According to early reports, the three gunmen who slaughtered an office full of French cartoonists and two police officers, said, as they departed the scene, “We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed…” Charlie Hebdo, the magazine, is essentially dead at the hands of religious zealotry.

For what, you might ask, did Mohammed demand revenge? The publication of several cartoons that bore his resemblance, generally in unflattering or disturbing ways. Seemingly, cartoons required that infidel blood be shed in the streets of Europe’s most secular of republics.

There is no news flash embedded in the words below, and I am not pretending to aim for, much less hit, profundity. My thoughts are not unique, but I hope they are at least timely.

Free governments are, for most of us in the West, a fact of life. They are not all that remarkable because they are so common. In the West, freedom is assumed. Yes, our freedoms are contracted every now and then, sometimes in critical ways, but we are still people who are able to live, largely, as we see fit. We are free to howl at the moon, or to study it. We may live a life of frivolity or one of quiet devotion.

Unfailingly, free governments are built on a set of simple ideals. Citizens, not the government, wield the ultimate power. Citizens must hold their governments accountable, usually through some sort of electoral process, which demands the unfiltered flow of information. We must have free speech in order to chatter, persuade, cajole, and debate.

Cartoons of a naked Mohammed are not political discourse. They exist to ridicule. They are distasteful and offensive and inflammatory. The only proper response of a free man or woman is to say, “So what.”

When forces in society, be they governmental (at the worst) or cultural or religious, limit discussion by declaring some topics, or personages, or beliefs, beyond ridicule, those forces endanger free societies. In a free nation, nothing is beyond lampooning. Neither cows nor prophets are so sacred that they cannot be the punchline to someone’s joke, even if the jest is juvenile.

This is, like it or not, one of the cardinal tenets of what it means to be free. You are free to make fun of my God. I am free to make fun of yours.

The reality is simple. Islam too often rubs up against this cardinal tenet of free speech. Though the overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t drive around shooting people with AK-47s, and we should always hold fast to that truth, we, as free societies, must foster some basic beliefs that are non-negotiable. Free speech is at the heart of those beliefs. There is only a small range of appropriate responses to speech we find objectionable: argue against it, ignore it, make fun of it, or educate away from it. Notice that weaponry, violence, and revenge are not included on that list.

Western civilization must choose, at some point, between its multicultural tenets and its philosophical commitment to free expression. Our leaders must take a clear position on this matter, not so they might inflame Muslims, but so they make it clear that regardless of the offense, they will neither support nor encourage violence against free speech. They must state a commitment that outstrips their desires to curry favor for the next election. They must resist the temptation to offend no one, and thereby tacitly excuse or bless such conduct. They must pursue justice against those who perpetrate violence in the name of offense and they must do so unblinkingly.

Of course, they can choose to turn a blind eye. They can choose to blame Charlie Hebdo. They can choose to coddle instead of prosecute. If they do, let’s be clear that they are choosing, deliberately, to turn away from freedom and toward something altogether different. And if they make this choice, we should toss them from office and find leaders, no matter their party, that understand freedom and are willing to defend it as necessary.