The right size of the attack in Paris

After the first stage of complete disdain for the bombing of Paris, the further away from the time of the massacre, the greater the reflections on the reasons that have caused the attack. There is widespread discussion was about the real opportunity to publish cartoons so offensive; that fact would provide a pretext for the bombers do their gesture. The nature of this reflection concerned, logically Islamic circles, but also Christians and secularists. The recent declaration of the Pope, which was preceded by a condemnation of violence, it is placed in the same vein, denouncing the offense to any religion. On the other hand, it is logical that the highest representative of the Catholic Church will side in defense of religious respect, something that certainly should not be contradicted, but, it is also true that it is not the right reflection on the disproportion of the reaction of the Islamic fundamentalists. The proper evaluation of the non proportionality between the offense occurred through the cartoons and the penalty imposed by the terrorists, is not even from different sectors lay people who would rather have to think about the possibilities offered by the legislation in force, in this case the French, to punish offenses against religion. The reasoning seems superfluous, instead wants to introduce a reflection that has not been done by virtually anyone. Reasoning in this way, which basically means that cartoonists were asking for it, hiding a far more important aspect: if they had not hit the satirical newspaper, we are sure that the terrorists would not have taken another attack? The problem is, it is not satire, even in bad taste, against religion; if so, the solution would be to make a law that prohibits this kind of satire, but the attacks and the hostile attitude of the fundamentalists against the West would remain unchanged. Essentially what is alarming that the debate is focused on whether or not that satire against Islam is permitted and constitutes a danger to the stability Western. The smallness of this argument diverts the focus on the real problems, of which the attack against a satirical newspaper was only a tragic symptom. By analogy then you could say that the Boston marathon runners were offensive against Muhammad or commuters in Madrid against Islam and that the London Underground was not in compliance with the religious precepts. What is being lost sight of is the aversion increasingly radical fundamentalist Islam that is developing against the West and its way of life, often rejected by the Islamic Western citizens. On this aspect, European governments must work with a view to preventing non-violent: to present the best possible solution as a democratic form of government and not take it for granted and guarantee religious freedom to make sense that this is a universal guarantee. However this is not an easy task, given that in Islam the division between politics and religion does not exist. This could be one of the major reasons that underlie the lack of integration of some Muslims, the most extremist, in Western societies. The relationship between politics and Islam goes back more often to the one conceived by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the absolute match between the administration of public affairs with the religious element, until they become one; not surprisingly opponents of brotherhood, secular and moderate Muslims have spoken of Islamic fascism. This vision, in fact, no exceptions and is the same that underlies the exercise of power of the caliphate or Boko-Haram, which translates sharia in legal norms. Such religious fundamentalism, which is easy to practice and tangible in the territory administered by the Islamic state, exercises, undoubtedly, a high degree of attraction to young Westerners, who are fascinated by the proclamations of the conquest of the West by blacks flags of the caliphate. This data is irrefutable and that is to be covered by non-military preventive action of the Western democracies, which must have elements of attraction such as to defeat those proposed by Islamic extremism. Returning to the beginning of the speech must store the discussion about the legitimacy of satire on religion and give it for granted, until you take, unfortunately, to enact a law of censorship and focus on the protection of potential targets that Islamic terrorism will strike.