I do not want to comment on your analysis of Charlie Hebdo. But what I infact found interesting was the use of “religion”.

The biggest problem here is the idea of what religion means tends to vary from person to person. There are multi-interpretations of religion.
The most widely held perception is a belief in superhuman existence and a controlling power or simply put God. Some people say religion existed because humans are a mix of preachers and followers. Religion is an inherited liability, inherited from ancestors/preachers who wanted others to believe in what they believed. Apparently, religion is written/made/preached/believed/followed by humans. A few other people also believe that religion is a traditional text that consisted of day-to-day experiences that were made rules of thumb. It is nothing but a documented scripture consisting of some learnings/findings just like how a scientist documents his/her findings in journals.

Unfortunately, religious texts describing a community’s belief have greatly been amended by nobody knows how/whom that every life lesson documented is related to God’s existence. The original purpose of religion was to guide man in every step of his life but its ideals have been completely distorted by opportunists. What we now have instead is a dogmatic rulebook of blind faith, intimidating myths and a ritualistic lifestyle.

What is even more sad is generalizing and assuming that a “religion’s belief” is also the belief of its community. “Religion” has taken more lives than any other war ever.