On Jan 7th (44th to Chaoflux), 14 people got killed on an attack to the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, 2 of them the shooters, whom I count among the victims.
After the attack, some claimed that it could have been avoided had the justice of France condemned Charlie Hebdo for disrespect of the Islam back in 2006. Some—the pope of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church, to mention at least one—have called for limits on freedom of speech, in the view that it was the abuse of this right that have triggered the shooting, as the motivation for the shooters was anger in response of insulting depictions of the Mohammed. That view is a deviation from the facts.
Freedom of speech has never caused the death of anyone. Imagine this situation: someone attacking a group in the name of freedom of speech. Does it sound plausible? Has ever any of the advocates of freedom of speech ever tried to kill anyone who prevented it? The world is large and old, so let's assume it may ever happened. Someone someday was killed for being against freedom of speech. How many? Let's say five people. The point is that it is very unlikely to ever have happened and even more to happen again.
What about religion? How many people have been murdered for the sake of religion? Let's forget—for a while—about the Portuguese slave trade, the Middle Ages, the witch-hunts, the human sacrifices etc., and look at this century. Too many people feel justified to kill other people if their religious feelings tell them to, or at least, permits them.
Those two Kouachi brothers intended to avenge a man who have died centuries ago, and therefore, who couldn't feel insulted. Yet they decided that such a man had to be avenged. And what benefit would they expect from that? Maybe a place in heaven, which is yet to be proven to exist. Maybe their friends would be proud of them, although they also would not benefit from the feat, they would merely feel avenged on behalf of aforementioned dead person.
People say that religions should be respected, that it is wrong to call a religion 'stupid', or belittle their saints and gods. I say that people must be respected, so it is worse to insult someone, and yet I have no hope of not being insulted for what I say. Religion is a thing, so how does it come that a thing deserves more respect than a human being? How can someone accept that a thing can be more important than the human life?
Religions teach that the human life is important. They are useful, they give people hope and solace in hard times. Yet there must be a limit to religion and its leaders. It is not fair that someone who was not elected may be entitled to tell people how they should behave on the basis of ancient books and fictional entities. It's not wise to counteract the advance of technique and knowledge with 'truths' that are held as true for truth's sake. It does no good that people be brainwashed to believe in myth and then act according to it. There must be some limits to religion.
Parents and relatives should not have the right to impose their beliefs and bias on their children, for children are unable of critical thinking. Not only children however, for critical thinking must be learnt, and therefore, religions are a very dangerous subject for the illiterate. Religion should not be accepted as an argument for denying anyone any right, and must never be put on a higher ground against the individual, for an individual is a human being, while religion is just a thing.
There is too much damage done because of religion, and such damaging must stop.
Rev. Alexandṛ dell’A rAppia, IIPJ, Amordi, Oracle to Glycon
Today is the 35th day to Chaoflux, in the 29th yCWC.