In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris earlier this month, many are floored that participating in an arena that celebrates freedom of speech could be rationalized as a justifiable reason to be murdered.

The target of the attack was Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that leans politically left and is notoriously critical of religion and authority. The publication garnered attention for offensive, sacrilegious depictions of the prophet Mohammed.

This attack on the magazine isn’t the first. Charlie Hebdo fell victim to a firebombing attack after they issued a publication that rebranded itself on the cover as ‘Charia Hebdo’, depicting a caricature of Mohammad saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing.”

Most people don’t launch violent attacks on media institutions when they present ideas in direct conflict with their own. The cartoons featured in the magazine can be chalked up to vulgar humor by most, but attacks of terror are a horrific indication that even secular societies like France house people that take value a personal obligation to their beliefs above the lives of cynical thinkers. There’s a fine line that can be crossed and misconstrued as a personal attack on faith and invitation to physical conflict when religious commentary clashes with crude jokes.

Charlie Hebdo has an impressive rap sheet of offensive imagery- it’s  well-versed in rude depictions of naked women (see their opinionated cover on where women should wear the burka) and the previous pope, Benedict XVI. But depicting crass images of Mohammed is touchy, perhaps even more so than other faiths, because Islam bars the depiction of the prophet on theological grounds. Even if Mohammed was portrayed, say, in the midst of prayer, the image would still be sacrilegious to Muslims.

It is challenging for any person of faith to mentally contend with offensive material related to their religion. The struggling conscience of any offended person should be respected, and it is unfortunate and regrettable when any person feels personally attacked for their faith or responsible for their religion’s morally corrupt actions or statements. But no matter how offensive these images may be, this writer cannot for one minute pretend to understand or sympathize with the mind of murderers.

In response to the attacks, Pope Francis, the representative figurehead of Catholicism, expressed his sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo victims, stating that violence in the name of God is not an appropriate response to insulting something sacred. The Pope tactfully condemned violence while simultaneously speaking about the importance of respect when it comes to what religious communities hold sacred.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Charlie Hedbo overstepped the boundary between humor and offense. A terrorizing response did nothing but to generate fear and propogate the already misinformed stereotypes of the Islamic, when in actuality extremist factions in no way represent or follow the very positive and commendable five pillars of Islam.

 When belligerence propagates, in words or through militant violence, no one wins the fight.