Phrase of the Day: THEY DO AND THEY DON'T

Last week, the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) was widely publicized.  Twelve employees of the magazine and one policeman were murdered, along with four murdered at a kosher market during a simultaneous hostage situation.  The attack on Charlie Hebdo was in response to cartoon renderings of the Prophet Muhammad;  no depiction of Allah or Muhammad is allowed in Islam.  Last Wednesday's attack was not the first for the magazine; it was attacked in 2011 for the same reason.

In November of 2011, the magazine's offices were firebombed and its website was hacked.  It is believed the attacks were in response to an edition that was renamed Charia Hebdo (Sharia Hebdo), as in Sharia Law, with the Prophet Muhammad listed as that issue's editor.

Quote: 100 Lashes If You Don't Die of Laughter

Last week's attack was the first to involve murder in relation to the magazine.  It sent shockwaves through the publishing community, as well as all of Paris, all of France, and, indeed, the entire world.  As with all terrorist attacks, the aim was not the alleged avenging of the name of Muhammad, but to scare people into a different way of living.  Clearly, people operate differently in a state of fear than a state of calm.  At its most basic level, it is a bully tactic.

The expected cowering, however, did not take place.  The phrase Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") has become a rallying cry for freedom of press and freedom of expression.

It was announced by French President François Hollande that a mass march would take place in support of freedom of expression and the press.  This past Sunday, instead of cowering, here is what the citizens of France and more than forty world leaders did...

© Euronews

Yesterday's first post-attack edition of the magazine printed 3,000,000 copies in multiple languages, instead of its usual circulation of around 30,000-60,000 copies.  All copies were sold.  Below is the cover of yesterday's edition, which includes a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad...

Caption at Top:  ALL IS FORGIVEN

How's that for cowering?

With such a massive turnout at Sunday's march, one can only hope that the more than forty world leaders in attendance, including some that find no problem with censorship to the point of prison, will find a way to combat, or change their policy on, this form of censorship and bullying.

Regarding these and other terrorists, one question that has been asked is what they represent.  The easy answers are fear and whatever terrorist group claims responsibility at the time.  To say they are just thugs is not entirely incorrect, but it goes deeper than that.  The deeper answers are as much political as they are societal as they are religious. 

Politically, these terrorists want governments to do what they say, to function in the way they deem, and to create theocracies around the world, such as the installation of Sharia Law.  Do they represent a system of government?  I believe they believe so, but I disagree.  In creating a theocratic state, they would set up how people should behave on both small and broad scales in society.  A theocracy under Sharia Law would include: 
Death for criticism or denial of any part of the Quran, of Muhammad as prophet, and of Allah as god;
Cutting off the hand of someone who commits theft;
Mutilation of girls' clitorises, under the guise of circumcision for men and women;
Women can have only one husband and must ask the husband's permission to divorce, while men can have up to four wives and can divorce their wives whenever they want;
Girls can be married when they are an infant and consummation of the marriage can take place when she is nine years old.
In short, it would be a fundamentalist theocracy.

All of these ideas come from the Quran and other Islamic teachings, but what does that say about Islam as a whole?  That it's across-the-board violent?  Or that it includes violent teachings?  I would argue the latter, as the sacred texts of all three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) have violence in one for or another in them.  Islam is no different.  To use that argument in a wide swath would mean all three of these world religions are violent instead of their including violent teachings.  Thus, while there are violent teachings present, the question of how much those violent teachings of centuries past figure into the teachings and actualizations of today is one that looms large. 

The wars between Israel and Palestine, the murders of abortion doctors, the murders of cartoonists and satirists, are not fully representative of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  The violent teachings are a part of the entirety of all three of those religions, not the totality.  How can the fact that the vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not commit violent acts in the name of their respective religions be answered?  It is a result of those vast majorities deeming centuries ago-acceptable violence as modern day-unacceptable violence.  Does that mean that those same vast majorities are wrong and out of alignment with their religion?  An affirmative response to that question can be attained only if violence in the name of religion is included.

While it has happened time and time again, including some of the worst wars in human history being fought in the name of religion, there are those who feel violence in the name of religion must be continued.  It boils down to a matter of choice.  Anyone who promotes and carries out violence in the name of religion is just plain wrong.  Period.

Bombing strikes by Israel defines Judaism no more than a Christian killing an abortion doctor defines Christianity.  The killings of people in the name of Allah does not define Islam.  None of them are representative of their respective religions as a whole.

And yet, they do represent these religions in an unfortunate de facto sort of way.  The good works of synagogues and temples, churches, and mosques around the world are rarely highlighted, except perhaps in local publications and websites.  The idea of bad news sells better than good news (i.e. "If it bleeds, it leads") seems to remain a reality.  Those folks doing good works represent their religions well.  While some believe that violence is part and parcel with devotion, and has convinced too many people that such is the case, they could not be further from the truth.  

More uprisings, like what we saw in France last weekend, of leaders and members of political and secular interests in favor of peace and freedom must take place.  Among those marching throughout France, there were Muslims (holding signs of "Not in my name"), Christians, and Jews alike, along with others.  Members of a particular religion, both clergy and non-clergy alike, must rise up against those who abuse their religion as justification for violence.  Politicians and clergy must work in their relative forums to decry violence always.  It must be openly decreed that centuries-old actions cannot be lived out in the modern world.

It is time for people to rise up and state loudly, publicly, and unequivocally that acts of violence in the name of religion are nothing but acts in the name of hatred ... that any such claims are invalid and an insult to their religion, and, by default, to religion in general.  Hopefully, the massive rally in France will be a launching point.

It is time to solidify that those who, de facto, do represent whatever religion with violence, do not represent religion at all.  Period.

Terry