Reactions to 17 murders

17 people were murdered in France in 1 week---what's the connection?

http://agora-dialogue.com/2015/01/10/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/

I chose an article from The Atlantic that talks about what the muslims are experiencing after the attacks.

1."A newspaper can't insult a segment of the population and be the symbol of France," one Muslim leader says.

This interests me because I agree and disagree with this quote, I understand that the newspaper was offending a certain religion but in no way does that justify the action of murdering innocent people.I also disagree with this quote because the newspaper was a symbol of france not because they were offending a religion but because they had the right to do so.

2.Very quickly, the march, the slogan, and the ideology they celebrated have been sacralized, posited as the fundamentals of a new national unity, a renewed patriotic self-confidence.

I agree with the this quote because it shows how the saying, Je suis charlie has become a way of supporting france, remembering those who died, and our freedom of speech.

SOURCE: http://www.independent.ie

3.Officials and well-meaning citizens intone, "We Are All Charlie." These words may be understood as an aspiration, or perhaps a moral injunction, but they are not true. France in its entirety is not Charlie, just as France in its entirety was not represented at the march on January 11. Missing were the Arabs, the blacks, the young people from the poor banlieues, and the Muslims, many of whom see in Charlie not themselves but the majority's self-righteous bully, and who see inlaïcité not a principle of equal treatment but a device of discrimination and hypocrisy.

I disagree with this author because people were not there to rally against muslims but to mourn those who had died and to support their country.

4.Shortly after the killings at Charlie Hebdo, the government decreed that an honorary minute of silence would be held in all French schools.In 100 separate "incidents," students, many of them presumably Muslim, protested or refused to be silent, according to Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem.

This interested me because i have mixed reactions over this statement on one hand i understand that the students have to deal with people looking down upon them for being muslim and are discriminated against because someone of the same religion committed these murders but on the other hand I think that they should have been respectful towards the victims of the attacks.

5.Three Muslim children of the Republic—Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, and Amedy Coulibaly—have committed terrible crimes against their countrymen in the name of their faith, but there seems to be little interest, at least among the political and media elite, in attempting to understand the sources of their fanatical hate or the grievances of their coreligionists. The current moment in France is one not of mournful reflection but of intransigence—of the drawing of lines, of questions of allegiance.

I disagree with the author when he says, “the current moment of france is not one of mournful reflection but of intransigence-of the drawing lines, of questions of allegiance.”

I believe that he is talking about them media is taking the side of the french people instead of the muslims, he is saying that the french and muslims are fighting against each other but i don’t think that they are against the muslims i think that they are mourning those who died and standing up for their freedom of speech. I think that it wouldn't have mattered what race the terrorists were that doesn't change the fact that they murdered 17 people.

6.In practice, laïcité is now invoked to justify restrictions on specifically Muslim practices such as bans on headscarves in public primary schools and among state employees, or the refusal to offer halal meals in schools and prisons.

I agree that not serving halal meals and bans on headscarves is an outrage and quickly needs to be fixed because it’s cruel and unjust.

7.That the "Je Suis Charlie" march in Paris, which he attended, had been presented as representing all of society "also goes to show just how much this country's elites are disconnected from reality," he said. "They don't want to see it, this other France."

I’m disagreeing with this statement  because there is no “other” france, people are not ganging up against muslims, people of france are all the same no matter what religon.

8.the civic "arousing" applauded and urged on by the press and political class. No millions marched, and no one at the time thought to declare, for instance, "Je Suis Myriam."

I don’t believe that there should be a march nor should people be declaring je Suis Myriam because nothing had happened to muslims, people died and as a result others mourned over them and the same would have happened if those people had been muslim.

I plan to research more about the brothers who murdered the 17 victims of the attacks

9. Muslims, many of whom see in Charlie not themselves but the majority's self-righteous bully.

I believe that the author is trying to say that muslims feel as if they are being discriminated against because the killers where muslim and killed those who disrespected their religion, Muslims now feel that they are being looked down as inferior and those who are not are “bullying” them to show that they are more powerful and superior.

10. see laïcité not a principle of equal treatment but a device of discrimination and hypocrisy

laïcité is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. This is used in school systems so that people are not discriminated against and are seen as equals.

FUTURE RESEARCH: Who were the 2 brothers that killed the cartoonists? What were their motives?