Here's a thought exercise...

[brooklynite]

Suppose Charlie Hedbo published a cartoon of a female figure wearing a burka with a bikini on the outside, next to a stereotypical drawing of an arab male, under the headline "The Saudi Arabia Women's Swim Team finds a way to address the concerns of conservative Islam".

1. Would it be satire?

2. Would it be offensive?

3. Would it be particularly offensive to Muslims and would you object to it on that basis?

Now, suppose they drew the same woman next to a stereotypical jewish male, under the headline "The Israeli Women's Swim Team finds a way to address the concerns of ultra-orthodox Judaism"

1. Would it be satire?

2. Would it be offensive?

3. Would it be particularly offensive to Jews and would you object to it on that basis?

Personally, I think both constitute satire, and both would be considered offensive by the respective religions. But I think people here would respond to the "do you object" question differently.

[PumpkinAle]

1. Perceptions

how would you respond if your personal religion were satirized in the same manner that Hebdo did for many religions?

“Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel — it’s vulgar.”

-Molly Ivins

[brooklynite]

2. I don't have one...

...but to analogize, there are plenty of publications, blog sites and news channels that satirize and/or insult my (and your) political and cultural opinions. Doesn't bother me. Perhaps it's that fact that if =I'm- comfortable with my opinions, it doesn't matter what other people think of them.

[PumpkinAle]

3. Some where on some level

there will be something you are sensitive to/about. And if someone satirized that the way the French magazine did you may have to think twice,

I enjoy satire, but I too have my "personal space" that I may not enjoy someone satirizing. What is humorous and what is offensive can be close to the mark and usually people understand that different people have different sensibilities and can turn away.

The big difference is that you and I are not madmen hell bent on proofing something and going out killing people.

[brooklynite]

4. Sorry, nope...

I've learned in my 55 years to let criticism, insults and cheap shots roll off my back. (How else could I hang out here as the resident 1%er?). I don't have a personal space I need to protect, and I'll defend to the death anyone's right to insult me.

[ret5hd]

6. Just make sure you remind us all every once in a while.

The 1%er part I mean.

[Cartoonist]

7. On some level

I've seen many editorial cartoons by conservative cartoonists. They initially anger me, especially when they are missing the point entirely. I can't say they have ever been willfully mean just for the hell of it. I think they honestly think they are presenting a valid point of view. I never feel as though they shouldn't be allowed to present that view no matter how wrong I feel it is. I always fall back and acknowledge that there is a freedom to respond to their cartoons without killing them.

As for my religion (atheism), I always feel insulted by comments like: You just don't understand God, or you haven't accepted Jesus, or other such claptrap. I consider those words spoken by idiots and deserving of no reply. Ignoring such stupidity is healthier than building anger in myself.

I will take whatever action I can when theocrats try to establish laws governing me based on their religion. Would I take up arms? It depends. Freedom is worth fighting for.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Perception certainly IS the problem

For some inexplicable reason, people around these parts perceive Islamic religious authorities as "powerless". Frankly, I chalk this up to ethnocentrism--an abject failure to evaluate Islam beyond its status in Western countries.

Yes, here, Islam is a minority religion, with little political influence. Even on the world stage, it could be properly argued that Muslim-majority nations don't command the kind of authority western nations do. But to say that Islam is "powerless" neglects the billions of individual citizens who occupy positions of even less privilege: those who, through little choice of their own, must answer to Islamic religious authorities in the literally dozens of countries where they wield REAL political power.

Islam is not the powerless party in the hypothetical situation raised in the OP. The woman, made to go ridiculous lengths to conform a mundane task to the anachronistic precepts she has no choice but to obey, is the powerless party there--and she's not the one being mocked.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I find both to be satire and meaningful, material critique of the respective

Societies involved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I don't think either would be considered offensive by the religions

Depending on the stereotype of the male used, it might be considered racially offensive - there are facial features that people object to in cartoons, and with reason - the history of Nazi cartoons is ugly. But I don't think there would be religious objections. How do you think objections would be expressed?

I think it would qualify as satire.

[Prophet 451]

10. I suspect you're right n/t