General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Anjem Choudary: "Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?" [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Three Muslim men didn't like the way the authors, journalists, and cartoonists thought, so they murdered them. Twelve lives ended. Families shattered. Children parentless. And Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says, "Muslims are right to be angry." Donohue sided with the murderers, condemning only their method but saying that we should not "tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction" and that it was "too bad" Charlie's editor "didn't understand the role he played in his" own death. Isn't it just like religion to blame the victim?
We saw this 10 years ago when the Danish papers published benignbland might be a better wordcartoons about Islam's pedophiliac founder. As Hitchens was fond of pointing out, though Islamic mobs were beating, burning, "and issuing death threats against civilians," the archbishop of Canterbury and the pope condemned the cartoons, not the overreaction.
We saw this 25 years ago when the Ayatollah Khomeinito borrow from Hitchens again"publicly offered money, in his own name, to suborn the murder of a novelist who was a citizen of another country." Once again, the Vatican and the archbishop of Canterbury condemned the speaker, Salman Rushdie, not the violent criminals.
History offers countless instances of religion enforcing its inane orthodoxy with violence.
- See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/22171-charlie-hebdo-bill-donahue-and-the-freedom-of-thought#.dpuf