(off-topic rambling) What can I say about #CharlieHebdo attack?

The whole purpose for forming this blog was to spreading awareness of legalized cronyism in politic and advocating people to demand campaign finance reform. I intended this blog solely focusing on an issue that any Americans, including conservatives, liberals, libertarians, religious, non-religious ect., can agree on and need to work together to fight against it. 

However, this morning, I heard about the assault at Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, the French satirical magazine publisher (think The Onion meets Mad magazine but much more provocative). Everyone inside the building were killed, including cartoonists, the artists, and the editor. I thought I need write my thought out to those who were affected by this attack, to those who are in debate over religious violence, and to those who dedicate their lives to defend freedom of press.

Charlie Hebdo was well-known for one thing: publishing a caricature cartoon of Islamic prophet Mohammed back in 2011. Of course, many fundamentalist Muslims were offended by this drawing, giving death threats to the artist and the editor alike. But the artist and the editors of the magazine decided not to back down, and pushed many buttons as they can by publishing more caricature drawings of every religious icons. 

This started the debate whether we should draw sacrilegious imagery in the name of freedom of speech, or we should just shut up and not to add any more fuel to the fire. 

I debated myself over this, whether we are allow to draw Prophet Mohammed or not. The question is: for what intent? 

First of all, I believe I have a right to draw Prophet Mohammed in a harmless smiley face (even though I never drew a smiley face with the title Mohammed in my life). I don't subscribe to Islam, so this dogma never applies to me at all. 

Actually, there was one time I had this brief debate between a Muslim friend of mine, and, not surprisingly, he was against anyone drawing his prophet. I remember commenting that one of the reasons why some Muslims were angry over this because some people portray the prophet in a very racist intention. Like, they just draw this picture for the sake of being an asshole.

While this notion of religions must deserve its criticism may be debatable, but, from my perspective, people have struggle to spread the message of "your religion is flawed" to much more wider audiences in this globalized world, due to its occasional racist root. 

Why not many people accept legitimate criticism of Catholicism of today? Because of the most outspoken Anti-Catholics in the past were anti-Irish bigots. Why people calls you anti-Semite when you criticize Israeli government? Because many vocal critics of Israel the supporters have ever met or heard are straight-forward anti-Semitic conspiracy nuts.  Why people calls you racist when you make legitimate criticism of Islam? Because the most of outspoken critics of Islam are right-wing commentators, politicians, and pundits who are anti-immigrants and support policies that marginalize people "who looks like Muslim." 

(And I am SPECIFICALLY saying RIGHT-WINGERS who has biggest voice in media like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Louie Gohmert, and even European like Geert Wilder. Although left-wingers like Bill Maher and Sam Harris has their own large following, but the latter supported racial-profiling policy while the former, well, should have spoke out against anyone who makes ILLEGITIMATE criticism of Islam. If Maher sympathize with the right when it comes to Islam, then why not he encourage them to use facts and evidences over propaganda?) 

Some people join in the causes not because they want to spread the message in meaningful way, but to cause more trouble. You get my point.

Sure religion is not a race, but many critics of religion should realize that some people criticize religions just for bigoted purpose rather than intellectual way. They shouldn't see them as an ultimate ally, but mere distractors. 

Also, I have to admit, I am quite skeptical on this view that religions influence violent behavior. There are no psychological or scientific studies that proves this notion, yet. So far, there is one research study that shows both religious and non-religious people are equally moral. Whether that research is flawed or biased or not, it still proves that we are human being and we want to live in righteous way.

Regarding human morality and violence, this is a very deep topic. Human psychology is so vast and complex it is better not to make any generalization. 

However, there is one thing I want to say to people who have no mental diagnosis but wants to kill (or already killed) other people in the name of religion (like these shooters): Don't you feel any remorse after this? Do you know if you killed harmless figures in the name of religion only cause more damage to the people of your religion rather than protection?

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, I can write what's going on in Washington and how the system we have now negatively affect the society.

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, I can write my personal statement on the current event of the world and to people who demand peace and to people who attacked Freedom of Press. 

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, everyone, including many Muslims and artists around the world, are able to condemn this devastating attack and support the artists who want their voice to be heard.

On Twitter, people use hashtag #CharlieHebdo or #JeSuisCharlie to support Charlie Hebdo and refuse to be silenced by the massacre. At the same time, people continue to blame Islam itself for the tragedy. If Muslims are to blame for the attack (I should have mentioned France's conflicts between Muslims since Algerian war, but that's another story), then should we blame white people for NAACP bombing in Colorado that happened at the same day? 

I admire supporters of Charlie Hebdo for their bravery, and  I also admire the late artists and editors for same reason. 

Satire exist in free society, to lift us up from the harsh nature of reality. One of us should tell a truth through laughter and help us not to surrender the absurd aspect of our lives. 

I went too deep here. But this entire post is deep in non-nonsensical way.

This reminds me of The Interview controversy from last month. When I heard Sony pulled the film from theaters, I thought we surrender ourselves from the egomaniac dictator. However, thanks to the internet, we could watch the film online and stand up for the right to make fun of Kim Jong-un. 

That's my thought. I might have made some fallible statement on Islam or any religion in general, but the point is, I don't approve any kind of bigotry in this harmonious diverse world, whether religious or not. 

It's so strange that I made from reporting of the attack to my perspective on the debate to a tribute to people who defend the freedom of speech. 

From now on, I am not going to post this kind of rambling again.

P.S. My thoughts and prayers goes to the victims of massacre and people of Paris.