Why isn’t he Charlie?

Another terrorist event.

More tears.  More loss.  More cultural antagonism.

A magazine that turned out to add rather than taking away from the anger.  More discord and less understanding.


I wonder though.  Why can’t he be Charlie?

The cover is not nearly as incendiary as it could be.  I looked at it, and the message I saw was one of compassion and regret.  I see the person as a representative of a religion, but not necessarily the original spiritual leader.  I see him saddened and pained by the actions of terror and murder that disrespect that religion,  what it believes, and Who it believes.

I don’t understand why the image is so inflammatory.  It doesn’t specifically say who it is (if it is a specific person).  It is not ridiculing the religion (or the person).  It is not even stereotyping it.  It says only that the carnage and horror perpetrated by a very few, cause sorry and heartache to the rest.  Even if did represent a specific person, it does not cast him in a bad light, belittle him, or malign the religion.  It only displays a compassion and a feeling we in the west think could be the reaction of the leader to the misanthropy of some.

I hope that’s true.  But I doubt we’ll ever know



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: