We grow up hearing about religious tolerance, how we should respect people's beliefs. Then, in parallel we grow up hearing about the freedom of speech.

Making fun of someone's religion is not religious tolerance.
Being able to make fun of someone's religion is freedom of speech.

Who will decide what is right?

If you can make fun of your own religion then you have the right to make fun of others religion-thats freedom of speech.

If you are angry when someone makes fun of your religion but you want to make fun of toher's religion then its not freedom ofspeech, it is non tolerance.

If you can make fun of every religions then it is freedom of speech

Nick Clegg put it best "at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended"

Simple.... Freedom of speech preceds religious tolerence in the scale of human rights and in a democratic society.

In theory, Freedom of Speech may be a prerequisite for a democratic society. But, for all practical purposes, when you are sitting in a round table full of people, you don't exercise your freedom of speech by uncalled for insults. For example you would not call your friends wife or mother - a whore just because you have freedom of speech. That is absolutely wrong and disgusting.

Does freedom of speech mean you can insult anyone? Would it be freedom of speech if you make a cartoon of some politician's wife and called her a whore just because you can?

This does not mean that it makes it OK for someone to come kill you because you insulted them, but it is something to think about.

"This does not mean that it makes it OK for someone to come kill you because you insulted them, but it is something to think about." NO you dun even need to think about it. An insult can never be equal to a cost of life.

BC, An insult can never be equal to a cost of life. That is common sense and rule of law.

But what is also common sense is that if a certain group is known to kill people when you insult them, then you might want to think about it a little and use some prudence before provocating them too much with insults.

Obviously, such extreme act is wrong on all levels but lives have been lost already, noone can bring back the lives. A little prudence could have perhaps prevented it.

Freedom of Speech and Religious Tolerance is a very misconstrued term. How do you define the term "Religion"? In Sanskrit the term religion is literally translated as "Dharma"? It is extremely difficult to define what dharma is. However, in a simple language it is defined as, "the righteous act." Now, there is another problem with this definition, what do you mean by 'right'? So, there must also be something called 'wrong'. The moment you say 'righteous act', you are taking something as a basis for this act. Otherwise, how would you compare something as being right and something as being wrong. So, there comes a need of something which is called the universal law. But, how many of us understand this universal law? A flower doesn't need to consult a manual on how to blossom. It blossoms according to its own intrinsic law which is operating from within. This immanent principle of reality is operating in the entire cosmos internally. The flower blossoms precisely in mathematical accuracy according to its own law. Similarly, in human society as well there is something that is operation intrinsically but humans beings are not aware of this law because of the lack of awareness of totality. Lack of awareness is a serious matter. Darkness prevails where there is no sun. There is only one way to get out of this darkness and it is only through the brilliance of light.

Now, what is this thing called freedom? Freedom of what from whom? Flower has a total freedom to blossom. It is in total harmony with the intrinsic law that operates from within. Flower is in peace because it is doing what needs to be done! What is that principle that governs the act of speech? The Vital Energy or the Prana regulates this speech. So, technically freedom of speech is the freedom of Prana. Can Prana do whatever it wants to? What regulates this Prana? Is there a law that governs Prana as well? What happens when gravitational law violates its duty in the name of freedom? What happens when our heart sops beating in the name of freedom? What happens when kidney stops functioning in the name of freedom? Life would be not possible under such circumstances. Freedom is a very misconstrued term. Speech is very powerful. You can experience the power of speech through some Vedic mantras. This power of speech if not in coherence with the intrinsic universal law will create disharmony in our society. The power of speech has the ability to hurt someone's ego as well. Many Rishis and Yogis have feared this thing called ego which doesn't really exist in reality. Ego itself is a result of absence of transcendental consciousness. When you put some ghee in the fire, the fire ignites more violently. Similarly, this ego principle can be violently disturbed through the principle of speech.

Therefore, if you really want to be free and experience the total freedom, deprive your mind ruthlessly from all desires. Total renunciation is pure enlightenment.

Thanks Ujl for your post. Always a pleasure to read what you have to say.

Ne0 "Does freedom of speech mean you can insult anyone?" YES. It means you can say whatever you want about whoever you want. But I understand your point. It does not mean "being responsible". In the case of Charlie Hebdo, it means the journalists were not being responsible for the safety of their lives knowing that they were provoking the crazies. But Charlie Hebdo is known for it. They were known for provoking.

At the same time, thank god we have people like them amongst u;, people who are not scared to push boundries, people who are ready to risk their lives for the principles of democracy.
Imagine in 1990, in Nepal, if someone had said to the protetors who were ptotesting against monarchy "be responsible, do not protest or else you will risk getting killed", we would not have had democracy. These days we are in serious lack of people who are ready to die for democratic principles.

I can't believe, so many people failed the common sense test on this thread.

NeO, kudos to you for your capsule sized effective reasoning.

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky

What happens if all around the world publish the same cartoon at a time?

Vivant,
There is difinitely simmering tension between muslim communities and native europeans in most of the european countires. And France being the country with the highest number of muslim immigrants, about 10% of the poulation is not spared. Besides France is the only western country to forbid niqab in public places. France is the country where most of the democratic principles saw their day. So it also one of the most secular societies. So they have a lot of courage to formally ban this type of costume. Niqab also symbolises women opression. Moreover in a civilised society yoru face is your identity and you are obliged to show your face when in public; this is also for security measures. Imagine in the US, you decide to wear your "makalu topi" and walk around (in the mall, at your work, in wal-mart) with your face covered. You will be thrown in jail. So why then would some women from islam walk around with their faces covered in the US, in the UK? Compared to the US and the UK, I believe France has the courage to stand up for their principles, the republican principles.
And muslims are not the kind of people who integerate easily into western countries. I am not talking about moderate muslims. Most of the muslims in France are hard-headed from Algeria, Tunesia, Morocco and other african countries. If in the US, instead of mexicans who are catholics, there were hard-headed muslims like in France, the US would be facing same kind of integration problems.

Geetmaijawafdiu? "Comedy is a form of art. A true art comes from the artist's heart and should never be a product of bias, prejudices, or a calculated agenda. This form of art should be used in such a way that the living movers and shakers of the society are gently or roughly nudged when they track-off from their societal-expectation or election-campaign promises."
How can you say that a true art should be unbiased and then in next sentance say that the art should be used to nudge people when they side-track from societal-expectation....? You are contradicting yourself.

Anyway I belive that this Charlie Hebdo incident will be a turning point and that the moderate muslims will come to realise that it is ok to make fun of their god or anyone's god for that matter. Humor is ok. And may be this will also make them realise how rediculous any religion, including theirs is.

Hurray,

Hurray,

I am with you on your conclusion that this might be a turning point within the Muslim community as far as tolerating caricature goes. The rest of your analysis has to be taken with a few grains of salt. I am not sure if it is a good use of time to opine in detail unless you are genuinely interested in reading an alternative viewpoint that is very different from yours as far as French society and Muslim immigration are concerned. Suffice it to say that issues of assimilation and marginalization in France and the rest of Europe are reaching proportions that are dangerous for France, Europe and the rest of the world. Give and take is required of all sides to solve.

Will there be more "religious tolerance" under Nepal being "Secular" or "an exclusive hindu" state?
Like some commentator commended Ujl here, do people here commends ujl's idea of promoting "religious tolerance" in Nepal by enforcing hindu traditions and cultures to everyone in Nepal?

Apparently there is more to this than meets the eye. 

@metta.... I think you consider me as a Hindu extremist who would like to impose Hinduism on everyone no matter what. You are getting me wrong.

Clarification: I can understand why you consider me a Hindu extremist. Because I once said that Nepal government takes no responsibility on teaching Upanishads to its citizen. This does not mean that I want a strict law that impose Hinduism on everybody banning all sciences. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Carl Sagan etc who were prominent scientists learned Sanskrit and considered one of the most scientific language. Stephen Hawkings thinks Vedas might contain a formula which is more superior than Einstein's theory. There is nothing wrong on doing scientific research on Vedic text. The mother of Nepali and Hindi language itself is Sanskrit. An exposure to Sanskrit language to students during their high school will increase their knowledge on metaphysical layers as well. I am not imposing this to anyone. Class will be provided, whoever are interested can join this class. Vedas and Upanishads are not something that you understand through language. It is an experience.

About Hindu traditions: There are many traditions in present Hinduism that are not sactioned by Vedas. For example: killing of animals during sacrifices. Brihadaranyaka Upanishads tells that you do not have right to interfere even the life of an ant.

Note: Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, all flourished in peace during Vedic period. These religions are still flourishing in India and Nepal.