All people, all walks of life, religions, faiths, allegiance, even political alliance, are open for free discussion and humor is part of that, and likely no more so than a guy called George Carlin. Probably the most outspoken humorist that ever lived where no topic is off topic. Here is one example.
The man was amazing in that no word was outside his vocabulary and he was not afraid to use it. He used words that you teachers would get fired if you used, and indeed probably have no idea how to use them in any sort of context that would be acceptable to the modern stream.
The idea that a word is offensive because it is politically correct is a nonsense, its a loss of freedom of speech.
So what makes it different for George, and the socialist anti Muslim guys in France I hear you say? Well they took it upon themselves to enhance their circulation of a magazine whilst being insulting. Satirical humor is not insulting, Insulting anyone is not acceptable.
True humor makes the listener think, and respond to a tongue in cheek sideways and often alternative perspective depending on who or what you are.
I would encourage you if you have not, to look at all the George Carlin You tube videos that more accurately speak for themselves. I find none offensive.
George was successful in his humor that although bare and to the bone was NEVER insulting and the writers in France did not have his gift.
Some die by accident, some commit suicide by cops, these writers in France died by stupidity for a circulation. Not for free speech.
Sure we can laugh at Mohammed ……. it does not give us the right to ridicule though!
Update. An interesting perspective is printed by the Catholic League. I am not a Catholic and do not subscribe to their views. In fact I am very critical of them in general. I do not agree with many aspects of their faith. But I do understand their perspective.
CHARLIE HEBDO PERVERTS FREEDOM
Bill Donohue comments on reactions to his news release from yesterday [click here] on the murder of 12 people in Paris:
Being misrepresented is commonplace for public figures. Sometimes it reflects an honest misreading; other times it is a willful distortion. I don’t have the time now to address all of these instances, but I am hardly going to run from my position.
My position is this: the murderers are fully responsible for what they did and should be treated with the full force of the law. Nothing justifies the killing of these people. But this is not the whole of this issue.
The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom. Quite the opposite: their obscene portrayal of religious figures—so shocking that not a single TV station or mainstream newspaper would show them—represents an abuse of freedom.
Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end. For Americans, the end is nicely spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the goal is to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary. Moreover, the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society.
Let’s forget about legalities. As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so. Can we please have this conversation, along with what to do about Muslim barbarians who kill because they are offended?
It would seem to me for instance that I have every right to criticize the Catholic faith, to condemn every man of the clergy for offenses against their faith, and there are so many examples that are pretty tasteless.
But there are so many true Catholics that adhere to the faith and indeed build there whole lives around that faith. It appears to me that this right (as we all have) that allows me to condemn some, that same right does not allow me to insult the whole of the religion.
Its called moral respect for each other.