I guess when non-believers outnumber the believers; that is, if and when the legal modern state, secular in its nature, supersedes “the law” of historical religions, then killers will be arrested for the crime of murder not some ambiguous term like “terrorism.” I hope the change takes place soon before more are killed under a pretense rife with psychological problems. But I don’t put much faith in hope these days.
When Science upsets Religion, Science is usually on the right track. Historical figures gifted with god status remain prime fodder for satire, especially in the parts of this world that have been through dada and surrealism.
What recourse does one have when offended? Has this issue not been discussed before in world courts? Let’s reiterate the law and the differences: Is it, the rights of your fist end just before somebody’s jaw? Or there’ll be no hitting, even hitting back? That thin line between thought and action wavering like a loopy sine wave in the green light of the oscilloscope.
Do radical believers subscribe to Charlie Hebdo? If so offended, could they not get their money back? I figure I could go walking out in my neighborhood and find something offensive. Probably I could walk by that whatever offends me day after day until I really feel offended, until I’m driven to demand justice? Oh, there’s a word filled with philosophical differences; for instance, if “justice” is getting what you deserve, then who decides who deserves what? Who decides depends on who has the power to enforce such a decision, I suppose.
Gnashrants's Blog 