Against my better judgment ...

[DonCoquixote]

104. two problems come in

1) the first problem is that, in the name of religion, ugly, stupid thigns are done that not only deserve riducle, but outright warfare. When a church starts enocuraging people to send money to attack gay rights, women's rights, or other rioghts, then yes, that church needs attacking. Of course, the onus of the attack should be on the people MAKING THE DECISIONS, not the people in the pews who are probably hating what this idiot in power is doing, and whose help could be useful.

2) The second is that while some want to attack religion's crimes, there are also those who simply want to attack to advance their agenda. Take for example, Richard Dawkins, who called Islam the most evil thing there is, and who made nasty reference to women and muslims, then hid behind "free speech." Take Sam Harris, who called for outrght prosecution of "anything Muslim." Yes, some of what some Muslims do is awful, but by that estimate, we might as well judge all athiests by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/09/12/sam-harris-is-just-factually-wrong-globally-atheism-has-no-gender-split/

seriously Harris "extra estrogen vibe?"

So yes, we do need to ridicule behavior, even faith, but if you do, be prepared to undergo the same scrutiny you demand, and if you turn out like Sam Harris, Richard dawkins, and yes, Charlie as being members of the "we are white dudes that can make fun of everyone we want to" club, do not be surprised when even free speech advocates realize that you make VERY poor examples, because you are not trying to liberate people from an orthodoxy of thought, you merely want the spot being kept warm by priests, in layman's terms, Dawkins, Harris and Charlie just want to be the new pampered clergy, with a whole new set of "thou shalt not question me, now make me a sammich!"