28 ms·

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, re

by chroma 12y ago

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their own safety, dozens of organizations would do their best to stop it. Venue owners wouldn't take the risk. Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. Audience turnout would be lower, fearing attacks. And yet, both religions are similar in their ridiculousness. One just happens to encourage less violence in its hosts. For a little while, we'll all pile-on the cartoon Muhammad bandwagon in show of support. But after this dies down, who will be the first to step forward with some new blasphemous ridicule? Who will single themselves out, risking their life, their family, their friends? Whoever does so will certainly be braver than me.

saalaa 12y ago
Charlie Hebdo? I'm pretty sure they'll keep mocking religions.
- mlrtime 12y ago
  Who will raise the bar? Ouch for the down-votes. When I say raise the bar, I don't mean to incite violence, I mean to say who else is going to take on the task that so little are willing to risk their lives for.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition to see who can piss off religious people the most. The point of the cartoons is to convey a message. Just take a look at the new Charlie Hebdo cover for example. They could have acted in revenge and really, really mocked Islam - and it sounds like that's what you would have done. Instead they created something quite beautiful while still exercising their right to free speech and expression even as radicals tried to stomp them out. It's not a competition to be most offensive. It's trying to convey your message in the best way possible without fear of reprisal compromising that.
    - jtms 12y ago
      Bad ideas deserve to be mocked.
      - k-mcgrady 12y ago
        Why? To make you feel smart or better than someone else? If there is an idea you think is bad and you want the other person to realise it is bad mocking it is a stupid way to go about that. Charlie Hebdo took ideas it thought were bad and didn't simply mock them but used satire and cartoons to explain why they were bad or ridiculous in a humorous way.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I agree with your sentiment that mocking should have its limits, but I subscribe to the view that "if you cross the limits of good taste, you're just being an asshole", and definitely not to the idea of shooting such people instead. People should have right to express their opinions safely, even when those opinions aren't in good taste.
        k-mcgrady 12y ago
        Of course. In fact I'm not even sure we should put limits on mocking. My point was that the comment I was replying to simply wants us raise the bar of offensiveness. From what I can tell the point of something like Charlie Hebdo isn't necessarily to offend (that's a side effect). It's to shock and make people think about what they believe in. It's to show how something is silly. To imply that it exists simply to mock others is, in my opinion, offensive to the people who died creating it. I think the new cover shows that there is much more to this work than simply mocking something they don't agree with - I don't think the commenter I was replying to got that.
      - kbutler 12y ago
        Isn't it better to teach a good idea than to mock a bad idea? No need for a cartoon mocking the idea of mocking bad ideas...
    - 12y ago
mavdi 12y ago
> Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Team America: World Police? Durka durka?
- seabee 12y ago
  The depiction of the Arab terrorists in that film was intentionally shallow and not particularly focused on Islam; the worst message you can get from it is 'Muslims are dumb terrorists' which, while hurtful, is nowhere near ridiculing religion to the same degree as Book of Mormon.
  - mavdi 12y ago
    Mate he kept saying Allah, Muhammed, Jihad in silly ways. What more you want? I've seen Book of Mormon. I thought it was funny in the same level. It wasn't really attacking christianity, but the dumb followers of it.
- Yoric 12y ago
  You do realize that they were actually mocking the representation of Muslims by western media, right?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- nodata 12y ago
  > why can't we respect each other's religion If your religion falls apart because of a silly cartoon written by "some guy"... > faggots Not the word you meant.
- jpgvm 12y ago
  >Surely those faggots need to be condemned/punished/killed/whatever This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment. This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal. If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on the same playing field, this includes opening religions up to the same discourse we levy at other things.
  - xcode_ 12y ago
    I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?
    - xcode_ 12y ago
      if HN as a community cannot accept a simple, logical and apparently non-offending statement against christianity. Then it really needs to declare it as a policy, and endorse Islamic bashing officially!
      - throwaway90446 12y ago
        You are probably being downvoted because every single Abrahamic religion advocates violence and killing as a response to blasphemy in the basic holy texts. It's an issue of facts, not offense.
      - Kurtz79 12y ago
flexie 12y ago
Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.
- briandear 12y ago
  Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not expected. Of course, when Piss Christ was exhibited in New York, there were some minor protests (mainly over tax payer funding of the exhibit) but I don't recall southern baptist ministers preaching that the artist and all of the museum employees should be shot up with rifles. It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know. However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror. Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Islam and Christianity promote peace. But, pretending that everyone is ready to stand hand in hand and do a sing along is just ridiculous. Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.
orf 12y ago
The story of the Mormons is a lot easier to make fun of though, and they are drop in the ocean compared to Islam (the second biggest religion in the world). Even so would you put that play on in Salt Lake City? I doubt there would be massacres but I expect there would be some form of defacement or attempts at suppression by fundamentalists. And it's not just Islamic religion that would cause this, exactly what you described happened when North Korea threatened "The Interview".
- liveoneggs 12y ago
  http://saltlakecity.broadway.com/shows/book-mormon-baa/ http://saltlakecity.broadway.com/shows/book-mormon-baa/
  - orf 12y ago
    Woah, I stand corrected. Edit: Although it hasn't opened yet, so what I said might well happen.
- joshdance 12y ago
  >I expect there would be some form of defacement or attempts at suppression by fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are spread thin, in remote communities across the western US. They just want to be left alone. Not a hint of defacement or suppression would come from them.
kristofferR 12y ago
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have actually said basically what you just said. In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed. The celebs had developed a machine that would extract the magic goo that makes it impossible to mock Muhammed from him. Eventually they get Muhammed and extract the magic goo. Tom Cruise eats it, but is shocked to discover that people can still make fun of him. Comedy Central, ironically, totally beeped out the speech that followed (but thankfully it leaked Jan last year): Kyle: That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works. Jesus: That's right. Don't you see, gingers, if you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop. Santa: That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence. South Park was right as always. All their Muhammad episodes should be watched, in this order: 1. S05E04 (Super Best Friends). It's the only uncensored episode with Muhammad, and ironically he's a pretty cool guy. Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history. 2. S10E03 (Cartoon Wars Part I) 3. S10E04 (Cartoon Wars Part II) 4. S14E05 (200) 5. S14E06 (201). Comedy Central actually bleeped all mentions of the name Muhammad in this episode plus the speech above. Watch the censored version first before you torrent the real version - the censorship is downright tragicomical.
- resonantcore 12y ago
  > Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history. That's bizarre. A quick Google search led me to the full episode here: http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Super-Best-Friends_v5773 http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Supe... I'm not sure if this is due to the Streissand Effect.
  - 12y ago
ilitirit 12y ago
> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.
- q4814 12y ago
  > It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?
  - mobiplayer 12y ago
    Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?
    - codewritinfool 12y ago
      I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment This guy had the right idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.
replax 12y ago
While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few). I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous, too (which CH spoke out against and fired over). I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever they want and that choice should be granted.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  could have offended, if they even saw them. The issue is, how much offense was their really. If Islam is like any other religion there is a significant number who just don't care. They don't want to be bothered. What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It does not matter that their actions caused it, it only matters it exists. Used to be you could isolate a country to make them come around, restrict access to trade and banking. With these groups your going to have to make sure they have no home. keep them on the move so much they cannot get established. It won't be easy or quick, but the alternative is allowing them a beachhead and being subject to their whims
  - briandear 12y ago
    CH only printed about 30,000 copies a week. It was just a convenient proxy. I actually live in France and I've never read CH. However, tomorrow morning when the new issue hits the newsstands, I will be first in line. I'm buying the paper not because I care about the content, but because I care about the writers' ability to express their ideas freely and without fear of being shot in the face.
- yodsanklai 12y ago
  I tend to agree with you. There are very few "extreme extremists" and muslims aren't terrorist. But I don't know if we should conclude that everything is fine, and it's just a matter of a few unavoidable lunatics. For instance, it is known that there are currently hundreds (thousands) of French people murdering people in Syria in the name of Daesh. Still a small number wrt the number of French muslims... But there are also a lot of people that support the killings at CH (including French kids or teenagers at school that didn't want to observe the minute of silence, probably reflecting their parents idea). Moreover, antisemitic agressions are also common place. And so on... Concerning CH, let's not forget that they were bombed soon after their controversial drawing a few years ago. Without the police surveillance, I don't know how long it would have taken before other attacks. Besides, CH has always been equally virulent against all religions. Probably less against Islam actually.
easytiger 12y ago
All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process. > Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. No insurance policy I know will pay out for events of terrorism unless specifically negotiated (and i have done a few).
- JeremyNT 12y ago
  > All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process. For what it's worth, I don't see that as the only outcome of the logic in the GP's post. I read the point as: due to self-censorship, we essentially reinforce the notion that terrorism works to silence speech. Not to put any words in the poster's mouth, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to accept the risk and generate more speech, and to prove that murder is not an effective way to stop such speech.
austenallred 12y ago
The official response by the LDS church to the Book of Mormon was this: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ." [1] Not exactly what you would call "backlash." Then the church took out an ad in the playbill. [2] [1] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regarding-the-book-of-mormon-broadway-musical http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regar... [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/06/entertainment/la-et-cm-mormon-church-lds-ads-book-of-mormon-playbill-20120906 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/06/entertainment/la-et-...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > And I'm sure people openly mock the temple ceremony somewhere -- that would cause any Mormons to kill two dozen people. Didn't you mean 'wouldn't' ?
  - austenallred 12y ago
    Yes, I did. I was kind of editing it as I went, and ended up cutting that part out. My apologies.
Killah911 12y ago
I'm as much for risking your life for a principle as the next guy. But I don't know which principle we're risking our life for. The message the others hate our freedom? (Seriously?) Are we trying to "teach" these "uneducated and backwards" Muslims what freedom and freedom of speech are? Are we teaching comedy? Sadly, in many cases those standing for "principles" are being defiant against the authorities in their own countries (as in who the hell is my Editor/Producer/Government to tell me what I can't say) whom the extremists have beef with and are getting caught in the crossfire. Yes, the extremists are wrong. I agree with the government not being able to tell me what I can and can't say. But to ignore reality is a whole different thing. Let's extrapolate... Publish more content meant to offend so either they get used to it... or some fringe elements in the Muslim world commit terrorist attacks pretending to be the "defenders"... Then our government steps in and bombs said country back to the stone age (which incidentally is where these guys are most comfortable & can grab power the easiest). Think terror victims are pissed off/disturbed? I'm sure some kids in post war Afghanistan are a lot more ruthless than some of the meanest gangsters on our streets. When I was on the streets, I recall being punched. The first thing that came to my mind was to kill the asshole that punched me, but I was able to catch myself before doing that. I realized that me punching back would eventually not just lead to one of us dying, but possibly his and my friends dying. He was astonished when I didn't punch pack, given I had a size advantage on him. I thought it through and made sure he, or anyone else there wouldn't punch me again, without anyone getting killed. We eventually became friends and started volunteering to feed the homeless. If we're supposedly intellectually superior, and we're obviously in a superior position when it comes to the exchange of ideas in our society. If we can't stop and think a little more critically, then that's a shame. Principles are great. I know a gang member who is paralyzed from the waist down who really wished he's rethought that decision to fight. Sure the other guy ended up dead. The fight was about the principle of "respect". In the end they both lost. It's stupid to jump on the bandwagon and stupid to complete forget. This is a good opportunity for us to think... There may be a better solution and machismo isn't necessary noble.
jambox888 12y ago
I take your point and agree with it but another factor you can't ignore is that there are 1.7 billion Muslims, compared to 15 million (wikipedia'd that) Mormons. Plus, I can't source it right but I have read editorials where broadsheet editors say they've been asked by the government not to print something in the interests of "national security" (IOW they don't want to cause problems with the Saudis or whoever.
- Killah911 12y ago
  I'm not Mormon, but I shudder when I see the mainstream media ripping on Mormons or Scientologists. This isn't us. I think this is one of the biggest things we've lost to 9/11, decency and restraint. It was first OK to talk shit about Muslims, Towelheads (sadly many more peaceful Sikhs were victimized by actual violence than Muslims), then Scientologists, then Mormons. What the hell happened to our ideals? I recall receiving an e-mail from a KKK affiliate. It was a rational argument that a significantly larger proportion of the black population was incarcerated as compared to whites. The e-mail stated that see it on TV shows like cops who perpetrate heinous crimes. It then went to state that it's not about being racist. It's about taking a stand... I replied with a long rant countering every point and was obviously unsubscribed from the list. Now let's apply that template to other minorities. Hmmm, skin color is too obvious, let's do religion instead. "Did you see how most scientologists are crazy? They jump on couches..." It's not racism since you're not targeting a race. But it's the same fucking thing. You're singling out a minority group. While you might not personally like a minority group, one not as powerful as the group you belong to, our society did not publicly attack minorities (I'm talking about the 90's). It seems the only things that still haven't crept in are outright racism against a different race (probably because racial minorities are more powerful now). But we are now taking pride in offending and trying to decimate the views that aren't mainstream. WTF is that? Did we forget what that type of vitriol led to the last time around? Can you seriously compare the socioeconomic conditions of the average Mormon to a Muslim from Iraq or Afghanistan? I'm amazed that I'm reading comments on HN comparing 1.7B Muslims and trying to judge them as a whole. Yes, it's not technically racism, but it's not any less shallow or ignorant. Is Islam more violent than Christianity? (WTF kind of a question is that) Are American blacks more criminal than whites? Both of these questions should make anyone with intelligence shudder. If you just tell yourself that you're asking yourself these questions "scientifically" an "rationally", let's not forget the Nazi Scientists who were measuring how Jews were scientifically different or even earlier when scientists in a slave owning american were trying to prove that blacks people were less evolved than whites.
jackbravo 12y ago
Mormons don't live with the same fear for their lives as muslims. I guess if mormonism had originated in a more violent country it would be encouraging a little more violence. So I don't think the difference is just the ideology but also the cultural background. And western civilization has some blame (some, not all) for the instability and violence lived in middle east.
- austenallred 12y ago
  They don't anymore, but they certainly used to. The reason Salt Lake City is the home of the LDS church today is because they were forced out of Missouri and Illinois, and their extermination was officially authorized by the government. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
  - jackbravo 12y ago
    Wow, didn't know about that =). Although, it does say that: > no one is known to have been killed by the militia or anyone else specifically because of it. There were, however, other associated deaths: the militia and other state authorities used Boggs' Executive Order as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois. I'm pretty sure many muslims countries suffer much worse violence than that, over many more years.
    - austenallred 12y ago
      No one is known to have been killed as a direct result of that order; that was the last straw after a lot of other stuff had gone down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River
      - nonexpectation 12y ago
snowwrestler 12y ago
Before we all jump on our high horses about Islam, remember than many doctors and clinics who perform abortion in the U.S. have regularly and repeatedly been subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats of physical violence, actual violence, and in a few cases, death, by self-professed Christians. Abortion is obviously not the same thing as a cartoon, but it is a safe, routine, and legal elective medical procedure in the U.S. Also realize that the vast (i.e. many orders of magnitude) majority of Muslims, while offended by satirical depictions of Muhammed, do NOT resort to violence. It is the violence, and threats of violence--not the offense--that is the problem. Plenty of people take strong offense at things that seem silly to other people; for example, over software libraries to initialize Linux-based operating systems (init.d vs systemd). Or mobile device app store rules. And finally before we all jump on our high horse about religion, remember that there are plenty of examples of violent threats within our own industry--say, for tweeting about a sex joke at a software conference, or complaining about videogame reviews.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
amirmc 12y ago
> "...real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal..." Thought experiment: Can the same really be done for (say) Judaism without fear of being labelled anti-semite, losing your job, or worse? Could they have done it for Christianity and shown it in Bible-belt? (Maybe they already have and I don't know about it). Also, there's a sense of 'no true scotsman' about your comment where you state no 'real' satire is possible. As though it only counts if there's 'significant risk of violent reprisal'. from: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha... "When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words." This would suggest that there is plenty of commentary that does not result in reprisals.

by chroma 12y ago

saalaa 12y ago

Charlie Hebdo? I'm pretty sure they'll keep mocking religions.

mlrtime 12y ago
Who will raise the bar? Ouch for the down-votes. When I say raise the bar, I don't mean to incite violence, I mean to say who else is going to take on the task that so little are willing to risk their lives for.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition to see who can piss off religious people the most. The point of the cartoons is to convey a message. Just take a look at the new Charlie Hebdo cover for example. They could have acted in revenge and really, really mocked Islam - and it sounds like that's what you would have done. Instead they created something quite beautiful while still exercising their right to free speech and expression even as radicals tried to stomp them out. It's not a competition to be most offensive. It's trying to convey your message in the best way possible without fear of reprisal compromising that.
  - jtms 12y ago
    Bad ideas deserve to be mocked.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      Why? To make you feel smart or better than someone else? If there is an idea you think is bad and you want the other person to realise it is bad mocking it is a stupid way to go about that. Charlie Hebdo took ideas it thought were bad and didn't simply mock them but used satire and cartoons to explain why they were bad or ridiculous in a humorous way.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I agree with your sentiment that mocking should have its limits, but I subscribe to the view that "if you cross the limits of good taste, you're just being an asshole", and definitely not to the idea of shooting such people instead. People should have right to express their opinions safely, even when those opinions aren't in good taste.
        k-mcgrady 12y ago
        Of course. In fact I'm not even sure we should put limits on mocking. My point was that the comment I was replying to simply wants us raise the bar of offensiveness. From what I can tell the point of something like Charlie Hebdo isn't necessarily to offend (that's a side effect). It's to shock and make people think about what they believe in. It's to show how something is silly. To imply that it exists simply to mock others is, in my opinion, offensive to the people who died creating it. I think the new cover shows that there is much more to this work than simply mocking something they don't agree with - I don't think the commenter I was replying to got that.
    - kbutler 12y ago
      Isn't it better to teach a good idea than to mock a bad idea? No need for a cartoon mocking the idea of mocking bad ideas...
  - 12y ago

mavdi 12y ago

> Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Team America: World Police? Durka durka?

seabee 12y ago
The depiction of the Arab terrorists in that film was intentionally shallow and not particularly focused on Islam; the worst message you can get from it is 'Muslims are dumb terrorists' which, while hurtful, is nowhere near ridiculing religion to the same degree as Book of Mormon.
- mavdi 12y ago
  Mate he kept saying Allah, Muhammed, Jihad in silly ways. What more you want? I've seen Book of Mormon. I thought it was funny in the same level. It wasn't really attacking christianity, but the dumb followers of it.
Yoric 12y ago
You do realize that they were actually mocking the representation of Muslims by western media, right?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nodata 12y ago
> why can't we respect each other's religion If your religion falls apart because of a silly cartoon written by "some guy"... > faggots Not the word you meant.
jpgvm 12y ago
>Surely those faggots need to be condemned/punished/killed/whatever This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment. This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal. If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on the same playing field, this includes opening religions up to the same discourse we levy at other things.
- xcode_ 12y ago
  I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?
  - xcode_ 12y ago
    if HN as a community cannot accept a simple, logical and apparently non-offending statement against christianity. Then it really needs to declare it as a policy, and endorse Islamic bashing officially!
    - throwaway90446 12y ago
      You are probably being downvoted because every single Abrahamic religion advocates violence and killing as a response to blasphemy in the basic holy texts. It's an issue of facts, not offense.
    - Kurtz79 12y ago

flexie 12y ago

Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.

briandear 12y ago
Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not expected. Of course, when Piss Christ was exhibited in New York, there were some minor protests (mainly over tax payer funding of the exhibit) but I don't recall southern baptist ministers preaching that the artist and all of the museum employees should be shot up with rifles. It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know. However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror. Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.
- Retric 12y ago
  Islam and Christianity promote peace. But, pretending that everyone is ready to stand hand in hand and do a sing along is just ridiculous. Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.

orf 12y ago

The story of the Mormons is a lot easier to make fun of though, and they are drop in the ocean compared to Islam (the second biggest religion in the world). Even so would you put that play on in Salt Lake City? I doubt there would be massacres but I expect there would be some form of defacement or attempts at suppression by fundamentalists. And it's not just Islamic religion that would cause this, exactly what you described happened when North Korea threatened "The Interview".

liveoneggs 12y ago
http://saltlakecity.broadway.com/shows/book-mormon-baa/ http://saltlakecity.broadway.com/shows/book-mormon-baa/
- orf 12y ago
  Woah, I stand corrected. Edit: Although it hasn't opened yet, so what I said might well happen.
joshdance 12y ago
>I expect there would be some form of defacement or attempts at suppression by fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are spread thin, in remote communities across the western US. They just want to be left alone. Not a hint of defacement or suppression would come from them.

kristofferR 12y ago

Trey Parker and Matt Stone have actually said basically what you just said. In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed. The celebs had developed a machine that would extract the magic goo that makes it impossible to mock Muhammed from him. Eventually they get Muhammed and extract the magic goo. Tom Cruise eats it, but is shocked to discover that people can still make fun of him. Comedy Central, ironically, totally beeped out the speech that followed (but thankfully it leaked Jan last year): Kyle: That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works. Jesus: That's right. Don't you see, gingers, if you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop. Santa: That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence. South Park was right as always. All their Muhammad episodes should be watched, in this order: 1. S05E04 (Super Best Friends). It's the only uncensored episode with Muhammad, and ironically he's a pretty cool guy. Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history. 2. S10E03 (Cartoon Wars Part I) 3. S10E04 (Cartoon Wars Part II) 4. S14E05 (200) 5. S14E06 (201). Comedy Central actually bleeped all mentions of the name Muhammad in this episode plus the speech above. Watch the censored version first before you torrent the real version - the censorship is downright tragicomical.

resonantcore 12y ago
> Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history. That's bizarre. A quick Google search led me to the full episode here: http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Super-Best-Friends_v5773 http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Supe... I'm not sure if this is due to the Streissand Effect.
- 12y ago

ilitirit 12y ago

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.

q4814 12y ago
> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?
- mobiplayer 12y ago
  Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?
  - codewritinfool 12y ago
    I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment This guy had the right idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.

replax 12y ago

While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few). I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous, too (which CH spoke out against and fired over). I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever they want and that choice should be granted.

Shivetya 12y ago
could have offended, if they even saw them. The issue is, how much offense was their really. If Islam is like any other religion there is a significant number who just don't care. They don't want to be bothered. What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It does not matter that their actions caused it, it only matters it exists. Used to be you could isolate a country to make them come around, restrict access to trade and banking. With these groups your going to have to make sure they have no home. keep them on the move so much they cannot get established. It won't be easy or quick, but the alternative is allowing them a beachhead and being subject to their whims
- briandear 12y ago
  CH only printed about 30,000 copies a week. It was just a convenient proxy. I actually live in France and I've never read CH. However, tomorrow morning when the new issue hits the newsstands, I will be first in line. I'm buying the paper not because I care about the content, but because I care about the writers' ability to express their ideas freely and without fear of being shot in the face.
yodsanklai 12y ago
I tend to agree with you. There are very few "extreme extremists" and muslims aren't terrorist. But I don't know if we should conclude that everything is fine, and it's just a matter of a few unavoidable lunatics. For instance, it is known that there are currently hundreds (thousands) of French people murdering people in Syria in the name of Daesh. Still a small number wrt the number of French muslims... But there are also a lot of people that support the killings at CH (including French kids or teenagers at school that didn't want to observe the minute of silence, probably reflecting their parents idea). Moreover, antisemitic agressions are also common place. And so on... Concerning CH, let's not forget that they were bombed soon after their controversial drawing a few years ago. Without the police surveillance, I don't know how long it would have taken before other attacks. Besides, CH has always been equally virulent against all religions. Probably less against Islam actually.

easytiger 12y ago

All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process. > Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. No insurance policy I know will pay out for events of terrorism unless specifically negotiated (and i have done a few).

JeremyNT 12y ago
> All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process. For what it's worth, I don't see that as the only outcome of the logic in the GP's post. I read the point as: due to self-censorship, we essentially reinforce the notion that terrorism works to silence speech. Not to put any words in the poster's mouth, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to accept the risk and generate more speech, and to prove that murder is not an effective way to stop such speech.

austenallred 12y ago

The official response by the LDS church to the Book of Mormon was this: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ." [1] Not exactly what you would call "backlash." Then the church took out an ad in the playbill. [2] [1] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regarding-the-book-of-mormon-broadway-musical http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regar... [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/06/entertainment/la-et-cm-mormon-church-lds-ads-book-of-mormon-playbill-20120906 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/06/entertainment/la-et-...

jacquesm 12y ago
> And I'm sure people openly mock the temple ceremony somewhere -- that would cause any Mormons to kill two dozen people. Didn't you mean 'wouldn't' ?
- austenallred 12y ago
  Yes, I did. I was kind of editing it as I went, and ended up cutting that part out. My apologies.

Killah911 12y ago

I'm as much for risking your life for a principle as the next guy. But I don't know which principle we're risking our life for. The message the others hate our freedom? (Seriously?) Are we trying to "teach" these "uneducated and backwards" Muslims what freedom and freedom of speech are? Are we teaching comedy? Sadly, in many cases those standing for "principles" are being defiant against the authorities in their own countries (as in who the hell is my Editor/Producer/Government to tell me what I can't say) whom the extremists have beef with and are getting caught in the crossfire. Yes, the extremists are wrong. I agree with the government not being able to tell me what I can and can't say. But to ignore reality is a whole different thing. Let's extrapolate... Publish more content meant to offend so either they get used to it... or some fringe elements in the Muslim world commit terrorist attacks pretending to be the "defenders"... Then our government steps in and bombs said country back to the stone age (which incidentally is where these guys are most comfortable & can grab power the easiest). Think terror victims are pissed off/disturbed? I'm sure some kids in post war Afghanistan are a lot more ruthless than some of the meanest gangsters on our streets. When I was on the streets, I recall being punched. The first thing that came to my mind was to kill the asshole that punched me, but I was able to catch myself before doing that. I realized that me punching back would eventually not just lead to one of us dying, but possibly his and my friends dying. He was astonished when I didn't punch pack, given I had a size advantage on him. I thought it through and made sure he, or anyone else there wouldn't punch me again, without anyone getting killed. We eventually became friends and started volunteering to feed the homeless. If we're supposedly intellectually superior, and we're obviously in a superior position when it comes to the exchange of ideas in our society. If we can't stop and think a little more critically, then that's a shame. Principles are great. I know a gang member who is paralyzed from the waist down who really wished he's rethought that decision to fight. Sure the other guy ended up dead. The fight was about the principle of "respect". In the end they both lost. It's stupid to jump on the bandwagon and stupid to complete forget. This is a good opportunity for us to think... There may be a better solution and machismo isn't necessary noble.

jambox888 12y ago

I take your point and agree with it but another factor you can't ignore is that there are 1.7 billion Muslims, compared to 15 million (wikipedia'd that) Mormons. Plus, I can't source it right but I have read editorials where broadsheet editors say they've been asked by the government not to print something in the interests of "national security" (IOW they don't want to cause problems with the Saudis or whoever.

Killah911 12y ago
I'm not Mormon, but I shudder when I see the mainstream media ripping on Mormons or Scientologists. This isn't us. I think this is one of the biggest things we've lost to 9/11, decency and restraint. It was first OK to talk shit about Muslims, Towelheads (sadly many more peaceful Sikhs were victimized by actual violence than Muslims), then Scientologists, then Mormons. What the hell happened to our ideals? I recall receiving an e-mail from a KKK affiliate. It was a rational argument that a significantly larger proportion of the black population was incarcerated as compared to whites. The e-mail stated that see it on TV shows like cops who perpetrate heinous crimes. It then went to state that it's not about being racist. It's about taking a stand... I replied with a long rant countering every point and was obviously unsubscribed from the list. Now let's apply that template to other minorities. Hmmm, skin color is too obvious, let's do religion instead. "Did you see how most scientologists are crazy? They jump on couches..." It's not racism since you're not targeting a race. But it's the same fucking thing. You're singling out a minority group. While you might not personally like a minority group, one not as powerful as the group you belong to, our society did not publicly attack minorities (I'm talking about the 90's). It seems the only things that still haven't crept in are outright racism against a different race (probably because racial minorities are more powerful now). But we are now taking pride in offending and trying to decimate the views that aren't mainstream. WTF is that? Did we forget what that type of vitriol led to the last time around? Can you seriously compare the socioeconomic conditions of the average Mormon to a Muslim from Iraq or Afghanistan? I'm amazed that I'm reading comments on HN comparing 1.7B Muslims and trying to judge them as a whole. Yes, it's not technically racism, but it's not any less shallow or ignorant. Is Islam more violent than Christianity? (WTF kind of a question is that) Are American blacks more criminal than whites? Both of these questions should make anyone with intelligence shudder. If you just tell yourself that you're asking yourself these questions "scientifically" an "rationally", let's not forget the Nazi Scientists who were measuring how Jews were scientifically different or even earlier when scientists in a slave owning american were trying to prove that blacks people were less evolved than whites.

jackbravo 12y ago

Mormons don't live with the same fear for their lives as muslims. I guess if mormonism had originated in a more violent country it would be encouraging a little more violence. So I don't think the difference is just the ideology but also the cultural background. And western civilization has some blame (some, not all) for the instability and violence lived in middle east.

austenallred 12y ago
They don't anymore, but they certainly used to. The reason Salt Lake City is the home of the LDS church today is because they were forced out of Missouri and Illinois, and their extermination was officially authorized by the government. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
- jackbravo 12y ago
  Wow, didn't know about that =). Although, it does say that: > no one is known to have been killed by the militia or anyone else specifically because of it. There were, however, other associated deaths: the militia and other state authorities used Boggs' Executive Order as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois. I'm pretty sure many muslims countries suffer much worse violence than that, over many more years.
  - austenallred 12y ago
    No one is known to have been killed as a direct result of that order; that was the last straw after a lot of other stuff had gone down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River
    - nonexpectation 12y ago

snowwrestler 12y ago

Before we all jump on our high horses about Islam, remember than many doctors and clinics who perform abortion in the U.S. have regularly and repeatedly been subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats of physical violence, actual violence, and in a few cases, death, by self-professed Christians. Abortion is obviously not the same thing as a cartoon, but it is a safe, routine, and legal elective medical procedure in the U.S. Also realize that the vast (i.e. many orders of magnitude) majority of Muslims, while offended by satirical depictions of Muhammed, do NOT resort to violence. It is the violence, and threats of violence--not the offense--that is the problem. Plenty of people take strong offense at things that seem silly to other people; for example, over software libraries to initialize Linux-based operating systems (init.d vs systemd). Or mobile device app store rules. And finally before we all jump on our high horse about religion, remember that there are plenty of examples of violent threats within our own industry--say, for tweeting about a sex joke at a software conference, or complaining about videogame reviews.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

amirmc 12y ago

> "...real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal..." Thought experiment: Can the same really be done for (say) Judaism without fear of being labelled anti-semite, losing your job, or worse? Could they have done it for Christianity and shown it in Bible-belt? (Maybe they already have and I don't know about it). Also, there's a sense of 'no true scotsman' about your comment where you state no 'real' satire is possible. As though it only counts if there's 'significant risk of violent reprisal'. from: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha... "When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words." This would suggest that there is plenty of commentary that does not result in reprisals.