Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion

do you know that the first written accounts about Muhammad are in fact from Byzantine chroniclers - and they start some years after Muhammad's death ? there are no contemporary written accounts about Muhammad's life

on the contrary, Alexander's life is attested by a huge amount of accounts written during his lifetime

in any case, the theory that Muhammad is a mythical figure is not defended by a couple of isolated nutcases, but by respected professors in Western academia

which is all I wanted to say

Because what you believe is a choice. Your race is not.

Well no, instead of insulting and degrading a race they've done it to a religion. The intent to offend is there in both. Why is insulting someones race worse than insulting someones religion?

From your point of view perhaps, to them it is the same. If you think there is freedom of choice in religion in Islamic countries you are seriously deluded.

Well no, instead of insulting and degrading a race they've done it to a religion. The intent to offend is there in both. Why is insulting someones race worse than insulting someones religion?

Don't give a stuff about 'Islamic countries'

In the west your faith is a choice and even Muslims have this choice.

because we are all human, independently from our race; while some religions advocate murderous and inhuman behaviour, and do not deserve respect

also, we cannot change our race, but we can change our religion

Maybe because one is about beliefs and one is about their biological make up?

Beliefs can be criticised.

So you're saying people should have to change their religion to avoid being insulted or criticised?

If there's freedom of speech then there's equally freedom of choosing to believe in what they want to without having to conform to change.

So you're saying people should have to change their religion to avoid being insulted or criticised?

If there's freedom of speech then there's equally freedom of choosing to believe in what they want to without having to conform to change.

If there's freedom of speech then there's equally freedom of choosing to believe in what they want to without having to conform to change.

So you're saying people should have to change their religion to avoid being insulted or criticised?

If there's freedom of speech then there's equally freedom of choosing to believe in what they want to without having to conform to change.

So you're saying people should have to change their religion to avoid being insulted or criticised?

Uhh what?

People are free to believe what they want to believe, and I'm free to believe that their beliefs are stupid/evil.

Anyone who can should buy a subscription to Charlie Hebdo to show solidarity with their cause and with the principle of freedom of speech and expression.

I think he wants to be free to do the first but deny you the freedom to do the second.

I entirely agree

by the way, this heinous (but idiotic) massacre will have, as a consequence, that Charlie Hebdo's drawings will be published and republished all over again

Serious.

There is a difference between an individual expressing his/her view, whatever it is; and to give said view special treatment.

There's also the advantage in this particular case: People realise how serious things are for gay people in some countries and have more sympathy towards gay people as a result.

There's also something deeply problematic about laws banning certain views from being uttered. How do you decide on what to ban and what not to ban? Why ban hate speech against gays but not hate speech against vegans?

From my point of view hate speech against gays and drawings of the prophet are the same. You can't ban one yet allow the other.

Which is why I have remained consistent and said neither should be banned.

So then by your belief a person who believes death to homosexuals should be allowed to draw and speak about it as much as they want because it might make their life miserable if they can't