So it seems that some people get really, really angry at satire
and parody that they're on the wrong end of.
I've heard that said.
While I'm not a big fan of poking people over spiritual matters, I think we need to realize that when people poke fun at spiritual matters, it's superstition that they're poking at - not spirituality. And poking at superstition is pretty important, because it's the source of so much misery on our planet - perhaps even the source of all of it.
So while I'm not super happy about what Charlie Hebdo produces, I am super happy that they're out there fighting the fight. Ultimately, it's assholes like them that pull humankind forward as we kick, scream and spit. (And at the right moment, politicians jump in front of the camera and take credit for everything.)
A 
to the assholes, the perilously-crazy people whose work ended the belief that one human can own another, that women can't do what men do, that gay people can't be married, and who did all the other stuff that lurches society forward. Many of you assholes drive me absolutely @#$%ing nuts, but the bigger part of me is glad for it.
Oh, and a tip - if satire or parody make you mad as hell, there's probably something in it that you know is true, but are scared to face. Let's all face our superstitions square-on, laugh at 'em, and move forward together.
= new reply since forum marked as read
what is "superstition" and what is "spirituality? 
I think, ultimately, that's what it's all about.
Well, that and the hokey pokey. 
=======================
on the basis of no particular authority. 
I prefer to call it supernatural imaginings rather than superstition, since there are lots of superstitions that are simply off-the-wall and haven't anything to do with any silly tenets, at all. My Grandpa always kept a buckeye in his hip pocket, supposedly to ward off the rheumatism from which he suffered. When I became an adult and the pain of some pretty hard labor began to afflict me, too, I also took to keeping buckeyes close. I soon learned that buckeyes or not, I hurt, and that silly superstition, along with any other, would no longer be allowed to afflict my thinking.
Let's take down the right wing morons in business and government
Remember . . .
[center]
[font size="6" color="red"]Big Brothers
are watching you[/font]
[/center]
[font size="1"]Image from American University
You make an excellent point regarding the selective nature here, of who is "rightfully"
satirized, and who must be protected as victims of "cultural insensitivity".
The hypocrisy and double standards displayed can be quite remarkable.
usually to no avail. Hopefully, things are changing.
I see that you posted on the OP by NanceGreggs.
She nails it, in my opinion. 
and the media wont tell you about
As a Non Muslim I find this offensive. The implication being Mohammed was into beastality with an unclean animal and his wife was a prostitute. Free speech, yes. Offensive and morally wrong, certainly.
The cartoonist scored a hat trick with this cartoon.
Dont believe the media narrative that it was just harmless satire because if it was, those 17 people would still be alive.
Free speech is a right and shall always remain so, but it also comes with responsibility. The responsibility for people to stand up and say that this is wrong and offensive.
you didn't seem to get.
Personally, I find many things about current day Islam that are well deserving of criticism & find zero need to go back and rag on Mohamed.
I could say the same thing about many religions, political beliefs or values, but what's in the news today, what these conversations are about, is the violence in Paris. Which wasn't committed by radical Hindus, Christian crusaders, Pat Robertson, or a host of other shitty folks people have been offering up as some sort of (to my mind) reason I can't be offended myself.
Have a nice weekend. 
should be somewhat shocking. It elicits emotions that force you to have immediate consideration on the subject.
It can easily inspire anger as well. Many, when angered, will not give rational consideration, they will just simply react strongly. After the anger subsides, rational thought returns.
Some people are uncomfortable with strong emotions. Those are probably the same people who are uncomfortable with satire.
Different strokes and all. 
Every time!
Do you know how many times I've swatted my screen?!
People like you put editorials by the pompous sages of many major publications to shame. Your OP was thoughtful, succinct, and fun to read. Thanks!
I'm on the right end of it (assuming you're talking about Hebdo) and it still pisses me off. I agree with everything they say, but not how they say it. I have every right to feel that way. I'm tired of people telling me I'm simply "uncomfortable with satire", or irrationally angry, or that I just need to feel outraged about something. Sorry for the annoyed response, but I'm kinda done with people who tell me that crap.
A fantastic logical fallacy--just because a particular piece of satire bothers me does not imply that that satire holds any truth at all. There is no requisite connection between the amount something angers people and how true it is; of course, the more true something is, the more likely it is to bother people; however, that relationship is not necessarily true. (And yeah, I know you said probably. It was still implied that what you said was true the majority of the time.)
I certainly don't like a lot of what Charlie Hebdo produces. I think that much of their artwork and satire is based in harmful stereotypes and (referring to recent ones) to some extent, Islamophobia. I don't like that, and I will speak out against it. The problem becomes when people tell me that I have to endorse something in order to support the right of the authors to say it. When I say I don't like some of what Charlie Hebdo has made, I get people (like elsewhere in this thread, hint, hint) telling me that "people just have a certain level of outrage and they do what they need to do to maintain that level." I call bullshit on that--some of us can hold the concept of free speech in our minds and yet still disagree with someone, at the same time. I know, it's pretty cool. Btw, if you haven't read it already, I'd suggest taking a look at this article to clarify what I'm saying here: http://paper-bird.net/2015/01/09/why-i-am-not-charlie/
My main issue with what you say, though, is that you imply we need assholes to move society along. I think that to some extent, you are correct. People who speak the truth are never popular, and the ones who do something about it have to be forceful and aggressive (MLK is a great example). That said, it is not "ultimately, assholes like them that pull society along." It is assholes who support good causes, not assholes just being assholes. There is a huge and critical difference between that and what you said, though I'd guess you meant it differently.
Last thing: everything else you've said I fully agree with. A salute and a beer to the assholes who are doing the right things. May there be many years of satire pissing off all the right people for all the right reasons.
Thanks for the thread! Your fans sure do love you!
Thanks for making it obvious. People that hate the OP sure do so in a funny way.
