Je Suis Charlie

Killing in the name of religion is something that belongs in the Middle Ages.  Even if some of these zealots would like to take us back there, fortunately the overwhelming majority of the rest of us, regardless of their faith, will not allow that to happen.

The problem I have with certain religious factions is that they are completely intolerant of our way of life and yet expect us to be utterly compliant with theirs.  As an example when we visited the Middle East my wife and I obeyed the conventions expected of us (she covered up, we took off our shoes when entering mosques etc) and yet those same people demand the right to impose their religious and social beliefs in our country.

I firmly believe that if I visit a country I should adapt my behaviour to suit their prevailing conventions but I expect the same in return.  I also believe as others have said on here earlier that the planet as a whole has much bigger issues such as pollution, hunger, military threats and social welfare issues that transcend religious differences.  Every right thinking individual of every faith should be more concerned with these issues than religious prejudices based upon texts written two millenia ago by people of dubious factual accuracy.

Jonathan

My religion is my business, it is not anyone elses. No-one else needs to know 'how' to not offend me and is robust enough to withstand a few satirical sketches. No-one actually needs to get upset, they just like the idea of a religion sanctioned frenzy.

It is far easier to learn to deal with upset than to wait for the rest of the world to change to how I want it. There are only two things irate religious people need to remember "there is a God, it isn't you", so get some humility before your maker.

What utter garbage. The problem is solely on one "side", and it's not the side that are writing novels, drawing cartoons or debating free speech in Copenhagen internet cafés.

I can't believe the naivety of this post. First one appeases the fanatics by giving into their proscription on drawing cartoons; next, girls have to cover up because some people are offended by miniskirts and cleavages, then we all have to give up eating pork and drinking alcohol because it offends the sensibilities of puritans, then gays are persecuted or even killed because homosexuality is "not acceptable"; the gays are followed by the atheists, agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and the "wrong kind" of Muslim, because no other belief system is, to quote you, "accepted"; music is banned so is visual art, because it is haram, women are no longer permitted education or any role in public life because it is "not accepted".

Give an inch to a fanatic - especially a religious fanatic - and he'll take several miles.

PS - Isn't it rather arrogant of you to speak for 1.4 billion Muslims (actually, it's nearer 1.6 billion). How do you know that they were all offended? Did you ask them all?

To call them religious fanatics I think may be an insult to Islam.  These group of people are pure evil equivalent to a deadly disease which needs to be eradicated.  Do not be fooled by their pretensions to Islam, that's just a facade or a vehicle to perform evil acts on the weak and the defenseless.  The Nazis used the master race card as an explanation to perform atrocities on other countries and other race of people.  These terrorists use the cover of false Islamic fanaticism to perform atrocities, my anger is towards the source who is funding their cause.  

Romi,

You are partially right, but the problem too few people acknowledge is that Islam is an unreformed, ossified desert religion built up in the seventh century and onward on violent conquest. Remember that the penalty for apostasy (leaving the religion) is death. Islam itself is the problem, and the terrible developments of the past few decades are not "an insult" to Islam, they are partially due to the nature of the religion itself.

Other religions have been denatured or have reformed themselves, Islam has not. There are things to admire in this religion and its adherents, but sadly its attitudes towards dissent, women and gays are utterly appalling; coupled with its belligerent sense of self-pity and its aggressive demands for special treatment and its seeming inability/unwillingness to adapt to 21st century life (technology apart) and conduct exegesis on its central texts, means that it is likely to remain both stunted and dangerous for many decades to come.

they aren't equal because one side had only AK47s whereas the other had an entire media outlet to voice themselves.

grant those with assault rifles media coverage, they could use to retort the likes of Charlie Hebdo, in exchange for their guns and there would be no terror attacks since then.

religion is a thing that's always there, for example your religion at this moment - a belief that you live in a better world than the middle ages'.

They don't want equal media coverage. They want a worldwide caliphate under which we must all live, whether we like it or not.

Well done Kevin you have spoken well and informatively, it's a shame more(any) people with your views and ability to say it don't get into/onto the media to say it.

I believe you have summed up what is wrong with this version of Islam, Henry the VIII and his cronies would recognise the aims he had used and seen from the position of the "new boys on the block". 

Of course Rome were trying to get some of these same aims into public life, fortunately we/they decided that living together with what you have is better than being forced into the "new world" or being dead.

I've seen religious idiots with access to media, and they appear every bit as ignorant, stupid, delusional, self-centred, angry, unreasonable and potentially dangerous as one would expect, given the ridiculous premise on which they claim to base their so-called "thinking". I can't imagine how they think spouting this rubbish does them any good. F^%$ing idiots.

Time to get real, Sharik............Our world here in the West is a lot better than the middle ages.

In your world there in Russia, or just as bad your 50% homeland in Eastern Ukraine......well, from what we are told by that "entire media outlet" you're so keen to mention, you could well be right. The people in Russia and Ukraine possibly were better off in the middle ages.

Here is an example of pe-Middle Ages barbarity, in 2015:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...is-Muslim-faith.html

One for Tuan to consider, perhaps.

Sharik - are you seriously suggesting that the world today is not better than in the Middle Ages? 

but how do we know since they've never had one?

the myth says so, but in fact Muslim countries have even less agreement on this than, for example, the EU members have on its economic and political issues.

which one media?.. never seen them in the West's.

and the talk isn't of bringing religious idiots to TV, but of granting the reasonable ones access to West audiences.

who told you that?

i meant your world, in the first place, not mine.

ah, now i see who told you... and you trust them?

not really, but neither i'd suggest that today's world is better than anytime before.

to tell the difference we'd need to see the both worlds from both point of views, that of the middle ages and of these days.

Hm, well given that I am almost fifty and haven't yet suffered from small pox or bubonic plague and I, and my three children, have a life expectancy that will hopefully see us reach our 70s, without having to prostitue ourselves, visit the workhouse  or risk being burned as a heritic I have to say I am inclined to disagree although I don't doubt that there are parts of the world that are not so lucky 

Not implicitly, (but more so than the Russian media, although i'm unsure who you include in the term "entire media outlet" - perhaps you could clarify).

It was you who suggested that all would be well if these people had equal access to the "entire media outlet". I simply presumed that you trusted them. Obviously you don't.

Spot-on.

the middle ages weren't all about bubonic plague and the Holy Inquisition, and reaching old age of 70 wasn't any news back then either.

on the other hand, today's life expectancy does not guarrantee you from sudden death in young age.

why?

i don't because they won't grant access for every party to speak out.

No, but they were pretty grim, unless you happened to be born to the aristocracy or some other privileged class. And to live to 70, while not unknown, was very rare. I know which era I'd rather live in.

Your second line seems to betray a misunderstanding of statistical science.

Not even The Independent or The Evening Standard ?