BS: The right not to be offended

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:08 PM

Indeed. The right not to be offended.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:47 PM

Some people do not need a link to support one's case for such things as
feelings, inventions, novel fantasy thoughts, religion, opinions, poems, eureka moments or humor in all its forms.

When it comes to offense I can take it or leave it. I choose to do neither. I prefer to either make a fense to draw a line between sense and nonsense or when the ignorant are trying to be offensive I just try to ignorit.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 09:40 AM

He doesn't need to keep up any pretence FFS. Of course he's a two-faced liar - he's a f***ing POLITICIAN!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:58 AM

Keith A said:
"You claimed GW started pretending to have faith to get elected, but he has no reason to pretend now, so you were wrong as ever"

Don't be daft! Of course, he's got to keep up the pretence, otherwise some people might think he's a two-faced liar!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:53 AM

Your habit of saying "as a Christian"

How can it be a habit when I have NEVER said it?

You claimed GW started pretending to have faith to get elected, but he has no reason to pretend now, so you were wrong as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:51 AM

Of course you pretend. You said yourself you don't actually believe the bits that cannot physically happen. Remember? I called you a boutique Christian and said only pete takes it seriously. That makes him daft as a brush admittedly.

Your habit of saying "as a Christian" when trying to make someone's point look bad means your Christianity can be analysed and challenged. If your bag of sweets was purchased from the pick n mix stall, it precludes any moral substance to debate as it is effectively meaningless.

Still, you must enjoy the social side and good for you. Just don't keep bringing it to the debate. It cannot have value outside of your personal interpretation of faith.

pete on the other hand can. It's called the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

Probably for the same reasons you do.

Yes.
Not pretending then.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:22 AM

Preferably different parties.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:13 PM

You both would be wonderful at a party. Such wit.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:47 PM

Probably for the same reasons you do.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:15 PM

Attending church that is?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:31 AM

OK TC.
So why is he still doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:08 AM

Yeah but it makes me smile to think you clicked it.

Anyway, I am sure there are plenty of articles out there comparing the separation of religion and government verses the need to take Jesus with you out on the trail. I'm sure I've read a few for that matter. Dubya was an alcoholic waster with a rich famous father. One of the first things he had to do in order to eventually run for political office was to start attending church again. Then sober up. In that order....

Etc etc



TC

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:51 AM

For a crazy moment I thought Musket had matured enough to actually support his case with something.
A actual link!

But no.
Just the same old naughty word, and him so pleased with himself for knowing it.

We all learned it in junior school or earlier silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:56 AM

Eureka. I have discovered the single-helix DNA structure of believers.

Religions and their adherents.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:51 AM

Here you are Keith, as you asked nicely.

US politicians who profess false faith claims

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:44 AM

It has been said lots of times, but no elected politician in Washington DC admits to being an atheist.
Now it is, of course, mathematically impossible that there aren't any atheist within their ranks. They can't all be that stupid!
But the fact that atheists in Washington are afraid to " come out of the closet" is another example of the corrupting nature of religion.
Almost everyday we read about the craziness that is religious belief.
We must, as a species, leave all that mumbo jumbo where it belongs - in the dark days of history - with those ignorant, primitive people who invented it!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:17 AM

Musket, you say you can find a few million rational people who believe US politicians are pretending to be Christians.

I doubt it.

Do they renounce their faith when they retire?
No.
Did they only take it up when they entered politics?
No.
Are you talking bollocks?
Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:42 AM

The problem is that followers of religion insist on pushing their silly beliefs on the rest of us!
Have your fairy tales, but don't put " In God We Trust " on dollar bills! Or sing " God Save the Queen".
It is religious propoganda!
Don't start Parliament off with prayers.
Don't allow our children to suffer religious indoctrination!
Stop it!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:27 AM

As a healthcare professional, I am used to patients who feel they have the right to hurl abuse, question the capability of those giving care and be offended by the slightest thing.

In return, we have the right to tighten our lips, find common ground, explain rather than challenge, apologise if it diffuses the situation even if you have nothing to apologise for and wait for the complaints to come in anyway.

Luckily, this is less than 1% of patients. But a rather loud <1% all the same. You learn the difference between being offended and recieving offence.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Dáithí
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:47 AM

I think that most of the world's ills stem from some people telling other people what to think, what they should do, what they can or can't say say.
In my opinion, anybody should be able to say what they like. And be considered wrong by those who disagree with them.
If somebody wants to believe that the world is flat, the holocaust didn't happen, Mahler is better than Mozart - they have every right to do so.And those who disagree also have the right to think them wrong.
Who gave anybody else the right to dictate what I can and can't think?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 09:00 AM

Hang on Keith, I'll see if I can find any eminent hacks to say exactly that.

Nope. I can only find a few million rational people.

I must be talking bollocks.

----------

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:57 AM

American politicians started pretending before they even grew up, so they must plan their careers very early there.
Or you are talking bollocks again.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:43 AM

I can think of many politicians who don't believe in all that religious nonsense and I presume they inform their politics with their morality?

Unlike Dumbfuckistan, you don't have to pretend to believe in God in order to be elected over here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 12:08 PM

Are you saying that politicians have 'morals' based on their politics??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:41 AM

What have morals to do with it Goofus? I know I may regret asking but I expect politicians to make moral judgements.

The idea that you need religion in order to have a moral compass is as laughable as it is contemptible.

(Presumably, the wonderful grammar he employed gives him wriggle room...)

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:52 AM

Tunesmith: "And, that is exactly why no person with religious allegiances should be allowed to hold political power...of any sort!"

Nor should persons holding political power should make moral or religious judgements, either!...(after all, they would not have been politicians if they were).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 12:16 PM

Religion is politics though. Controlling society to your way of thinking.

The difference being, religions don't take kindly to being challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,TUNESMITH
Date: 29 May 14 - 11:09 AM

Let's be fair, if your God tells you that something is evil, then you are duty bound to speak out against such evil!
After all, God's wishes trump any earthly authority!
And, that is exactly why no person with religious allegiances should be allowed to hold political power...of any sort!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:02 AM

Northern Ireland's first minister, Peter Robinson has defended a pastor who preaches that Muslims are not to be trusted and are evil, by saying the pastor has a duty to denounce false prophesy.

This coming from a politician who by law represents all, including Muslims, other religions and rational people living within the province.

Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 28 May 14 - 09:55 PM

Rat own, Steve Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:24 PM

The OP should remember , a southern man don't need him around anyhow. Sweet Home Alabama ...

who gives a shit

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 14 - 11:52 AM

"The right not to be offended"

Sounds like, just another choice people make. Sometimes you do....sometimes you don't.

Quick!..Call the 'brain police'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 14 - 09:17 PM

Up with it you should not put.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 May 14 - 07:47 PM

The right not to be offended
The right to not be offended
The right to be not offended
The right to be offended not

Piss on all that. I still have the right not to give a fuck, and I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 May 14 - 07:03 PM

No right to be not offended, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 14 - 06:59 PM

For example, back in the 1950s, I - and my 11 yr old class mates - were informed by a teacher that if we deliberately missed mass on Sunday and then was knocked down and killed on Monday, we would be sent to the fires of hell!
Now, in anyone's language this must be seen as child abuse...

We were told exactly the same things, and child abuse it certainly is. But nothing riles people of religion more than telling them that even the most nicely dressed-up version of their faith peddled to their offspring by their schools and by themselves is child abuse. You tell young children that they must believe in something that has no foundation at all in evidence and which they are being told because of the accident of the place of their birth and you are indulging in the very opposite of what education should be about.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 May 14 - 06:09 PM

We sometimes meet a Bangladeshi couple in Tesco's. Their son goes to the same gym as my husband. Every time our paths cross and we've all "Salaam aleikum-ed", the wife starts on at me to become a Muslim 'for my husband's sake'. We aren't exactly offended, but it gets a bit much. They're fundamentalist Shiite Muslims, whereas my husband is a Sunni. We've taken to hiding behind the clothing racks until they've gone. Now if I were 'Mrs Very Cross from Norfolk', I'd get all het up and Christian, and give this lady what for. But I try to see the funny side. (If I get any more wrinkled, fat and crone-like, I might be better off in a veil, after all.) And at my church, one or two ladies have hinted that my husband might 'find Jesus'. Again, one has to giggle. (Perhaps He's hiding behind the wardrobe?) One can indeed 'choose NOT to be offended'.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 May 14 - 06:05 PM

Bill D, I agree with pretty much everything that you say.   If you want to find the source that some extreme radical muslims use for justification I think you should examine the Hadith rather than the Qur'an.
For a radical feminist critique of the Hadith I would recommend Fatima Mernissi. It is fascinating to read her in conjunction with the Hadith and to see how misinterpretation (some of it wilful) has led to so much sadness and avoidable tragedy.
I have no doubt that there are people out there who could address Christian tradition in the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: PHJim
Date: 27 May 14 - 04:24 PM

From: GUEST,Eliza - PM
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:24 AM

"Don't be daft GUEST, it's obvious what Patsy meant."

After reading over the quote from Patsy, it is obvious that she meant the exact opposite of what she said, like GUEST, at first I took her to mean exactly what she said. I don't blame the guest for pointing this out.

While I have stopped pointing it out how wrong it is, it still causes me to wince when someone says, "I could care less," when what they actually mean is the opposite, "I couldn't care less."

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 14 - 11:17 AM

Eliza asked reasonably: . I'm not offended when my husband performs his prayers on the floor facing Mecca and intones the Arabic prescribed words. I'm a practising Christian and he's not offended by my trotting off to Holy Communion on a Sunday. If we can actually live in the same house and be tolerant, why can't people live in the same town and be likewise?

Because of the tendency of some to take certain scriptural lines as admonitions to do otherwise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me

"And he saith unto them, Follow me,
and I will make you fishers of men."

I do not have at hand any references to specific reasons many Muslims consider so many things to be 'punishable insults' to Allah, though I assume there must be some.

Some people are simply raised to reason that... "If our way is the right way, any other way must be wrong."... and it is not hard to move from that to "We have the right to either convert them or punish them."

This is all subsumed under the common attitude of condemning 'different' as 'bad'.

I'm sorry if that seems too simplistic an answer, and there are of course, complex explications of the simple form.... but humans have always distrusted and resisted 'different'. It takes patience, reasoning and effort to escape stereotyped beliefs and interact sanely.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 27 May 14 - 08:59 AM

In the UK, there have been a number of high profile "historical" sex abuse cases been brought to trial involving a number of famous celebrities.
Now, where do we a draw a line with these retrospective prosecutions.
For example, back in the 1950s, I - and my 11 yr old class mates - were informed by a teacher that if we deliberately missed mass on Sunday and then was knocked down and killed on Monday, we would be sent to the fires of hell!
Now, in anyone's language this must be seen as child abuse, but where are the prosecutions?
I could find hundreds and thousands of former Catholic School pupils who would confirm what I have said.
But where are the prosecutions?
Child abuse is child abuse is child abuse!
Of course, this happened nearly 60yrs ago, but if a child was sexually abused - "touched up" even - 60 yrs ago the police would - in the present climate - have to investigate.

And, one wonders if similar "mental" child abuse might be happening in the UK today within other faiths.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: BrendanB
Date: 27 May 14 - 07:05 AM

I do not see how anyone can be denied the right to be offended, any more than they can be denied the right to liking the smell of roses.
What matters, I believe, is how people react to being offended. Demanding a right to reply; defending one's position; demonstrating the hypocrisy, dishonesty, intolerance, bigotry (if any or all of those are identifiable) of the offender - all of these are valid and justifiable. What I take issue with is the idea that anyone should have a legal right to protection from offence.
On the other hand, this requires a clear differentiation between behaviour which is simply offensive and offensive behaviour which is designed to encourage hatred, persecution or the demeaning of a group or class of people; which contributes to damaging the community or places other's safety at risk. Any society claiming to be civilised would surely wish to outlaw behaviour of that kind.
As with so many issues that seem initially obvious and straightforward the more one examines it the greater become its complexities.   Maybe there is some point in forgiving ones enemies and turning the other cheek? It couldn't be as simple as just loving one another, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 May 14 - 01:14 AM

A lot of prejudice and assumption feeds the right not to be offended. They are the two drivers of offending whilst defying people to be offended.

A good example of assuming offence is mentioned above. I gave an example of experiencing religious tolerance and was accused of not tolerating religion.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 11:09 PM

It was???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 May 14 - 10:40 PM

Well said, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:00 PM

I don't have the right to not be offended but I do have the right to take offence, but I'd better be ready to defend my taking of offence if challenged. I don't believe that there is an untrammelled sacred right to "free speech". All too often, the ardent scoundrel supporters of "free speech" (more often than not yanks in my internet experience, who inhabit the Land Of The Free in which you're free to get all your facts from Faux News and carry a lethal weapon in your pants pocket) want to be able to express hatred and prejudice without consequences for themselves. One fellow I know, too close to me for comfort, thinks that we should all have the right to publicly deny the Holocaust without penalty. Well, to me, you have no right to do that. For a start, the overwhelming body of facts is utterly against you, and, in my experience, I've never come across a Holocaust denier/belittler/demurrer that isn't one hundred percent antisemitic, a stance which is simply one of unqualified hatred and bigotry. You shouldn't be allowed to preach anything that threatens or terrifies anyone else or that makes them frightened of criticising you back. These days, you can often avoid stuff that you know might offend you (though there are people hereabouts who love to be offended, it seems), but, even if it creeps up on you by surprise, you have the right to complain. Just decide first whether you're feeling truly offended or whether you're just being sanctimonious. I see an awful lot of sanctimonious behaviour, bordering at times on the sheer hypocritical, in these "controversial" threads, typically from people who wish to use it as a screen for their own racism, homophobia or religious delusions. I've always found that a thick skin and a cool head serves both to protect you from idiots and to thoroughly annoy them at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:45 PM

Do you believe in tearing into your own friends like that Tunesmith? If so, I wouldn't imagine you'd have much opportunity to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 06:29 PM

Perform miracles???..maybe they weren't miracles....maybe it's what we all have access to doing as normal, if we didn't think as small as we do.....but then, one has to start off believing in the separation of 'Church' and hate.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:00 PM

What's to discuss! Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin, could perform miracles, was the son of God etc. but followers of Islam and Judaism believe that that is a load of nonsense!
But, they won't come out and say it!
Cowardly hypocrites, supporting each others fairy tales!