The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[XavierPrice]

Excellent episode, Bob. I'm not normally one that tends to agree with your soapboxing, as I stand on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you more often than not. However, for this, there isn't a word you said that I don't agree with. One of your best serious episodes so far. Shame you had to make it in the first place. I hope next week you can get back to something light hearted. I know how these serious episodes can weigh you, and the viewers down.

 

[CaitSeith]

Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.

But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.

Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.

I dont want to live in society where people censor themselves to suit the whims of mad men with guns. The only 'claws' any person in a civilized society should be wary of is social and legal repercussions, anyone who takes their protests beyond that isn't worth listening to.

And I agree, which makes me think that the sleeping bear metaphor is ill suited for this case. What happens with the bear is expected (which makes you look like a dumb if you don't take precautions). What happened in Charlie Hebdo was much more unexpected.

I might be wrong here, but as far as I know they werer warned/threatened just as a bear would growl before it bites your head off, so I still feel it sort of fits.

Sorry, but terrorists aren't bears. A bear isn't responsible if it killed the one who poked it. It acted by instinct. Terrorists chose to kill. They chose to see those cartoons, to plan the assault, to travel to the offices, and to fill with bullets anyone in the building. And if you insist that their threats were as a valid warning as the bear's growling, well, remember that genuine death threats are illegal for that reason.

 

[TheRealCJ]

"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...

Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.

See what I wrote above; There are laws ALREADY in place based on "Christian values." Christians in the west ABSOLUTELY demand you obey their religion's laws.

Albania is the one muslim majority country were religious minorities dont face institutionalized discrimination.

As opposed to somewhere like, say... France, where wearing the Burqa is banned? And keep in mind that there are, what, about six or seven "Muslim" countries, while there are dozens of "Christian" countries. Or like in Israel, where muslims are not allowed to publicly pray or declare faith, or even Salaam (which is a traditional Muslim greeting) and haven't been able to since the mid-1980s? Oh, and as recently as a few months ago have tried to pass laws banning the Adhan, the "call to prayer" for Muslims (Think the ringing of church bells).

Face it, in western countries, Muslims are the minority. And countries where they are the MAJORITY are a minority on the world stage. And religious-based lawmaking is NOT an exclusively Islamic practice.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I was so angry at the Charlie Hedbo attacks, I kept thinking about how much blood I wanted out of those damn religious extremist. I didn't even bother thinking about all the different angles. I don't often %100 agree with you bob, but I do here. Its hard during the age of the 24/hour news cycle that's looking for a boobgyman that you don't stop and think "Is this right?".

I felt the same way when I saw the thousands dead in Palestine. But apparently if I voice the opinion that Israel are basically attempting to wipe out an entire people via landgrabs and literal genocide, I'm being "anti-semetic" and "Pro-terrorist."

The only thing I can say about that whole can of worms, is that the morality seems to be that of a gangwar between the Bloods and the Cribs.

Militant Hamas are obviously a bunch of bastards for firing rockets from behind meat-shields, at civilian targets. And Israel are a right bunch of twats for firing indiscriminately at a civilian population.

Sorry mate, but I can't see this particular situation in any light that give any of the "sides" the moral high ground.

 

[Callate]

Yes, public figures get it wrong some of the time and then we criticize them. That's a proportional response to people being wrong, because it's not healthy to blindly support a person's every action. Moreover, I don't think we'd be doing the victims of Charlie Hebdo any justice by turning them into a cult.

I'm not sure what a "cult" to the victims of Charlie Hebdo would look like.

And yes, they would expect to be criticized, and even satirized. But its also worth asking if that criticism, given that timing, says something the critic might not intend, or has a chilling effect on others who might be considering if their fields are too dangerous to pursue. "Not turning a blind eye" doesn't just mean not ignoring what others have said and what it means, but attending what you as a critic have said and what it means.

At the present time, celebrating their courage and encouraging others to continue to emulate it seems far more important, and far less controversial, than questions of whether some of their content was offensive. The latter was ever an ongoing debate well before the shooting, and won't go away. The former has only come into the spotlight recently.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I know I've made a couple posts slamming the whole punch up/punch down bit but there's something else that's bugged me that I couldn't put my finger on until just now.

This rule basically means that you're allowed to punch up but they're not allowed to retaliate because that would be 'punching down'.

So if you still believe in this rule you should realize that to some of us it looks like a set of rules designed as a way to avoid criticism/backlash while allowing the person to dish it out as much as they want.

It kinda is. The whole punch up/down thing is relevant because it's a LOT easier to shrug things off when you are in a position of power (or - and I'm loathe to use this term for fear of being blindly labelled an "SJW" - Privilege).

I made a post earlier about making fun of hipsters wearing bad clothes and eating bad food, and making the same jokes about someone who is extremely poor. Hipster choose to dress like that, and when people make fun of them, they may feel bad, sure, they may even decide to change. But they can also simply laugh it off and ignore it safe in the knowledge that they're secure in themselves and are doing it because they want to.

Now consider the poor person. They cannot simply choose to stop wearing old clothes and eating bad food. They have no choice in the matter. Laughing it off doesn't involve being secure in themselves safe in the knowledge that they are doing what they want; Laughing off a joke like that is instead swallowing their pride and accepting that they are the butt of the joke.

This goes double for Satire, because the POINT of satire is to enact change through humor. If something can't change, then what's the point of trying to make it change? A poor person isn't going to see them satirized and say "You know what, they're right! I SHOULD stop barely scraping by because rich people think I'm worthless!" whereas a hipster might say to themselves. "Well, I'm the source of mockery, maybe I'll start acting more like the level of society I belong to."

Personally, to me, "Privilege" is being able to ignore critics.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I know I've made a couple posts slamming the whole punch up/punch down bit but there's something else that's bugged me that I couldn't put my finger on until just now.

This rule basically means that you're allowed to punch up but they're not allowed to retaliate because that would be 'punching down'.

So if you still believe in this rule you should realize that to some of us it looks like a set of rules designed as a way to avoid criticism/backlash while allowing the person to dish it out as much as they want.

It kinda is. The whole punch up/down thing is relevant because it's a LOT easier to shrug things off when you are in a position of power (or - and I'm loathe to use this term for fear of being blindly labelled an "SJW" - Privilege).

I think that would have more to do with personality than anything. The existence of gallows humor would seem to go against your theory.

I made a post earlier about making fun of hipsters wearing bad clothes and eating bad food, and making the same jokes about someone who is extremely poor. Hipster choose to dress like that, and when people make fun of them, they may feel bad, sure, they may even decide to change. But they can also simply laugh it off and ignore it safe in the knowledge that they're secure in themselves and are doing it because they want to.

It's easy to make fun of people if you believe that they can handle it. You seem to be stereotyping.

Laughing it off doesn't involve being secure in themselves safe in the knowledge that they are doing what they want; Laughing off a joke like that is instead swallowing their pride and accepting that they are the butt of the joke.

You say that like hipsters aren't also the butt of the same joke. You also act like being the butt of a joke means you can't also like it. Roasts and self deprecating humor aren't exactly new things. Also you can joke about homeless people about things they can help.

This goes double for Satire, because the POINT of satire is to enact change through humor.

I guess it's how you define satire, but we both agree that if I jokingly mock someone in a way that's not satire it'll still qualify as 'punching' right?

If something can't change, then what's the point of trying to make it change? A poor person isn't going to see them satirized and say "You know what, they're right! I SHOULD stop barely scraping by because rich people think I'm worthless!"

Again you can mock people for things they can help even if they are homeless. Let's say a poor person was in a gang. Is that acceptable to mock or is it still punching down?

 

[TheRealCJ]

I was so angry at the Charlie Hedbo attacks, I kept thinking about how much blood I wanted out of those damn religious extremist. I didn't even bother thinking about all the different angles. I don't often %100 agree with you bob, but I do here. Its hard during the age of the 24/hour news cycle that's looking for a boobgyman that you don't stop and think "Is this right?".

I felt the same way when I saw the thousands dead in Palestine. But apparently if I voice the opinion that Israel are basically attempting to wipe out an entire people via landgrabs and literal genocide, I'm being "anti-semetic" and "Pro-terrorist."

The only thing I can say about that whole can of worms, is that the morality seems to be that of a gangwar between the Bloods and the Cribs.

Militant Hamas are obviously a bunch of bastards for firing rockets from behind meat-shields, at civilian targets. And Israel are a right bunch of twats for firing indiscriminately at a civilian population.

Sorry mate, but I can't see this particular situation in any light that give any of the "sides" the moral high ground.

Isn't that exactly right? Neither side really has the moral high ground in the global terrorism debate either. Consider that most of these radicals are in their 20s, which means that they were children when 9/11 happened, and America invaded the Middle East. I daresay a lot of them were swayed by other radicals who believe that they are defending their religion from... let's call it "gentrification." i.e: The western world coming into THEIR countries and demanding that they be just like the western world. I don't think that's any different than Hamas "defending" themselves from Israel's fight to end the rights of Palestine. (Look at what happened just recently; Palestine's leaders have been increasingly trying to use diplomacy to get what they've wanted all this time - the right to exist - Israel and by proxy the United States have strongly opposed it. Palestine tried to join the UN Security Council, Israel and the US forced the UN to veto. Recently as two weeks ago Palestine has tried to join the ICC, possibly bringing human rights court cases against ITSELF, but also against Israel - Both Israel and the US have strongly opposed it, vowing to fight it every step of the way.)

Again, not supporting terrorists or radicals, but simply seeing both sides of the story. There is little doubt that this latest attack (Which left around twenty people dead) will result in dozens of counter-attacks around the world (which will likely result in the death of dozens, if not hundreds) by much better equipped and bigger groups.

As you say, The terrorists are bastards for shooting up a cartoonist's office building, and the "coalition of the willing" are bastards for invading a semi-stable nation, destablising it entirely, then allowing it to be overtaken by the same radicals we are now fighting.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Hey let's push punching down/punching up to its extreme

Take a poor (as in financially poor) black man, can I make fun of him? No. Ok.
Now say the same black man releases a song that I think has a bad message or is stupid, can I make fun of that?
Now say this same man becomes rich famous and powerful off his music career, am I suddenly allowed to make fun of the song he made when he was poor?

 

[WhiteNachos]

The whole Charlie thing is a damn mess, especially on the Internet (which, as we all know, is so very good at showing nuanced opinions). I think I more or less agree with Bob on this one, which is quite rare for me, to be honest.

Basically, I agree that both the nutjobs who decided to shoot a bunch of people because of some really badly made cartoons are wrong. I also think the people who defend racist cartoons as "free speech" are also wrong.

The right to free speech should cover opinions you disagree with, including racist ones or anti-Muslim ones (not that I've seen their cartoons and agree that they're racist or anti-Muslim).

If you disagree then imagine the person who decides whether something is racist isn't you. What's to stop 'insulting a race' to be the go to excuse for prosecuting people for opinions the government doesn't like? It seems to be already happening with insulting Islam or "anti-Semitic" comments in France.

The moment you say that certain opinions, that aren't a call for violence/law-breaking, should be banned you no longer have free speech.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

I am gonna have to specify regarding this case of Charlie Hebdo though.

They did no wrong in satirizing Muhammad. We satirize every other religion on a daily basis, and I don't think that militant extremists should get the power to say that Islam (or indeed any other religion) is "Sacred" from being mocked, ridiculed, satirized or in any other way having the piss taken out of it.

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.

The term "Punching up/down" is somewhat hard to explain in specific context. But the real issue is that if someone really is absolutely without power, making things worse is just a dick move. Think about it like this: If someone is so powerless that nothing they do matters, it making fun of them going to change anything? Satire is supposed to sway people, convince them that they should change their opinions on specific subjects. You're not really supposed to preach to the choir.

Imagine somebody made a satirical cartoon about how dirty and useless, say, the Palestinians are. They're as low a people as they could possibly be without being totally wiped out, and if someone is sympathetic towards them, you're not going to make them suddenly say "Wow, I guess I really SHOULD hate them and wish them all dead." If they AREN'T sympathetic to them, you're just going to make them think "Yeah, this is how I feel exactly, and therefore my bias is confirmed."

It's not about where the CARTOONIST is in terms of social power, it's about where society is as a whole. Making fun of Mitt Romney for being obscenely wealthy is much more powerful than making fun of a homeless person for being obscenely poor.

People defend Palestine though, people have been killed because of the conflicts surrounding them. One country officially recognizes Palestine.

 

[WhiteNachos]

It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).

I'm not WhiteNachos, but I actually quite like the idea of mutual ignoring each other.

I can ignore them and do whatever the hell I want, for example mock all the religions in the world, including Islam.

They can in turn ignore me, and do whatever the hell they want, including mocking all the religions in the world, including Christianity.

I don't care what they do. They don't care what I do. Everybody wins.

While I agree with that, I think a BIG chunk of the problem is that the "west" was based almost entirely on Christianity and Christian values. With Christianity being the most powerful across the globe, they had the power and 'right' to say and do and kill who they wanted. Did you know that the ban against depicting Muhammad was borne from centuries of Christian mockery? in the 1600s, there was a LOT of religious texts both Judaic and Muslim that had art of Muhummad... Then for about 300 years, Christian artists in Europe started depicting him as a hapless fool. There is a running them among Renaissance art that showed Muhummad being trampled and stood upon by angels or tortured in hell: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/ After centuries of that, one tends to develop an inferiority complex. and after a Century of THAT inferiority complex (not to mention all the slicing up of the middle east after the two world wars) it's mutated into outright hatred.

The way I see the current Islamic "terrorism" situation is that (when not motivated by political reasons, but rather religious) is them basically fighting back after centuries of being shat on by the entire western world (Like the aforementioned World Wars, and many instances of being manipulated by western governments).

They are George McFly punching Biff Tannen out.

They are George Mcfly gouging one of Biff's eyes out or murdering him. Being ridiculed does NOT excuse murder, for pete's sake we expect kids to not hit people when they're called names. If they wanted revenge they could mock Christianity all they want.

You can use this stupid reasoning to justify school shooters (if you buy the idea that they're bullying victims getting revenge)

also keep in mind that this is not justification for the murder of innocent people,

backpedaling is fun. You described them as lovable George Mcfly fighting back against bullies.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I know I've made a couple posts slamming the whole punch up/punch down bit but there's something else that's bugged me that I couldn't put my finger on until just now.

This rule basically means that you're allowed to punch up but they're not allowed to retaliate because that would be 'punching down'.

So if you still believe in this rule you should realize that to some of us it looks like a set of rules designed as a way to avoid criticism/backlash while allowing the person to dish it out as much as they want.

It kinda is. The whole punch up/down thing is relevant because it's a LOT easier to shrug things off when you are in a position of power (or - and I'm loathe to use this term for fear of being blindly labelled an "SJW" - Privilege).

I think that would have more to do with personality than anything. The existence of gallows humor would seem to go against your theory.

I made a post earlier about making fun of hipsters wearing bad clothes and eating bad food, and making the same jokes about someone who is extremely poor. Hipster choose to dress like that, and when people make fun of them, they may feel bad, sure, they may even decide to change. But they can also simply laugh it off and ignore it safe in the knowledge that they're secure in themselves and are doing it because they want to.

It's easy to make fun of people if you believe that they can handle it. You seem to be stereotyping.

Laughing it off doesn't involve being secure in themselves safe in the knowledge that they are doing what they want; Laughing off a joke like that is instead swallowing their pride and accepting that they are the butt of the joke.

You say that like hipsters aren't also the butt of the same joke. You also act like being the butt of a joke means you can't also like it. Roasts and self deprecating humor aren't exactly new things. Also you can joke about homeless people about things they can help.

This goes double for Satire, because the POINT of satire is to enact change through humor.

I guess it's how you define satire, but we both agree that if I jokingly mock someone in a way that's not satire it'll still qualify as 'punching' right?

If something can't change, then what's the point of trying to make it change? A poor person isn't going to see them satirized and say "You know what, they're right! I SHOULD stop barely scraping by because rich people think I'm worthless!"

Again you can mock people for things they can help even if they are homeless. Let's say a poor person was in a gang. Is that acceptable to mock or is it still punching down?

"Jokes" and "Satire" are very different things. If you make fun of someone simply to make people laugh, that's a joke, and I have no problem with you mocking anyone. Okay, I may not LIKE a joke about how all [x people] are [y], but I'm not gonna claim you can't make jokes like that. I'm also not going to say that it's wrong to make jokes like that. Black humor is fine. In this case, the "punching up/down" metaphor is used EXCLUSIVELY to describe satire. If you are trying to apply satirical rules to regular jokes, you're gonna be in for a bad time.

But satire is very specific. It's supposed to use mockery to shame society (or entities within a society) into changing. A Gang member is fair game, because they are a negative aspect of society and need to change; Gang members CHOOSE to be gang members. If you made a satirical piece about a poor person who spends all their money on frivolities like technology to the detriment of their own health and wellbeing, then absolutely that kind of "punching down" is fair game for satire. But mocking them simply for having a bad lot in life is NOT fair game. You can't "Change" society's views on poor people by mocking them. Nobody is going to say. "Wow, I guess not being able to afford to eat properly IS something they should stop doing."

Like I said in an above post, context counts for a LOT. when it comes to stuff like this, you can't simply take a SINGLE theoretical situation and apply the outcome of that situation across the board. Like for example, what if that cartoon wasn't really attacking a poor person, but using the mockery of that poor person to attack SOCIETY for allowing such a situation to exist? That would still be "punching down," but now it's being used in an entirely different context. Through that context, it is actually punching UP to society as a whole.

Now let's apply that to the situation at hand. Imagine if you made a cartoon depicting Muhammad. What context are you going to use him as. If you depict him as say, enraged at radical's actions, or being held HOSTAGE by radicals "in his name," then you are punching up at the radicals. And yes, they have power, not over you, but more power than those without. But what if your context is of him simply being depicted as a radical, or being drawn as a pathetic and powerless person who is not a real prophet? Now you're no longer using Muhammad to mock those who kill in his name, but to mock every single person who regards him as holy. That would be punching down, particularly when the people in question are in an extreme minority.

 

[xPixelatedx]

People can say whatever they want on their own platforms, that in of itself is sacred. If I find it offensive I wont read/watch it, or I will share my offense on a public forum. But at no point do I think anything should be controlled or banned. This whole thing about trying to measure what should and should not be allowed (punch up & down) is kind of being one of those "boogeymen of political correct orthodoxy" you were referring to.

 

[TheRealCJ]

It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).

I'm not WhiteNachos, but I actually quite like the idea of mutual ignoring each other.

I can ignore them and do whatever the hell I want, for example mock all the religions in the world, including Islam.

They can in turn ignore me, and do whatever the hell they want, including mocking all the religions in the world, including Christianity.

I don't care what they do. They don't care what I do. Everybody wins.

While I agree with that, I think a BIG chunk of the problem is that the "west" was based almost entirely on Christianity and Christian values. With Christianity being the most powerful across the globe, they had the power and 'right' to say and do and kill who they wanted. Did you know that the ban against depicting Muhammad was borne from centuries of Christian mockery? in the 1600s, there was a LOT of religious texts both Judaic and Muslim that had art of Muhummad... Then for about 300 years, Christian artists in Europe started depicting him as a hapless fool. There is a running them among Renaissance art that showed Muhummad being trampled and stood upon by angels or tortured in hell: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/ After centuries of that, one tends to develop an inferiority complex. and after a Century of THAT inferiority complex (not to mention all the slicing up of the middle east after the two world wars) it's mutated into outright hatred.

The way I see the current Islamic "terrorism" situation is that (when not motivated by political reasons, but rather religious) is them basically fighting back after centuries of being shat on by the entire western world (Like the aforementioned World Wars, and many instances of being manipulated by western governments).

They are George McFly punching Biff Tannen out.

They are George Mcfly gouging one of Biff's eyes out or murdering him. Being ridiculed does NOT excuse murder, for pete's sake we expect kids to not hit people when they're called names. If they wanted revenge they could mock Christianity all they want.

You can use this stupid reasoning to justify school shooters (if you buy the idea that they're bullying victims getting revenge)

also keep in mind that this is not justification for the murder of innocent people,

backpedaling is fun. You described them as lovable George Mcfly fighting back against bullies.

You missed the point entirely, why am I not surprised. Since I would just be repeating myself, I shan't bother trying to argue with you. But allow me to repeat what I put as a disclaimer at the bottom of my post in bold. Which I will now repeat in Bold, Italics and ALL CAPS just so you don't miss it this time:

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THIS IS AN EXTREME OVER-SIMPLIFICATION, AND GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THIS. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, JUST A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE SITUATION AND POSSIBLY WHY "ISLAM" IS SEEN TO BE SO TERRIBLE.

Here, let me add something else:

THE BACK TO THE FUTURE COMPARISON IS NOT TO BE USED AS A LITERAL EXAMPLE, IT WAS SIMPLY AN ANALOGY USED TO DESCRIBE A POWER DYNAMIC, NOT A PERSONALITY DYNAMIC

 

[TheRealCJ]

snip

I am gonna have to specify regarding this case of Charlie Hebdo though.

They did no wrong in satirizing Muhammad. We satirize every other religion on a daily basis, and I don't think that militant extremists should get the power to say that Islam (or indeed any other religion) is "Sacred" from being mocked, ridiculed, satirized or in any other way having the piss taken out of it.

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

While I agree with you, like I've said in previous posts, there's a difference between satirizing Muhammad, and satirizing the radicals who kill in his name. The same way that making a cartoon featuring Jesus and using him to mock anti-gay-rights Christians is NOT the same as making a cartoon showing Jesus as some kind of gay-hating radical. The latter would likely be decried by "moderate" Christians as attacking their faith. They will tell you "Just because some Christians do these things, does not make the religion as a whole inherently homophobic." Which for those playing at home, is basically exactly what moderate muslims have been saying for the last, oh, decade? And being routinely ignored or mocked for saying it I might add. Or being told outright that they are wrong by those who do not know anything beyond what they see on Fox News.

And keep in mind that while you or I may not have an issue with that, there are people who will.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Thanks for this video, Bob. It was good to get perspective on a violent totalitarian movement that seeks to limit speech from someone who is part of a non violent totalitarian movement that seeks to limit free speech like yourself.

You did not disappoint. The argument that criticizing Islam is "punching down," is an awesome example of the twisted worldview of you and people like you.

There's a difference between being against free speech and criticizing speech for dumb and/or hypocritical reasons.

He said free speech (as in the legal right to say things) should be near absolute.

You mean the guy who talked about getting someone arrested for pvping females in World of Warcraft? You sure?

When was this?

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

I am gonna have to specify regarding this case of Charlie Hebdo though.

They did no wrong in satirizing Muhammad. We satirize every other religion on a daily basis, and I don't think that militant extremists should get the power to say that Islam (or indeed any other religion) is "Sacred" from being mocked, ridiculed, satirized or in any other way having the piss taken out of it.

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

While I agree with you, like I've said in previous posts, there's a difference between satirizing Muhammad, and satirizing the radicals who kill in his name. The same way that making a cartoon featuring Jesus and using him to mock anti-gay-rights Christians is NOT the same as making a cartoon showing Jesus as some kind of gay-hating radical. The latter would likely be decried by "moderate" Christians as attacking their faith. They will tell you "Just because some Christians do these things, does not make the religion as a whole inherently homophobic." Which for those playing at home, is basically exactly what moderate muslims have been saying for the last, oh, decade? And being routinely ignored or mocked for saying it I might add. Or being told outright that they are wrong by those who do not know anything beyond what they see on Fox News.

And keep in mind that while you or I may not have an issue with that, there are people who will.

I see your point, and I counter you with this.

It's a Danish comedy-show called, "The Bible", and it features three comedians, and two rappers, taking the everliving piss out of Christianity.

You name it, they mock the entire thing.

God has anger-management issues, and an inferiority complex, and blunders from one escapade to the next.

Moses is a bad magician, with a horrendous stammer, and a propensity for making weird rules (including not shagging, as in fornicating with, cauliflowers or garden-sheds for some reason), not to mention that he managed to get lost for 40 years in the desert in his Ford Mustang.

Jesus is your typical rebellious teen who smokes weed, and goes to Backstreet Boys concerts.

And then of course they take the piss on every imagineable preacher.

Everyone from the closet lesbian (yes, a female priest, aren't we ahead of the curve in Denmark?), to the overly pious (with a secret ponygirl kink), to the modern fund-raising priest (who incurs "God's Wrath" for turning the "Temple into a marketplace").

They take the piss out of the tale of Lot, the tale of Jonah, the tale of Adam and Eve, the tale of Noah, the tale of the "Last Supper" (involving Tony from "the Lady and the Tramp" chopping up old Jeezy Chrissy into bits for the disciples to eat, while singing Bella Notte. They take the piss on how "God" decided to drown the world in the Flood of Noah (turns out he completely misunderstood "the group" in a therapeutic self-help group. But then again, one of the other members were a Stoned Buddha, and the other were Thor of Asgård).