When I first heard about the massacre in France at the offices of French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo, it registered in my head as yet another bombing in Europe, and I thanked my lucky stars, yet again, that the United States is an ocean away from the random, regular terrorist attacks that occur in the eastern hemisphere.
Then I read the details of the story. A terrorist organization, swearing fealty to Yemeni arm of Al-Qaeda, specifically targeted the journalists at Charlie Hebdo because the magazine had published cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad and other cartoon images that were apparently insulting to him.
I saw the "I Am Charlie Hebdo" and "Je Suis Charlie Hebdo" announcements scroll up my Facebook news feed and on my Instagram feed.
Yes, I thought, I too am Charlie Hebdo.
I shared the meme on my wall in both English and French out of support for the families of the victims, out of a belief in free speech, out of an unequivocal distaste for religion in general and an outright abhorrence of the extremes of religion in totality.
But, the next day, I saw another post on my news feed. It read, "I Am Not Charlie Hebdo." The article was written by David Brooks, someone I respect, and I thought, "Oh, great. I posted too soon. He's going to make a point that for some reason I should not in fact be claiming alliance with the magazine."
Indeed, he makes some good points. The magazine publishes articles and illustrations that can be considered highly offensive. And it is true that most of us do not engage in intentionally offensive humor. But Brooks goes on to argue that of course we should not change the law and restrict free speech. Of course we should not ban offensive language or publications. Of course. But, he says, he is not Charlie Hebdo, and neither are we.
Well, I disagree. No, I do not go out of my way to offend people. But I do say things quite often that offend people. Sure, it is the truth, but, yes, my foot is a regular fixture in my mouth. I would never draw a cartoon that caricatures the Pope having anal sex with the Prophet Muhammad. I can barely draw a tree.
It's true.
But I do ridicule religion on a regular basis, pointing out inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and downright absurdities found within both the literature and the practice of major religions of the world.
Yes, ridicule. I think it is ridiculous that God would care at all about whether homosexuals marry. I think it is ridiculous that God would prohibit the consumption of pork. I think it is hypocritical for men to aim for several female virgin lovers upon death (and in life, in fact), but a woman should be stoned for showing her hair. Because hair is a symbol of sex. It is hypocritical to uphold marriage as an equal partnership but prohibit nuns from holding the highest offices.
I understand that my opinions are offensive to some. But if we shy away from offending people with our beliefs, while those very people are not only not concerned with others being offended by theirs, but in addition aim to push their beliefs on others, how do we change minds? How do we change the conversation? How do we move forward?
It is pushy people who will not shut up who change the world. We simply cannot stop, anxiety ridden, over every single person, or group of people that might be offended by our ideas. We must exchange ideas in a free society in order to learn and grow. And it is the people who push the envelope, the ones who go right to the edge, doing things we would never dream of doing, who make this space safe for us. I am not interested in deliberately offending anyone, but the people who do remind us that we can push just a little bit further, two steps closer to the line, to express ourselves. Because they will always be the avant-garde, way ahead of us, taking the hits and drawing first blood.
As Charlie Hebdo prepares to release its new cover, predictably offensive to Islam, we are now scared for the magazine again. We must worry that new shootings will take place, that more will be killed, that the extremists will be enraged and retaliate with a sentence of death.
A sentence of death.
For a cartoon.
For a remark.
For a belief.
Do I think that all Muslims are represented by these attackers? Of course not. I similarly do not think that all Christians supported Timothy McVeigh.
What I do think is that we should all identify with victims of extremism. In whatever form.
Not just empathize.
Identify.
This time it was Charlie Hebdo.
20 years ago it was award winning author Salman Rushdie.
Charlie Hebdo was not targeted because the magazine was highly offensive.
It targeted because it was merely offensive.
As I can be at times.
As we all can be.
Oui, je suis Charlie Hebdo. Ne me dites pas que je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo.
No comments:
Post a Comment