Je suis Charlie or not?

Charlie Hebdo (was) racist, islamophobic, misogynistic, etc, to say the least of their so-called satire, BUT I condemn the killing of their cartoonists and other contributors, as well as the killings of the cops, especially the Muslim one. He died defending those who 'ridiculed' 'his' religion. Killing someone for not agreeing with our ideals is wrong, BUT one should not 'hurt' the sentiments of millions who revere the Islamic State Khaleefa, err...the prophet.

I condemn the killings of Charlie Hebdo, but what about the freedom of speech for the Palestinians who have been stopped from showing solidarity by the French government? It is wrong that terrorists (anybody who kills someone in the name of Islam does not have to be a Muslim) killed those who worked at Charlie Hebdo, but they should not have drawn the prophet (pbuh). If France cares so much about freedom of speech, why did it ban the advertisement showing Jesus as a woman? If France was not racist and had assimilated the 'Arabs' well, those two (killers) would not have done what they did.

These are some of the comments and ideas strewn all over my Facebook and Twitter timeline. I thank thee for such enlightenment. The 'if' 'but' arguments highlight the duplicity of the human race so beautifully. It is like a breath of fresh air, or the first shower after scorching heat. Call me callous, but I want to compare this moment of those with pens versus those with guns to the Palestinian youth throwing stones at the Israeli military. That is how unmatched the rivals were and are and will remain perhaps.

Deaths do not matter. Be them of cartoonists or those of killers themselves.

Actually, it is neither about the killings of Charlie Hebdo workers, visitors and the cops who were simply there at the wrong time, nor is it about those who killed a dozen people because of a certain mindset. None of this matters any more. What matters are the narratives and counter narratives. What matters is the fact that it is not as important to say Je suis Charlie as it is to say je suis 'so and so...'

It is about France inviting Netanyahu and Merkel to the solidarity rally, the banning of the veil in public, war in Syria and Iraq, Western hegemony against the Islamic world, their double standards and the right-wing narrative that will further fuel the anti-Muslim mindset in Europe.

Human deaths are no longer as valuable as today when all and sundry are looking to collect martyrs. As if the deaths of thousands of people of colour at the hands of Taliban, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, Daesh were not enough, the militant Islamists have given the European far-right the right number of martyrs to push for anti-immigration laws, job cuts, racism, and further reinforcement of the 'savage Muslim' idea.

And if that was not enough, there are people of the Pakistani Awami Tehreek in Peshawar, who are already paying homage to the killers Said and Cherif Kouachi; and Charlie Hebdo with all its activism for equality has actually died in the fight amid the far right Muslims, Jews, Christians, and their apologist leftists... Even if a cartoon on the cover says Je suis Charlie!

Where to draw a line?

Religion has become almost an obsession despite one believes in it or not. It seems no matter where one goes or lives, it still plays a role in everyday life. If not as a ritualistic routine, as some important news detail which leaves the mind boggled with the far reaching implications it may have. This is a blog related to the news item being referred here.

Reading it is pretty simple; a Mormon family demanding the right to practice their own religion. Not demanding recognition only a right. This right includes indulging in polygamy, which is a practice for which Muslims have been shunned by feminists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews etc. My fear is, if the Mormons win the case, it will pave the way for Muslims too. So this fear led me to find out a little more on religious freedom and the extent of rights to practice.

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds vs United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

It was reassuring to say the least. Hopefully, the case will be lost by the family. But it leaves me wondering where the State draws a line and on what grounds. There are women who indulge in this practice and do not mind. They are okay about sharing their husbands. What difference is between these women and the women in France who happily done the hijab and consider the ban, an intrusion on religious freedom. What about the liberals who support their right for doing so? Do they also support the right of the women who are happy with polygamous marriages? Or they would merely deny that there is any link at all between the two?

The question becomes if a woman is happy in polygamy, why should she not be allowed to do so? How do we decide on what aspects a person is allowed the pursuit of happiness and on what she/he is not.