for more than 30 years.

Charlie as you must know will be out tomorrow in 16 languages, and kickin', even if it's been hard for the survivors to get to work with the right tone. But if you've seen the cover which is disclosed since Monday, Mohammad is back with another cartoon from Luz, injured in the attack. I know it's censored like the charlie covers in the US, see for it in France, 

I have not walked on Sunday.

As the head of the march was trusted by governments heads not there for human rights or freedom of expression, as half of them are threatening free speech, human or judicial rights, bloggers, journalists, whistleblowers etc. including ours. Plus the VIPs and politics handling the banners were most of them objects to caricatures by Charlie for a good reason. The only "charlie spirit" there has been the pigeon that did his little thing on our president while he met the survivors of Charlie.

Now all the normal people marching were GREAT. It gave some spring spirit to France to change from the attacks and the [censored] who are committing actions against mosque or synagogues since. Not a lot of actions but one is one too many.

People remembered too that atheists are to be respected too, Charlie is an atheist newspaper (in fact they fight everything).

I just hope as everyone here that it's over, as we have already a long history of terrorism, long before 9/11. I could have been very near a bombing in 86 (missed by a couple of hours), I've been lucky, like all my family in other occasions. So…

Now, the worse is that the attacks are used as an alibi here to add more freedom restricting laws on top of the ones we have already, like the LPMT last year, that allows security services to monitor all electronic communication (ie everything save snail mail) on anyone without a judicial monitoring. Some ask for a french "Patriot Act" as if it was an example for democracies and human rights. We'll see how it'll fare but I'm not optimistic. At least, a blasphemy law is not on the agenda (and cannot be due to our secularism principles, blasphemy died in France in 1789, but who knows…)

'Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.' B. Franklin

I won't enter into the thread more, I'm just sharing some input you may not have far from France. It's still difficult for me as it makes some things come back, and we all 'knew' them, the big names here, so… :'(

(no hugs, buy Charlie if you can or your local satyric newspaper.)


----------



## abax (Jan 13, 2015)

LPM, I've heard that the next issue of Charlie will have many English language printings. Surely, some will make
it here even if it's hand-to-hand. I hope so. Please keep
us informed about what's happening in France.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 14, 2015)

Thank you so much Lepetitmartien for putting the things right; obviously we share the idea that the massacres have already been used as excuse to restrict civil rights. 
I tried to post the cover Charlie did after the first attempt to silence them ' l'amour plus forte...' but it was banned immediately. The right to carry weapons and the right to write are different things. Not in democracy, though. And as Mutant already wrote, religions and tolerance don't match very good...

The new Charlie is already sold out; and I fear I won't be able to get one here where I live. Not Charlie, but le canard and other satiric magazines are part of my youth. 
Hoping for some change in 2015


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 14, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> [Censored], they killed Cabu, Wolinski, Charb and Tignouss, and other innocents.
> 
> FYI, the Canard Enchaîné (the chained duck), oldest satyric newspaper in France is under threat since Thursday and protected accordingly (threat to 'kill them with axes'). The cover of the Canard tomorrow is all for Cabu, who was collaborating with the newspaper for more than 30 years.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your post, LPM. I can't even imagine what you're going through right now. It worries me to see that some of the things I feared might happen are already in fact happening. I hate to be right about such things. 

The horrors that happened in France are being used by various groups, political and otherwise, to further their agenda. It's disgusting to see.

I can't get a hold of a physical copy of the paper, but I will get a digital one tomorrow.



Secundino said:


> Thank you so much Lepetitmartien for putting the things right; obviously we share the idea that the massacres have already been used as excuse to restrict civil rights.
> I tried to post the cover Charlie did after the first attempt to silence them ' l'amour plus forte...' but it was banned immediately. The right to carry weapons and the right to write are different things. Not in democracy, though. And as Mutant already wrote, religions and tolerance don't match very good...
> 
> The new Charlie is already sold out; and I fear I won't be able to get one here where I live. Not Charlie, but le canard and other satiric magazines are part of my youth.
> Hoping for some change in 2015


Unfortunately, that's the impression I've gotten of most religious people but it's not true in most cases, or at least I hope it's not. 

It's a prejudice I have that I have to work with. I just felt I needed to clarify myself so as not to come across as a complete hypocrite.  I don't want anybody to judge me before I open my mouth, so I shouldn't judge them either.


----------



## Clark (Jan 14, 2015)

God Bless the victims.

I am actually surprised it doesn't happen in the US on a regular basis.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 14, 2015)

Oh, it does happen. Gay people e.g. - as I am one - can tell the story. All 'in the name of god'. Religion has many 'targets'... just one example. Not all killings make their way into TV-News. 

Btw, 'god bless the victims' would be the kind of humor Charlie Hebdo used in drawings for atheist deads...

And yes, it seems nearly impossible to get hold of one copy. In a way, that is good news. 5 million! Imagine!


----------



## NYEric (Jan 14, 2015)

I am not a religious person, at least not an organized religion. However, I would fight to the death to defend the right of all/others to practice what they believe in here.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 14, 2015)

Secundino said:


> *Oh, it does happen. Gay people e.g. - as I am one - can tell the story. All 'in the name of god'. Religion has many 'targets'... just one example. Not all killings make their way into TV-News. *
> 
> Btw, 'god bless the victims' would be the kind of humor Charlie Hebdo used in drawings for atheist deads...
> 
> And yes, it seems nearly impossible to get hold of one copy. In a way, that is good news. 5 million! Imagine!


I know and that's one of the biggest issue I have with religion, or rather some of their practitioners, in general. I just realized I shouldn't assume everybody was like that however, that's what I meant.




NYEric said:


> I am not a religious person, at least not an organized religion. However, I would fight to the death to defend the right of all/others to practice what they believe in here.


I agree.


----------



## Clark (Jan 14, 2015)

Lately my heroes have been the staff at the NYDailyNews. They have been bashing and thrashing the New York Police Dept. on a daily basis.
As wrong as folks feel the Dept. has been recently, we still need the police.


I would find it unbelievable, when Paris buries their dead, there is no religion involved.

I gave god the pink slip thirty years ago, btw.


----------



## abax (Jan 14, 2015)

Secundino, the gay community here in the states is making
some headway against prejudice and legal status as married couples, but it's been a very long, very tragic fight through hatred (religion) and misunderstanding (AIDS). A totally unnecessary unwillingness to let human
beings just be human beings...all of us the same regardless of sexual orientation ( which is none of anyone else's business anyway!).


----------



## orchidbri (Jan 14, 2015)

Je Suis Charlie!

As an artist, and as a Christian, and as a human being, I can say "Je Suis Charlie!"

I agree with what NYEric wrote:


> "I am not a religious person, at least not an organized religion. However, I would fight to the death to defend the right of all/others to practice what they believe in here."



Insert "gay," "atheist," "Muslim," or whatever other word you wish, and it would not ring any less true.


----------



## Shiva (Jan 14, 2015)

If God needs to be avenged, he is not God. If men and women feels they need to avenge him, they have no faith. If there was a God, he would be well above this nonsense.

No atheist would kill in the name of God. We should all be atheists.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Jan 14, 2015)

NYEric said:


> I am not a religious person, at least not an organized religion. However, I would fight to the death to defend the right of all/others to practice what they believe in here.



Really? If Baal worshipers hadn't been wiped out by Rome for child sacrifice would you still fight to the death for them to practice child sacrifice?

A rather extreme example. The moderate point being that: why should be who harm other people be allowed to continue harming other people simply because that is what they want to do?

Blanket tolerance is not a virtue. Andre Comte Sponville makes this point very clear in his "A Short Treatise on the Great Virtues." Excellent reading if you have the stomach for 300+ pages of moral-philosophy.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 14, 2015)

Shiva said:


> No atheist would kill in the name of God.



They just kill generically?


----------



## Shiva (Jan 14, 2015)

gonewild said:


> They just kill generically?



They kill for any other reason than religion.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 14, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> Really? If Baal worshipers hadn't been wiped out by Rome for child sacrifice would you still fight to the death for them to practice child sacrifice?



You did see the "here" in my statement, right? oke:


----------



## TyroneGenade (Jan 14, 2015)

NYEric said:


> You did see the "here" in my statement, right? oke:



No, I'm dyslexic, but that is irrelevant. I saw and opportunity to introduce some moral-philosophy and went for it. :evil: At what point does free speech, expression etc... become morally reprehensible? 

I have Muslim friends. They have helped me at their expense in the past. I don't like the idea of people drawing nasty cartoons with the express aim of hurting their feelings. That it hurts their feelings hurts my feelings. Like Christ, Andre Comte Sponville advocates a rule of love---but you would need to read his book to get his point.

To be clear, I abhor blood-thirsty murderers and murderous anti-social Islamic memes (as do my Muslim friends who just want live happily ever after with everyone else) more than I do mean-spirited slanderous cartoonists. The latter I can tolerate. The former... well, they are best done away with one way or another.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 14, 2015)

Isn't this a great forum?

I truly love you all!


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 15, 2015)

So many good posts and thoughts that express what I've been trying to say and do it so much better than I ever could.



SlipperFan said:


> Isn't this a great forum?
> 
> I truly love you all!


I totally agree. 

You've restored my faith in humanity somewhat.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 15, 2015)

Dear Mutant, 'faith' in humanity is always a good thing to have, but I haven't forgotten my post (photograph of CH-cover) that was inmediately deleted. 

Internet has never been a real free space (place?) and is already controlled - perhaps we should better coin the word 'orwelled' - and as far as I know, magazines like CH are forbidden in the USA.
Hopefully europ Parlament can stop some of the new national laws that now appeare as if they only had been waiting for the right opportunity...

Let's have faith, or better, let's do someting ourselves...


----------



## gnathaniel (Jan 15, 2015)

Secundino said:


> Dear Mutant, 'faith' in humanity is always a good thing to have, but I haven't forgotten my post (photograph of CH-cover) that was inmediately deleted.
> 
> Internet has never been a real free space (place?) and is already controlled - perhaps we should better coin the word 'orwelled' - and as far as I know, magazines like CH are forbidden in the USA.



I don't speak for the admins/mods of this site, but it is an orchid forum and it's certainly conceivable, and conceivably prudent, that they'd rather keep their site out of this particular corner of the free expression debate. Which is well within their rights to do, as this forum was created and funded for a particular purpose that could be damaged by straying too far into unrelated hot controversies. Besides, the cover images are accessible via internet search, so all that's really been censored is ST's association with those images, not anyone's general access to that information.

And while there don't seem to be any precise analogs to CH in the US right now, as a matter of law there's no prohibition on such publications in general, or Charlie Hebdo in particular. To oversimplify but I don't think outright misstate anything, the general presumption in US law is that NOTHING is censored on the basis of its content absent some compelling reason to do so.

In my humble opinion, religion or any other worldview possess real value only insofar as they serve humanity; people who disregard the needs and rights of others in 'service' to religion or ideology have therefore very much missed the point. The CH and related kosher-grocery attacks demonstrate the tragic potential of grossly miscalibrated values, and I fear terroristic displays like these will remain a sad feature of human life until we ALL more substantively address our human tendency to treat 'others' so cruelly...


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 15, 2015)

Secundino said:


> Dear Mutant, 'faith' in humanity is always a good thing to have, but I haven't forgotten my post (photograph of CH-cover) that was inmediately deleted. ...



I can't speak for all the administrators here, but I can't imagine anyone here would delete your post without at least telling you, or moving it to the "Outback" section. I don't remember seeing it. Where did you post it?


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 16, 2015)

For Secundino, and anyone else interested:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...explained_cartoonist_luz_on_new_mohammed.html
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...o-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you?detail=email


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks for the support, but I think in this regard, free newspaper (as in freedom) are more to be helped than me.

There's incidents against mosque, 119 to today since early january, that is 40% more than usual. Now all cult buildings identified as potential targets are under protection from the police or the army along with public places, institutions.

As you must know, there's been police operations in a few european countries, including a deadly one in Belgium, seemingly it became urgent to stop some other known groups before they went to action, just in time for Belgium it seemed.

I've still not catch a CH issue, it'll be a 7 million copies in the end, available for 2 weeks. I'll try again tomorrow, along with other newspapers (the Canard and Siné Mensuel) also sold out and reprinted. France rediscovered it has newspapers.

I truly don't like when I hear our PM talking about a war against terrorism. It's irrelevant language, you don't declare war against what's not a country but individuals, little groups or bigger structures more or less loosed like daesh of the al quaeda offsprings. Plus it raises some echo upon some bad external policy from the USA that led to no good in middle east (like daesh).

On the law side, it's still along the same lines. The local competition to the most stupid proposal is still on. I really hope this is over for the terrorist part, it's already way too hysteric for reasonable policy here as we hear a lot of blatant stupidities (about the net especially)

Enough for today, I'm already fed up with the stupidities I read on FB…


----------



## Secundino (Jan 20, 2015)

Seven million copies - imagine. That is kind of crumb of confort. 
There is not one copy of these 7 million coming to GC. I'm now trying to get one through a friend in Madrid, but it seems it doesn't work either. If I had not seen the queues I would not believe there are as much copies!


----------



## Ray (Jan 20, 2015)

I believe that much of the difficulty we are seeing these days has a basis in lack of respect.

Yes, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo have the _right_ to publish what they will, but knowing that some consider their stuff to be disrespectful, _should_ they? I can also argue that those who dislike what has been published should respect the fact that, in other cultures, such liberty is very strongly held, so they should just get over it.

A few more examples.

Police in NYC turn their backs on the Mayor, yet gripe that _they_ get no respect from him. Really? And they expect the public to respect them?

Like him or not, the President was elected by the citizens of the United States, yet congress - and so many in public that follow them - continue to be disrespectful of the man and the position, leading to a total stalemate of progress on things that need to be changed, and outright division of the populace.

Much of the "black versus cop" situation we've seen so much recently also falls under this umbrella. Profiling based upon race is blatant disrespect, yet those of color in the examples we've seen could have done a better job of showing a little respect for the police, too. It the guy in New York had simply done so and complied with the police, he likely wouldn't have been dragged to the ground and ultimately suffocated. A big problem here is that - speaking in general - this is so entrenched in both parties that it's sort of a "chicken or egg" thing - they've done it to themselves, and each other.

A personal example: I grew up in DC. As a teenager, I was a passenger in a car that got pulled over the DC Metro Police about 1 a.m.. We had obviously been drinking. The officer led us to our destination, and "threatened" us to stay there until at least noon.

Fast forward to my of-age son in Bucks County PA, stopped while walking with an unopened beer in a municipal park. He received a big hassle and a large fine. 

Now ask me which one of us has more respect for the police...

We even see disrespectful attitudes by folks in online forums (myself included, I'm ashamed to say), but fortunately this is one of the better ones.

Now crank up the Aretha and let's all move on.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 20, 2015)

That is a variant of the 'you-got-what-you-asked-for' philosophy. 
According to that, if you behave 'well', nothing evil will ever happen to you... in theory. Examples:

If you don't wear hotpants, you won't get raped.
If you don't kiss your husband in the street, you won't get bashed.
If you you stay with others of your 'race', you won't be discriminated.
If you aren't a calf, you won't be bound for market and slaughtered. 

So far, so fine. 
But what if you are a woman?
But what if you are a man?
But what if you have a race to be proud of?

Sorry for the calves, just an example. 

World does not work like that. No one has the right to rape, to discriminate, to kill. Neither for the 'bigger good', neither in the name of gods and their religions, neither argueing the culprit of the victims. 

You don't 'earn respect' - respect is intrinsic, or it isn't. Like love e.g.


----------



## Ray (Jan 20, 2015)

Secundino said:


> That is a variant of the 'you-got-what-you-asked-for' philosophy.
> According to that, if you behave 'well', nothing evil will ever happen to you... in theory. Examples:
> 
> If you don't wear hotpants, you won't get raped.
> ...



I disagree with most of that, Secun. My thoughts are not "you get what you ask for", at all, but was expressing that if folks showed respect for others, there would be fewer problems.

The "world does not work like that" seems to be giving up.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 20, 2015)

I think you are both saying the same thing, but coming at it from opposite directions.


----------



## abax (Jan 21, 2015)

I love open discussion, but I'm just a bit sorry to have started this thread. I only meant to support the French
people and their right to freedom of speech and press.

My final take on this is that if something offends you, don't look at it, don't read it, look away and let other
people alone to make their own choices.


----------



## Ray (Jan 21, 2015)

SlipperFan said:


> I think you are both saying the same thing, but coming at it from opposite directions.



That may very well be, Dot.

Sheesh. We argue, even when we agree?????


----------



## NYEric (Jan 21, 2015)

Ray said:


> I believe that much of the difficulty we are seeing these days has a basis in lack of respect.
> 
> Yes, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo have the _right_ to publish what they will, but knowing that some consider their stuff to be disrespectful, _should_ they? I can also argue that those who dislike what has been published should respect the fact that, in other cultures, such liberty is very strongly held, so they should just get over it.
> 
> ...



Here, here! :clap:


----------



## Shiva (Jan 21, 2015)

A long time ago I asked the big boss of the company I worked for:

''Why does everybody think everyone else is an a** O le?''

''That's human nature'', he told me, laughing.

So there we are and we have to live with it. :rollhappy:


----------



## gonewild (Jan 21, 2015)

Shiva said:


> A long time ago I asked the big boss of the company I worked for:
> 
> ''Why does everybody think everyone else is an a** O le?''
> 
> ...




Yes Human nature!

Every Human has the right to not be offended
Every Human has the right to offend someone.
Every Human has the right to kick the ass of someone that insults them.
Every Human has the right to defend themselves from someone trying to kick their ass.

All that is Human nature and what humans do naturally.
Religion made all that against the rules.
Having to live with unnatural rules sucks.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 21, 2015)

I'm with you, Lance.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jan 21, 2015)

To set legal stuff right in the case of France:
- Blasphemy is no more a crime since 1789, due to some historical events in France and obvious injustices. It's in the Human rights declaration of 1789.
- Caricature is a right and protected by law.
- Laïcity implies that the State is neutral between religions, and this includes respect to all, including atheists.
- Free speech is guaranteed with these limits (it's NOT the US one):

No hatred
No racism, antisemitism, apologia of crimes against humanity.
No discrimination on sex or sexuality (the protection is not on the sale level as for racism)
No apologia of crimes and offences, and especially terrorist acts or drugs.
No public insults 
No public defamation
No propagation of false news (Foxnews will have to face the 17th court in Paris for this with their "no go zones" in Paris)
No breach on privacy (there's limits due to the right to inform on public figures)
No breach on health issues
And people under police and justice scrutiny are innocent till trial and recognised guilty, so public talks on this should be set accordingly. Our ex president Sarkozy has an issue with this regularly…
(I hope I've been complete)

When the Muhamad caricatures affair occurred, some french islamic institutions have brought Charlie before the 17th chamber and Charlie won over the right to blasphemy and caricature, as it wasn't hatred or racism etc. Plus the record of Charlie caricaturing all religions and races stands by them. They may not be of the best humor always (especially the Val period as editor in chief until 2009) but they pursue stupidity on all fronts, and sometimes it's very funny.  Historically the team came from Hara-Kiri which was "stupid and bad", very much so.

Hara-Kiri closed after they titled after the death of De Gaulle: "Tragic ball in Colombey: one dead" (Colombey is the village where De Gaulle had his manor). They got shut down under a false pretense, the only censorship commission works under the "youth protection", you can always find something under this pretence. And the guys founded Charlie afterwards, a little bit more mellow but not by much. I think the only guy of this period still alive is Siné, who was fired by Val in 2009 under false pretence (as the trial judged) and who founded Siné Hebdo then Mensuel now, he's very old, and in hospital for weeks. But Siné Mensuel was out the week after the attacks, with a big title "buy Charlie" and a sad clown under saying "if you don't receive a bullet before you're 50, you've missed your life" (pun on a stupid phrase from a famous advertiser under the Sarkozy presidency "if you don't wear a Rolex before you're 50, you've missed your life".) It was exactly to the (bullet) point. 
http://www.sinemensuel.com/communique/achetez-charlie-sine-mensuel-hors-serie-n2/

I resent strongly that the demoes against Charlie are located into countries with neither free speech, nor a free press… And by persons who have not even seen the newspaper as it's forbidden in their country. I don't want to blame them, but they miss the most important points imho.

Now I still haven't been able to catch an issue of Charlie


----------



## abax (Jan 23, 2015)

Thank you, lpm. I think your explanation is outstanding and as it should be everywhere.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jan 25, 2015)

Latest news is the Charlie issue is to be printed still, so more than 7 millions… I've not catch it! And our prime minster made a declaration where he emphatically urged the french youth to learn to live with terrorism as it's here to stay (how great!) Now I wonder where he was the last 60 years (or more) because since the Events of Algeria (troubles then decolonisation of Algeria), there's been terrorist attacks. First the FLN (for independence) and the OAS (against), the OAS was even trying to kill De Gaulle by then. Afterwards, it was far left like Action Directe (similar to RAF or Bader gang in Germany, or Brigade Rosso in Italy), and the FLNC (independence movement for Corsica, until today), one bomb by the independentists for Brittany, the BHV bomb in 78. The islamist (various origins) bombs in 86, 95-96, attacks in 2012, 2015.

For a list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France
(the french list is more complete)

So it's not that "new"…

On the law front, it calms down but the engine to add stupid laws is still at works, it's less the united front for it as the political game has taken its rights back. Meanwhile the police and intelligence agencies are working hard at identifying and arresting helpers of the attacks.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 25, 2015)

Seven million and not a single one gets up to here... Monday I'll try and phone the french consulate. 
At least that print will help to let them work. But how do you make a satiric magazine without experienced cartoonists? So sad.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jan 25, 2015)

Well, it's not easy to have here either…


----------



## NYEric (Jan 26, 2015)

It's as if Islamic fundamentalists actually think that the world will change by their violent acts... "Hmm, they blew up my neighbor, I'd better run and join them!" :crazy: Maybe They are delusional enough to think that their acts are simply other than frustrated ventings similar to an unfed infant. Very sad actually. Reality: the world goes on and advances, see the new WTC, it won't go backwards.

Je suis Charlie!


----------



## gonewild (Jan 26, 2015)

NYEric said:


> It's as if Islamic fundamentalists actually think that the world will change by their violent acts...
> Je suis Charlie!



The World did change because of their violent acts. And as long as the World continues to remain even slightly passive and forgiving, in time the Islamic fundamentalists will win. The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> The World did change because of their violent acts. And as long as the World continues to remain even slightly passive and forgiving, in time the Islamic fundamentalists will win. The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?



There was already a wave of conquerors that went through Arabia and Europe, this is another wave. Civilization is very fragile, don't assume that things will always be as they've been for the last 60 years. 

Even the general basis of Islam is to eventually have all under that rule. So whether it's gently or much more quickly that's what's written. The wording is that they are to be peaceful to their brothers but they don't need to be so to unbelievers, so those in a hurry want to displace them however necessary. ... As it seems, even those we think are also of that religion they don't seem to mind killing along with everyone else so it's actually 'business as usual' and using whatever religious or other cover to justify whatever ends they want. Hitler said he wanted to make a pure 'aryan' (sp) race but I guess he didn't know that aryans were dark. Different starting group but the same destruction in mind

Actually it's 'love thy neighbor as yourself' and love thy enemy, and forgive a Brother. Also there is no prohibition in the latter religion that deals with love, in protecting family and nation as any other would expect to do  . If you mean the west tries to be nicer about things than some others before fighting then that might be generally so


----------



## TyroneGenade (Jan 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?



I suppose it depends on who best limits casualties. If every Jihadists straps dynamite to themselves and we, the forgiving, can keep the causality ratio to less than 1:1, then we win by default. Hooray!

Flak-jackets for everyone!

I would beg to differ, Lance, in that this is a battle between philosophies: one of violent suppression and the other of liberty. The world is full of Muslims who care nothing for Jihad and conquest and just want to be free to live their lives.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 26, 2015)

...we, the forgiving ... that is just what the 'other side' thinks of themselves, too. 
I hope many people have the opportunity to see Sissakos new film 'Timbuktu'. There is no real 'we' and 'them'. 
And I am sure, what 'we' call christianity isn't really tamed. In the name of god, with the help of god, ... christianity had already its share of bloodshed. Nobody can hide. 

And world and society have changed. Not because of terrorism. But because of the reactions against terrorism. Just one example: there is no free traveling any more. 

But there is a silver lining ... in Greece. Tsirpas signed in greek parliament without the presence of religious authorities. 
And in Turkey: week after week fearless people confront the police to protect their laizist state, while tens of thousands of refugees cross the border.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 26, 2015)

Secundino said:


> But there is a silver lining ... in Greece. Tsirpas signed in greek parliament without the presence of religious authorities.



How does lack of religion in government make the world a better or safer place?


----------



## Secundino (Jan 26, 2015)

Because, Lance, there is always an option. It is never stay or leave, it is never friend or enemy, it is not 'if they don't, they are in support of violence'. That is black-and-white thinking; but world and human society is much more complex than that, there are much more shadows of grey and even colour. 
Monotheist religions have that duality in them: one god only. The rest is infidel, is 'enemy'. Same idea: or you are with me, or you are my enemy. That can't be sane.
Governments, states, and in my opinion even political parties should always be secular. How could they possibly serve all, if in charge, if not so. 
People, if they want or need to, may worship to whom they like.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> How does lack of religion in government make the world a better or safer place?


Do you think its better anywhere if/where the government carries out the wishes of religious leaders?

But I agree with you; I am getting tired of non-fundamentalist Muslims saying, "Oh, that is not our religion." - At a certain point they should act to prove that position.


----------



## Shiva (Jan 26, 2015)

NYEric said:


> But I agree with you; I am getting tired of non-fundamentalist Muslims saying, "Oh, that is not our religion." - At a certain point they should act to prove that position.



The problem is that Islam has no spokesperson that could act like the Pope in the catholic church. So they are left with the asinine excuse they use to defend their religion. And since they are fragmented between their interpretation of the Coran, don't expect any change.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Actually it is sane, the last part, "you are with me, or you are my enemy", this is the sane, basic natural, species behavior Homo sapiens is ingrained with.



Says who? where is the proof of that assumption, that mankind is evil? That already sounds like religion to me - crying for redemption! Imagine it the other way round: if mankind was good, there would be no need to invent god! We can't allow that, can we?! There has never been such thing like 'one mankind' - what there is and always has been is the mix of better ones and not so good ones you see when you look out of the window. 

But there are alternatives. It's called *civil*ization. Not related to religion or military. And civil response is needed against terrorism of any kind, not that military, law and order crap that is happening right now: a spiral of violence that leads nowhere. 

I am certainly not with you, Lance, but you aren't my enemy. That makes a _big_ difference.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 26, 2015)

Being civil to mad bombers won't make them go away, though I hope to be civil to everyone I meet if they allow me to. No matter how civil some people may want to be, there are going to be those who want to bash you over the head for whatever reason. And them to protect yourself from the head badger, you end up having military. You can't have civilization without having some form of military, even if it is only the militia that was supposed to be the only standing army when the us was formed. Whether or not you want to say mankind is evil, or more correctly twisted by things belonging to another discussion it leads to the fact that there are people whose brains are twisted and no amount if being nice to the world and holding hands will fix that. So you then end up needing something to back them off,.... The cycle continues because of this. Japan didn't plan on directly invading the us during ww2 because they knew every citizen family had a gun (a huge army). The us I guess could have 'been nice' and not taken part in that war, but it's likely after everyone else was conquered they would have come here eventually. From viewing history it's impossible to gather that acting civilized only would keep any peace from the part of mankind or what infects mankind to not be peaceable with their neighbors. In the big picture it really is black or white; there are enough that think 'I want what you have' or 'I want you to stop what you're doing' and will die or whip up enough others to do it for them that peace by mankind's hand itself is impossible.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 27, 2015)

I disagree. I think, like racism, war and violence are under man's control. Everyone just has to realize that it in not beneficial for the community. If we could just stop being so self-centered and greedy, and think of the long term, "oh, there is plenty of water for everyone, Ozone is not my problem, global warming is just a cycle..." we would be better off. Maybe an alien invasion would unite us.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 27, 2015)

NYEric said:


> I disagree. I think, like racism, war and violence are under man's control. Everyone just has to realize that it in not beneficial for the community. If we could just stop being so self-centered and greedy, and think of the long term, "oh, there is plenty of water for everyone, Ozone is not my problem, global warming is just a cycle..." we would be better off. Maybe an alien invasion would unite us.



All this and Orchids grow big and bloom beautiful and never die. All fantasy!
Man can not control the nature of his species. If he could he would be God.

Well, maybe the alien invasion part is not fantasy! :wink:


----------



## Secundino (Jan 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Well, maybe the alien invasion part is not fantasy! :wink:



That would explain a lot, including the K-lite enigma! :rollhappy:


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 27, 2015)

It's the nanobots that really make things work 
Hmm, spose I should help guide this thread back towards the cartoon paper; hope they can find acceptable writers/artists to keep true with their original spirit 

Though I haven't read that book, the author I know is basing it all on their own or others' whimsy and not fact. There has been no time in recorded human history where men haven't worshipped something, which is religion. So there is no recorded history of a time before religion to base such writings on. Purely a construct of their or others' opinions. Anyhow thinking of a tribe way back for discussions sake pre-religion, there must be a leader. And leaders have to have rules written or otherwise. If a rule is broken then there is a consequence. Even apes and chickens have their pecking order and what happens if you step out of line? Law enforcement! :rollhappy: 
Of course many people have different versions of what they mean by the word religion so discussion can become a twisted mess....
And there certainly was corruption.... Even godless kings in that pre religion time needed finances of some sort to fund whatever needed to be done as I suppose they weren't pure communists, and where there are funds there is that twisted desire to keep 'just a little more' for myself, and there you have corruption. ....but jmho


----------



## Secundino (Jan 27, 2015)

That is again a redundant example of (hetero-)male perception of the world. The female part of it - and, thanks to the goddess!, this part is the bigger one - worked in the sense of civilization I meant before. While the brutes in the battlefield were comparing the size of their ... chromosomes. 

And no, anthropology is a science. 

Opinions is what we do write here.

edit: In the beginning please read: 'That was again a ...' as the text this post refers to has disapperared, and others too.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 27, 2015)

Anthropology is a science, but science is not a religion! The definition of religion from my dictionary: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Definitely not a religion.


----------



## abax (Jan 28, 2015)

Tell 'em Secundino! If women had and did rule the world, it would be a much better place with or without religion.
It's men and their...uh...chromosomes that screwed things
up. Eric is quite right. Ethical behavior should be the goal of human beings.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Feb 1, 2015)

And Ethics are not a religion property… It's one thing some religious people forget or can't envision, which is a racist opinion. (We passed the Godwin long ago so…  oke:

Haven't tried to get Charlie since… and I'm working on a conference for Saturday (on orchid pests) so I've got the world to save (without god) until then. :evil:


----------

