The other day, I saw a mini-surge of gloating on Twitter about how Charlie Hebdo of "Je suis Charlie" fame had finally shown its true bigoted colors. What brought this on was Charlie's English-language editorial on the roots of the recent terror attacks in Brussels, widely read as saying that the mere presence of openly religious Muslims in Europe ultimately leads to terrorism. Not surprisingly, it has been ferociously criticized.

What to make of this?

There are those who fully agree with the view attributed to Charlie -- who believe that all Islam is in its essence radical and violent Islam and that all Muslims, even those who seem peaceful and well-integrated into Western society, are potentially
dangerous. I have repeatedly criticized this view. However, I have re-read the Charlie editorial three times, and I don't think that's what it says. I think its real point is that accommodating taboos on criticizing or even mocking religion creates a climate of intolerance and dogmatism in which extremism and militancy can flourish. That's also how it's interpreted by Brendan O'Neill (of Spiked) and by Julia Ebner in The Independent.

Ebner concedes, as do some other Charlie defenders, that the editorial makes its argument "in a clumsy way." At times its wording is convoluted, perhaps due to a misfired attempt at elegance or perhaps to the fact that it was apparently written in English by a non-native speaker. Some lines do suggest that ordinary, non-violent Muslims -- the woman in the veil, the bakery owner who doesn't sell ham and bacon sandwiches -- are complicit in terrorism, playing their own "role" in laying the groundwork for violent acts carried out by others.

In any interpretation, one can certainly disagree with many parts of the editorial. Its outlook is rooted in the aggressive secularism of the French left which is hostile to any public expression of religious belief; I don't think too many Americans, conservative or liberal, would buy the notion that a Muslim (or Jewish) baker who doesn't sell ham sandwiches "forbids you to eat what you like." Nonetheless, the editorial raises some important and troubling issues, including the basic question of how secular liberal values can endure when a large segment of the population embraces traditionalist religiosity and demands accommodation for it. (This issue is not limited to Islam, or to violent extremism; it manifests itself, for instance, in conflicts between religious and secular Jews in Israel.)

All this can be debated. (For instance, science blogger Jerry Coyne makes some excellent counterpoints.) But mostly, the response to the editorial has been knee-jerk denunciation, not debate. And some past critics of Charlie Hebdo have pounced gleefully at the editorial as an occasion for we-told-you-so's and as vindication of their victim-bashing after last year's slaughter at the magazine's offices. With enemies like that, I'd say Charlie keeps the moral high ground.