In Theory: Is Charlie Hebdo’s latest cover blasphemous?

The Vatican has responded to the latest cover of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, calling it blasphemous.

“One year later, the assassin is still on the run,” reads the black and white front page, along with a cartoon depicting a bloodied God armed with an AK-47.

The edition commemorates a year since a terror attack by religious extremists against the controversial publication’s headquarters left 12 people dead.

“The French weekly once again forgets what religious leaders of every affinity have been repeating for some time, to reject violence in the name of religion,” the Vatican’s daily newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial.

Q: Does Charlie Hebdo’s latest cover amount to blasphemy?

--

While the portrayal of God with a weapon to kill anything is horrific to view, I believe that it is not so much blasphemous as it is misdirected. God did not kill those people — men did! The terrorists’ actions were blasphemous, truly, against the God who creates life. It is the same argument over God carrying out the Holocaust. Remember, it was not God who killed the 11 million innocents but the Nazis and their allies.

Perhaps the authors of the cartoon are stating that the god those specific terrorists — or, for that matter, all terrorists — worship is encouraging the killing of innocents. Then the cartoon is not blasphemous; it is ‘divinely’ inspired. The problem is, is the god of terrorism truly divine?

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

We can assume that Charlie Hebdo’s editors chose this cover knowing that it would offend. The magazine’s method is to provoke, and its antagonism toward organized religion is well established.

Perhaps the Vatican actually called the cover “blasphemous,” but the comment that was widely quoted in news accounts said something different. It said that “using God to justify hatred is a genuine blasphemy.” With these words, the Vatican looked past the drawing and spoke against those who twist religion for evil purpose. If this statement accuses anyone of blasphemy, it is those who call for murderous assaults like the one on the magazine’s offices last year.

The LDS church hasn’t commented on the Vatican’s statement. Personally, I’m not certain the drawing, which shows God as a blood-splattered gunman fleeing the scene of an attack, rises to the level of blasphemy. I have seen far more offensive depictions of sacred things.

I might be more upset if I recognized God in the drawing, but I don’t. To my understanding, God isn’t violent, but loving; he doesn’t run away, but draws as close as we allow. The only blood I associate with God is that of Christ, which he willingly shed for us.

In the West, we have the right to mock and ridicule, but that doesn’t make it is a good thing to do. It is true that liberal democracies need freedom of expression to function. But our multicultural, multethnic societies, which embrace vastly differing views on religion, also require self-restraint. For free societies to work, the religious, the atheists, and even the satirists, must be able to stop arguing at some point and find enough common ground to solve problems. This is especially important now, when we are so divided culturally and politically. We won’t resolve our differences by needlessly mocking things that others hold sacred.

So, to the editors of Charlie Hebdo I would ask, what is the point? Do cartoons such as this one lead us to the common ground we need to find or do they pull us further apart? Will they inspire impressionable young people to forsake the extremists’ call to arms or drive them toward it? Do cartoons like this one celebrate freedom or merely encourage a different brand of intolerance?

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

--

Whether or not Charlie Hebdo’s cover fits the definition of blasphemy is for each beholder to decide. One person’s sacrilege may be an interesting critical perspective to others, in this case those who aren’t religious at all, and also possibly to believers who are open-minded.

Lampooning, satirizing and, yes, insulting beliefs are part of having freedom of expression, a freedom which Pope Francis has declared to be a “fundamental human right.” Beliefs should not be mindless, and if having fun poked shakes those beliefs, maybe they needed rethinking. Many expressions of belief demand humor in reaction, if only to keep us from crying.

Let us also be reminded that freedom of expression is the law in France, as it is in the U.S., with blasphemy not of legal concern in either secular country. Charlie Hebdo’s mission is humor with an edge and they pursue that mission fearlessly even after the deadly attacks suffered one year ago.

Not all satire succeeds and this one doesn’t do much for me, but it is the religious extremists being skewered who want us to stop laughing altogether.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

I cannot presume to know God’s mind on this one, however, If Charlie Hebdo’s cover is simply a stab at God, then certainly it is blasphemy; if it is a swipe at maniacal zealots who murder in his name, then maybe not. I’ve seen the iconic Zeus-like caricature of god depicted on the magazine, with his machine gun and bloody hands, and it is obviously meant to depict the means and the impact of recent terrorism perpetrated by Muslims there in France and abroad. For us, we see such an image and think, “That isn’t God, nor what he’s like,” but for Muslims involved in atrocities against innocents, they may have one of two reactions: They simply get more murderous, and retaliate over a stupid cartoon, or they look at this image and wonder if they really are representing God’s character. Is God hungry for the blood of infidels? Is he putting Muslims on the warpath to kill, kill, kill?

If I were Muslim, I don’t know how I might respond. After all, the reason “radical” Muslims are doing what they do, is because their prophet has written in his book what the will of their god, Allah, demands. If Allah’s desire is to force obeisance by the sword, then it should be carried out by his followers. This is why I have difficulty knowing who’s really displaying the true fruit of the Islamic faith and message. Is it the aggressive doers or the mild reinterpreters, who more accurately reflect the religion of Mohammed? I believe there are 109 Koranic verses that direct Muslims to make war on Islam’s unbelievers. That’s most of the world.

The God of the Bible is not the God of Islam, nor of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonist. God wants mankind saved from our murderous inclinations, and the Bible informs us that “he is patient … not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2Pe 3:9). Nobody can be forced to convert to any religion, truly, as faith is a thing of internal conviction, but society can choose which religion might best reflect good moral values, and which provides opportunity to make free response to God. That will not be a society in which Sharia rules or where its culture accepts bloody religious coercion.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga