I don’t think that any of us should be required to “like” any particular ideology however attacking it only makes sense when both parties are on the same playing field, and thereby allowing rebuttal in kind. Of course, rebuttal in kind, attacking Judaism rhetorically, or even questioning anything about The Holocaust narrative is illegal in France, even if the speaker is an adherent of Judaism him or herself.
Stealing the “baby Jesus” from the Vatican is more of the same. Two religions are apparently ripe for parody and derision and other acts of “free speech”, and one isn’t.
Of course, insulting any religion is poor taste. Denying persons their purpose and meaning in life is an act of war and should be expected to bring on retaliation whether one is cloaked in “victim garb” or bare-chested. It is only certain types of Christians who “turn the other cheek,” and otherwise insist on remaining blissfully ignorant of certain facts of life.
In addition, I expect that weapons, surveillance, and protection technology stock benefited from this event, while citizen privacy expectations just took a nosedive. I expect that this event may also cause France to reconsider their stance in not purchasing street-surveillance technology; i.e., a camera on every street corner. When events such as these unfold, I think, “Qui Bono?” and wonder whether Hebdo just committed suicide on purpose–yet another suicide bomber martyr with a payoff to survivors. How was his health at the time? It’s a rhetorical question.
In a race to the bottom, *Charlie Hebdo and his murderers pave the way. In the next five minutes, I’ll tell you how.
*Charlie Hebdo is a magazine composed of many people. Instead of naming one, I use the name as an all-encompassing term for the writers and staff there.