Hebdo Heroes, Not! Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie


je suis charlie crowdEditorial cartoons are an effective means of making a point briefly but powerfully. However, cartoons become increasingly unjustifiable when they degenerate into vulgarity, calumny, or blasphemy.

“God is not mocked” (Galatians 6:7). The satirical magazine based in Paris, Charlie Hebdo, makes a business of mocking Islamic themes and portraying Mohammed in pornographic poses. And not just Mohammed. In unspeakable ways Charlie mocks what Christians consider sacred, including Jesus and the Holy Trinity. Thus the offensiveness of Charlie Hebdo is not just freedom of expression, but provocative violation of the Golden Rule.

“Every religion has its dignity,” said Pope Francis in response to questions about the massacre in Paris; and to mock or to toy with other people’s religion is to “provoke” violence, he said. Even a co-founder of Charlie Hebdo agrees with the Pope on this point. Henri Roussel says that the recently murdered director was “an obstinate blockhead” who “dragged his team to their deaths.”

Americans caught up in shouting slogans about press freedom and inanities about “theocracy” might try reciting the Preamble to the US Constitution: Among our main purposes as a nation is to “insure domestic Tranquility.”

Far from urging the media to apply the Golden Rule for the sake of social peace, however, demonstrators numbering some 3 million in France have celebrated the late Charlie Hebdo publishers as heroes, as someone with whom to identify. Everywhere in France, people displayed placards and posters with the catchphrase, Je suis Charlie. These three words should be seen for exactly what they mean, “I am Charlie.” Put another way, not only do we stand with anti-terrorist forces, but we embrace what Charlie Hebdo transmits to France and to the world.

What values are in fact communicated? In addition to the anti-censorship mantra, “the spirit of Charlie is the right to blasphemy,” this according to the magazine’s own attorney, Richard Malka.

If I am Charlie, then it follows that I embody Charlie’s values. What a devilish coup that so many citizens of a once Catholic nation would say to the world, in effect, “we too are blasphemers! We too are Hebdo hellions!” Hopefully God will forgive such Frenchmen “for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Being a sin against the virtue of religion and of faith, blasphemy was punished – sometimes severely – in Europe and in America until Christendom began giving way to secularism during the late modern era. In France shortly after Charlemagne, the Frankish government enacted a law declaring blasphemy a capitol offense. St. Pius V, the pope who inspired the victorious counter-jihad at Lepanto, 1571, provided in his Cum Primum Apostolatus (p. 10) that blasphemers be fined. The fine was increased upon a second offense, and after a third the blasphemer was sent into exile. The punishment for clerics found guilty of blasphemy might upon repetitions include imprisonment, being defrocked, and even being sent to the galleys.

Of course terrorists are not Holy Roman Emperors, or saintly Popes, or avenging angels of light. They are vigilantes devoid of authority. The men who perpetrated the massacre in Paris acted without so much as an authoritative intra-Islamic commission; they went on their killing spree without anything like the 1989 fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini ordering Muslims to kill author Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses.

Here is the essential nuance in Catholic thinking: When zealots act on their own without superintending authority, they cross the line between guerrilla warfare and plain murder.  They are acting not as commandos but as rogue killers.

I am not Charlie

I am not Charlie

But the sad reaction, Je suis Charlie, is, I suggest, visceral rather principled. Gut-deep antipathy to enforcing morals explains why secularists would see the legalization of blasphemy as a milestone in their liberation from religious standards. The last thing they want is suppression of sin, as with the old anti-blasphemy laws. Indeed militarist secularists hate with a passion any sort of repression that might chill a libertine society – for example outlawing pornography, abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex-marriage.

Thus they see the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo as worse than what the minority, i.e. devoutly Catholic Frenchman, might perceive. For secularists it is more than an attack on order in France; more than an attack on the rule of law; more than an attack on the free press. More than any of that, the massacre in Paris posed a threat to their much cherished postmodern revolution, rejecting as it does old fashioned manners, and old-time religions with their restrictive moral codes.

In addition to the twisted values implicit in the slogan, Je Suis Charlie, there are prudential issues. As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League puts it, “Muslims Are Right To Be Angry.” Any prudent journalist would know that if you keep poking a tiger with a stick, you are liable to get bitten. Without approving it, Pope Francis said “it’s normal, it’s normal” to react violently in the face of such provocation.  As Patrick Buchanan puts it,

Even as children you knew there were words you did not use about someone else’s girlfriend, mother, family, faith or race, if you did not want a thrashing.

To avoid being victimized is often a simple matter of caution and consideration of the other guy. Provoking the Islamic world by publishing pornographic portrayals of Mohammed is foolhardy and provocative; it is setting yourself up for victimization. Saying that Charlie Hebdo did not in any way goad Islamic people and incite them to murder is hard to reconcile with clarity in understanding the Islamic mindset.

Other prudential considerations: What about the two policemen who were killed as a direct result of the peril introduced into Paris by Charlie Hebdo’s provocation of Islam? What about the reservoir of ill will, filled to overflowing, among the 4.7 million French citizens (7½ percent of the population) who happen also to be Muslim? And finally, what about the lack of common sense in eliminating anti-blasphemy laws and freeing up cultural arsonists to conflagrate society?

Here in the United States, anti-blasphemy laws have stood for most of our history.  Such legislation is still on the books in some states, although SCOTUS overruled New York State’s anti-blasphemy law in 1952. In the process of rolling back judicial usurpation, let America offer France a good example by restoring and enforcing laws against setting diabolical fires (not only blasphemy) within the culture and throughout society.



About Author

Writer, retired history teacher, lecturer for Knights of Columbus--Bremerton WA (c. 1379), author of new & as yet unpublished book, "Rekindling the Spirit of 1776: Insurrectionary Solutions for Postmodern Maladies."

  • Terri Kimmel

    I was excited to see a Struble article and I was not disappointed after reading it. Bob Struble always broadens my perspective, inspires me to learn more, and leaves me in admiration of his powerful, yet uncomplicated writing style. Readability is the writer’s universal intellectual currency and Mr. Struble is rich and generous.

    • goral

      Does two qualify as a fan club? There are probably others.

      • Terri Kimmel

        Nous sommes un fan club!

        (With credit to Google translate.)

        • goral

          It’s a stretch better than Je suis Bob. Although, I do think that Mr. Struble could easily write for Fr. Neuhaus’s scholarly publication.
          It’s not just our self-loathing that harms us but also Islam is furthering their cause through our legal system because of our imprudent interpretation and implementation of the laws that should be protecting us.

  • goral

    The so-called Christian and Muslim world is on a collision course. One has lost its sensibilities while the other never quite had them. You brought up “prudential consideration”, Bob….. whoa! What is the definition of those two words? Our side will argue that prudence is whatever is better for the environment. Burning incense to gods is not, so God is bad. Their side will argue that the infidel gets no consideration because the Lenin of the desert said so. God is great and rolling heads prove that, settled.
    The big battle is on the horizon. Prudential consideration or love will win because that’s God’s law and that’s what makes Him great, not murderers and blasphemers who will not inherit the kingdom.

    • Terri Kimmel

      I was reading something recently–maybe in First Things magazine–that
      said the danger with America is that we have become our own enemies
      through self hatred. We blaspheme and insult our own God and culture. So, yes,
      we’ve lost our sensibilities.

  • Hey thanks for the additional censorship!