Camille Bordenet wondered in Le Monde, a year ago, "whether the crime of blasphemy can be invoked in France", which does not exist in French common law, but does exist in Alsace. After the recent attacks in Paris, François Hollande has taken a position on the matter, recalling that freedom of expression is an inalienable right, while blasphemy is not even covered by the law.

La Vanguardia has become involved in such a delicate issue following the aggression suffered by Charlie Hebdo. Marcel Mauri, in fact, after noting that information professionals are massively in favor of favoring an unlimited freedom "in religious humor", recognizes that a majority of citizens are against it sample . And while stressing that freedom of expression is non-negotiable, he advises caution, because "religion is subject also sensitive here" (here and everywhere, one might add). And so the degree scroll of his article is very expressive: "The media are not Charlie Hebdo", as if establishing a difference between one and the others...

The newspaper Ara has also echoed the controversy, giving the floor to Daniel Gamper, Marta Tafalla, Lluís Duch and Marc Marginedas. This discussion to four discovers that for some people religion is a mere ideology, while for others it is a belief. Conceptualization is decisive when it comes to delimiting the problem.

When speaking of beliefs, it is wise to listen to theologians. In his monumental History of Christian Thought, Josep Gil has described two basic and opposing characteristics of our postmodern times: secularism and its counterfeit, secularism. agreement With laicism, however, there would be no consensus, because it is belligerent and does not respect religious freedom.

It is obvious that blasphemy is a religious concept (an insult to religion); whereas, in the secular or civil sphere (that of the rights of individuals), one speaks rather of "offense to religious feelings". However, the unlimited right of expression should never provoke such an offense. The conclusion of Le Monde: "The Republic protects the citizen, but not his beliefs", is not sufficient, because the citizen has religious feelings anchored precisely in his beliefs.