+Sam Harris nails it… as usual. For more you can listen to his commentary 'After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts' via on SoundCloud on his page: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts
Originally shared by +Julia Street
They were killed so that exempts them from critique?
Their cartoons can be critiqued as art, but how can you justify murdering someone over a cartoon?
+Paul Spoerry who is trying to justify them being murdered over a cartoon though? I'm not.
+Kent Goertzen Radical Islamic followers; in other words.. those who killed people over cartoon drawings of Mohammed. The point Harris was making was about those who are apologists for radical Islam… that there is no moral analysis that needs to be done over people killing others over cartoons.
+Paul Spoerry that was a given. But aside from them in those critical of the paper and cartoons?
Not sure I understand the question +Kent Goertzen, maybe phrase it differently?
+Paul Spoerry besides the extremists who wanted him dead. Who tried to justify it?
"It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." – Pope Francis
Ron Paul called it "blowback" against imperial French and American foreign policy (http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/01/12/ron-paul-lessons-paris/). And while it's very valid that the West monkeying in the Middle East has repercussions attacking a comic is hardly justified.
Res Aslan just goes on and on how it's the Wests fault – http://www.salon.com/2015/01/12/reza_aslan_those_asking_why_muslims_arent_condemning_attacks_dont_own_google/
There are more but the bottom line is that as soon as somebody kills over a cartoon there's no moral analysis to be done… they're killers.
Those aren't justifications. False equivocation on your part.
Sure man. Have a good one… You've yet to make any real point and obviously don't want to put in the effort to have an actual discourse. I'm bored with your one sentence question/rambling.