BS: The right not to be offended

Subject: BS: The right not to be offended
From: BrendanB
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:58 PM

My attention was drawn earlier today to an article in The Times (London). A church put a poster outside reading 'If you think that there is no God you had better be right'. Underneath was a picture of flames.
A passer-by complained to the police who visited the church and recorded the poster as a 'hate incident' but were unwilling to indicate what category of hate it was.
So, here is my question. I am assuming that the complainant found the poster offensive, but do any of us have a right not to be offended? I do not believe anyone can claim that right. For that reason I do not believe that any civilised country should have a blasphemy law. No religion needs or has a right to be protected by law.
The poster referred to above is not in my opinion currying hate. If it offends atheists, tough. Just as the signs posted in London a year or so ago by atheists questioning the existence of God may have offended christians, again, tough.
I accept that some statements, written and spoken, are an incitement to hatred but surely we need to be much more stringent in evaluating whether any statement is genuinely intended to incite hate with the presumption being that it is not. Otherwise there is a real danger that robust and honest debate will be outlawed and an essential freedom compromised. In the example cited above the pastor apologised and removed the poster. I think that is a shame.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 May 14 - 04:13 PM

I'm very much old enough to remember when freedom of speech was an absolutely sacred right of all British people. Now, one hardly dares open one's mouth or write anything at all in case the thought police come round. I don't find atheist posters offensive. I don't find Muslim events offensive. I don't find Christian comments offensive. I do however abhor racist or homophobic statements or public comments. The answer is our good old friend Common Sense. If one silly over-sensitive person claims to be offended, there's no reason to remove any posters for that reason alone. But if a huge number of objections are received, it's obvious there needs to be a re-think. I expect that, like every other daft trend over the past decades, the fashion for Political Correctness will fade away and people will all simmer down a bit. I hope so. (And also this silly tendency for everyone to blub like a watering can at every opportunity. Tears are for bereavement, and for very little else!)

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 May 14 - 04:22 PM

I'd have thought it would have been more likely to offend Christians, and that would lie behind the apology by the minister. And in fact the protest appears to have come from a Christian, since he's quoted as saying he objects because "Christianity is inclusive and loving in nature", and the poster didn't really fit that.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: pdq
Date: 24 May 14 - 04:33 PM

57 Muslim-majority countries call for ban on any statement they consider anti-Muslim...

Muslim leaders call for global ban on anti-Islam 'hate speech

David Stringer, Diaa Hadid, Associated Press | September 29, 2012 4:26 PM ET

Algeria demanded new efforts Saturday to limit freedom of expression to prevent denigrating attacks on Islam, appealing to the United Nations to take a lead as nations engaged in new debate on the tensions between free speech and religious tolerance.

In an address to the General Assembly, Algeria's foreign minister Mourad Medelci called for global action under the auspices of the United Nations to respond to violent demonstrations provoked by a U.S.-produced video that mocks Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

While Medelci didn't offer precise details of how he believed the UN could intervene, his call follows similar demands at the General Assembly from scores of leaders in the Muslim world who want new laws to ban insults against Islam.

On the sidelines of the annual forum, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, in an interview with The Associated Press Saturday, called for a global ban on offending the character of the Prophet Muhammad, saying that it should be equated with hate speech.
Such a ban would demonstrate how an interconnected world respected different cultural sensitivities, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said.

"If the Western world fails to understand the sensitivity of the Muslim world, then we are in trouble," Ihsanoglu said. Such provocations pose "a threat to international peace and security and the sanctity of life."

Ihsanoglu, whose organization represents 57 Muslim-majority countries, said they respect the right of freedom of expression, but believe a line has to be drawn at incitement.

"We are not saying stop free speech. We are staying stop hate speech," Ihsanoglu said.

In his speech Tuesday to the General Assembly, President Barack Obama described the anti-Islam film as "crude and disgusting," but mounted a defence of freedom of expression.

He warned that "in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities."

"The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect," Obama said.

Ihsanoglu said his call for a ban did not imply he was rewarding violent protesters, whom he sharply condemned.

Instead, he said such a ban would show a global sensitivity to the veneration which 1.5 billion Muslims have for the Prophet Muhammad. He said he was not calling for a ban on criticizing Islam, but specifically, on denigrating its founding prophet.

"You have to see that there is a provocation. You should understand the psychology of people who revere their prophet and don't want people to insult him," he said.

Ihsanoglu's call also echoed the views of other Muslim scholars and leaders, who have urged the UN and international bodies to define global standards on religious expression and to help prevent incitement — particularly Islamaphobia.

Malaysia's foreign minister Anifah Aman told the General Assembly that the creators of the anti-Islam film — an amateurish, privately produced U.S. video that mocked Muhammad's image — and those behind the publication of lewd caricatures of the prophet by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo had shown "blatant malicious intent" toward Muslims.

"When we discriminate against gender, it is called sexism. When African Americans are criticized and vilified, it is called racism. When the same is done to the Jews, people call it Anti-Semitism. But why is it when Muslims are stigmatized and defamed, it is defended as 'freedom of expression'?" Aman told the General Assembly.

You should understand the psychology of people who revere their prophet and don't want people to insult him

Aman he believed it was "time to dwell deeper into the heart of the problem and the real debate — the relationship between freedom of expression and social responsibilities, duties and obligations."

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari had called in his speech Tuesday to the General Assembly for action led by the UN to address a "widening rift" between the Muslim world and the West.

Italy and Jordan said Thursday at a meeting on the sidelines of the forum that they were already working on an initiative to promote religious tolerance, which had begun before the anti-Islam video went public. The drive to push better understanding will involve a conference of experts and academics in the coming months.

Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi also called for limits on free speech, to help protect "the world from instability and hatred."

Morsi said Wednesday his country would respect freedom of expression, but only when it "is not used to incite hatred against anyone, one that is not directed towards one specific religion or culture."

Yemen's President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi told the General Assembly on Wednesday "there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures."

Zardari warned that the "international community must not become silent observers." In a speech Tuesday he called for the criminalization of "acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression."

Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudnoyne — head of the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation — told the General Assembly on Tuesday that previous initiatives at the UN had failed to halt intolerance. The "defamation of religion persists, we have seen yet another one of its ugly faces in the film 'Innocence of Muslims'," he said.

Speaking Saturday, Liechtenstein's Foreign Minister Aurelia Frick said that the "hateful slander of people on the basis of their culture or religion is unacceptable," but did not join calls for new laws. She urged nations instead to promote values of "tolerance, understanding and mutual respect."

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 May 14 - 04:42 PM

Does anybody read those extended cut and pastes?

Better to use your own words, or a brief taster with a link if you've found someone with something especially apposite.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:47 PM

I find the sign offensive because - if God exists - it is disrespectful to him or her (I think God is neither, rather being a spirit).

The reason I say that is that we human beings innately KNOW that torture is evil. How can God be evil?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:51 PM

I'm offended by television and commercials on general principles. I don't like most perfumes and deodorizers people wear because the odors are offensive. I am offended by most Republicans in the US and Conservatives in Canada. On top of that, I don't think anyone but me gives a damn that I'm offended. Who should I complain to about it?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:19 PM

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

    Stephen Fry

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:46 PM

"Offending" isn't really the issue, or shouldn't be. It's when there is a question of people actually being hurt, or of language making it more likely that people will get hurt as a result. Primarily physical hurt, but other types of hurt matter too.

Stephen Fry might feel relaxed about anti-gay talk and so forth, but he's in a pretty powerful position in dealing with it compared to many other gay people.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:49 PM

we human beings innately KNOW that torture is evil. How can God be evil?

Because it tortures the beings it created?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:24 PM

One morning on my way to work a young lady in a headscarf got on the bus and before she sat down she asked did I minded if she sat beside me, in an apologetic way and I said 'yes of course' it would never have occurred to me to say no or object. Then it occurred to me after that she had obviously felt shame about the tragic incident carried out by two extreme Muslim fundamentals in the UK to a soldier home on leave. It was not long after that event. At first I felt offended by the situation and British attitude (not the lady) that she should feel the need to ask permission to sit by me on a bus because of the actions of someone else. It seems that the Newspapers are hellbent on creating and stirring up as much bigotry and trouble as they possibly can.

It is a sad state of affairs that Britain has gone so OTT in political correctness and double standard with everything else it isn't the Britain that I grew up in and knew. Times change I know and one has to adapt but this particular generation has become so artificial even down to the 'blubbing of tears' I would add to that the growing trend of grown women screaming with delight every five minutes. Not with passion no just because someone else has put a lick of paint on their walls! I blame Simon Cowell and Jeremy Kyle.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:41 PM

Because it tortures the beings it created?

I always assumed that was WHY it created them.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 03:53 AM

Offence is relative. Ask anyone who develops a mental health problem through stigmatisation by others.

The story at the beginning of this thread was, as was later pointed out, a person saying it offended his Christianity. An excellent example of the psychopathology of religion. You set your own personality and if you set it in tune with your interpretation of an abstraction such as a religion, you become very possessive about it. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism as an answer to being fucked over by Western business interests and post colonialism being a point in case.

Religion will always be at the heart of offence claims as faith requires it to be the true something or other and people get angry when the nonsense bits are pointed out to them. As the then UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee said at the time, he doesn't mind being called a Christian, he just doesn't go for the mumbo jumbo aspects of it. For the actual quote, see a later post by my editor.

At this time, the police and judiciary are applying simplistic legal interpretations to legislation aimed at promoting common sense and decency. It will be some time before the silly season of knee jerk interventions that exacerbate the issue start falling off.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:05 AM

"... she asked did I minded if she sat beside me, in an apologetic way and I said 'yes of course' ..."

This suggests that you DID mind.

Maybe I'm being picky, but there are times when a lack of clarity in the use of language can result in offence through misunderstandings.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:24 AM

Don't be daft GUEST, it's obvious what Patsy meant. If anyone asked me such a question on a bus, I'd want to take their hand, pat it gently and say, "Of course I don't mind." And I totally agree with you Patsy, this isn't the Britain I grew up in and loved, it's become a strange land in a way.
I do feel as if people today are obsessed with their own rights and entitlements. They have an inflated idea of the importance of their own 'feelings'. As bobad quotes, "So f****** what?"
Religion and Politics, two subjects to be avoided in the Officers' Mess!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 May 14 - 05:18 AM

Religion and Politics, two subjects to be avoided in the Officers' Mess!

Don't forget "the Memsahibs", Eliza. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:35 AM

Hahahaha! Yes Will, I forgot about that one. Mustn't bandy the name of a lady about in the Mess. Shockingly bad form, don't you know, eh what?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 14 - 10:01 AM

It seems that the Newspapers are hellbent on creating and stirring up as much bigotry and trouble as they possibly can.

Not just the newspapers in the U.S. - the Republican Party is hard at it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 14 - 11:33 AM

The original sign was just a partial, inflammatory paraphrasing of Pascal's Wager. I am offended ...ummm.. frustrated because so few recognize the silly logic-- or lack therof... behind it.

Signs like that, in many formats, are becoming a regular routine of Facebook postings. Countering such silliness could become an exercise in "tilting at windmills".

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 May 14 - 11:49 AM

"A church put a poster outside reading 'If you think that there is no God you had better be right'. Underneath was a picture of flames."

Maybe they were having a Parrish Bar-B-Que!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Kit Griffiths
Date: 25 May 14 - 11:56 AM

I think that I have the right to be offended, but I do not think that I have the right NOT to be offended. Isn't that what freedom of speech and freedom of belief is all about?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:11 PM

Good one, Kit!
People get so pissy at just about anything...even silly notions that they hold up as 'noble'!...and go into tizzies if you beg to differ!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:42 PM

Everyone waking up human has the "right" to be offended at will; but there is no escaping responsibility for being offended, which is a self-induced state of compromised affinity. Translating it into blame of others is the critical point of failure. Personally I think being offended is a waste of time, even though I indulge in it sometimes when the noise levels get too loud.

The proponent of respect for the sacred person of Allah's prophet is missing the big piece of the puzzle: respect cannot be enforced, and a free civilization requires the right to question authority openly. There is nothing inherently hateful about questioning a religion's premises, until it is done in a hateful manner.

To confuse dialogue with hate because of a personal sense of reverence for something or someone is a sad and misguided position, because it cuts off human interchange.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Jeri
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:46 PM

Having no right NOT to be offended means you're required to be offended. You have a right to be either/or or both, IMO. I don't believe you have the right to tell other people they may not offend you, though. People try all the time, and it just doesn't work. (Especially on the internet, where people may actually be getting their kicks trying to offend you.)

If it's me, bring marshmallows.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:59 AM

Just before the semantics of offence get lost in the fog, I would suggest the right to be offended is in two parts.

You are offended. This is a reaction therefore choice doesn't appear in this context.

You feel conditioned to be offended. What caused that conditioning ? In the example that formed the original post, someone's interpretation of their religion was not shared by members of said religion.

It doesn't have to be religious either. A member of a political party could hear a party spokesman and feel that wasn't the party they joined.

The right not to be offended is the same thing really.

Taking offence can be healthy. Even when you are not directly affected as in the two scenarios above. Both can be spurred on to influence the direction of the religion or political party.

If you have no right to be offended, it could mean you look the other way when people are discriminating against others on the basis you aren't black / gay / disabled / immigrant etc.

Luckily, a mark of decency is the ability to be offended and advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:16 AM

I believe there are limits to what people should be allowed to post publicly, not just to not give offence, but to avoid doing actual harm.
Up to fairly recently there was a seedy little religious shop (can't remember what they're called) on O'Connell Street, in the centre of Dublin which, during an election, set up a trestle table on the pavement outside festooned with posters declaring that a vote for such-and-such a candidate would be giving a license to his party to burn babies (a reference to the change in the pregnancy-termination laws following the death of a young woman in Galway)
This was not only extremely offensive to some women at a very vulnerable stage of their lives, but also, it was a perfect example of the Church interfering in politics.
As far as religion is concerned, what should be allowed to be said publicly should be governed by the prevailing circumstances, IMO.
Here in Ireland, we have the 'Glorious Twelfth' to look forward to in the North in the next month or so.
I shudder to think what would happen if posters appeared attacking one or the other religion, or preachers appeared on street corners advocating for this or that brand of god and the devil - wouldn't do the peace process much good, certainly, not people's windows.
I wonder if those advocating for the right to criticise the Muslim religion are be happy to see Christianity openly vilified in countries where it is the minority belief and regarded as hostile to the indigenous faith.
Personally, I have no religion, and would be over the moon to see all religions become a matter of personal choice, and certainly not taught to children before they are old enough to make their own choices, but until that time comes, we must learn to respect beliefs that are not our own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:46 AM

Well, the poster prays on the weaknesses of people who can't see the stupidity of religion.
The vulneable who havn't the mental capacity to separate fact from fiction!
Those who have fallen pray to evil indoctrination.
Maybe, those people do need laws to protect them!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:42 AM

I agree that being offended about something is not a matter of choice, it is primarily an emotional reaction which might then be rationalised intellectually. My point is that there are some groups who seem to believe that they have the right not to be offended and that they should be legally protected against such offence.   The most obvious (to my mind) example of this is blasphemy legislation.
Being offended is not pleasant, hearing something which one holds dear being denigrated is deeply unpleasant, but none of us should have a legal right to protection from that. In my experience being offended has led me to having a more open and accepting attitude to the views of others because it has made me wonder why others do not share my world view and to read and listen to other views.
Protection from offence closes down debate. I know that some offensive behaviour is no more than puerile foot stamping or 'look at me' posturing but that too we just have to deal with.

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

I don't watch much television and I usually avoid the adverts, so I don't know if this, or my reaction, are normal, but recently I saw an advert for a supermarket that began seemingly to stress the importance of a proper breakfast - so far, so good - but then showed the making of a bacon sandwich, with the voiceover stressing the importance not of breakfast, but of BACON. I can't recall the exact words but was left with the impression that I was being told that bacon was a very important part of "our" way of life. It ended by explaining that this was why the supermarket's bacon was such a reasonable price.
Would Muslims find this offensive?
Would Jews find this offensive?
Might the makers of the advert have been aware of these possibilities?
Have I become over sensitive to the possibility of causing offence?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:29 AM

I was in Dubai during Ramadan the other year. The advice in the hotel was that as a non Muslim nobody expects me to fast.

However, when some poor sod is thirsty and sees me guzzling a bottle of water, it can't be nice for them so drink discreetly in the cordened off places made available in most hotels and shops.

A Muslim friend sent us a Christmas card and we reciprocated. Neither of us are Christians but celebrating Xmas is a British thing every bit as much as a religious one.

The only thing to be offended by is fundamental Christians claiming Xmas should revert to some religious festival. Fine. Enjoy. I'll enjoy it on my way and the little baby Jesus isn't a necessary part of it. Family, food, wine and the giving of presents. That's enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 May 14 - 08:42 AM

Tunesmith: "Well, the poster prays on the weaknesses of people who can't see the stupidity of religion.
The vulneable who havn't the mental capacity to separate fact from fiction!"

...or even when idiots turn their politics into a religion!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 14 - 01:59 PM

Brendan has it pretty well straight.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:00 PM

There we are, Musket. Common sense. 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? And if they are indeed tolerant, why can't the 'stirrers' let them BE tolerant? Why inflame situations which aren't in fact a problem? People are starving, suffering and dying elsewhere. Does a daft poster really matter in the general scale of things?

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:09 PM

While it is true that people sometimes take offence when they shouldn't, to extend that into the principle that there are never occasions when it is right to be offended and wrong to give offence is nonsense.

Does anyone think that when Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross made that phone call to Andrew Sachs he had no grounds for being offended, and that other people ad no right to criticising the offenders?

Just for example.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:15 PM

"until that time comes, we must learn to respect beliefs that are not our own"

Tolerate, put up with or suffer maybe, but respect? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:46 PM

It's a joke.
Take the Pope's visit to the - so-called - Holy Lands.
He's being accompanied by a Muslim and Jewish cleric.
All very civilised!
But, why haven't those clerics got the balls to tell the Pope that Jesus was not the Son of God, and didn't die - for our sins - rise again and ascend to heaven!
Monstrous hypocrites, the lot of them!

Subject: RE: BS: The right not to be offended
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 26 May 14 - 04:24 PM

How do you know those differences were not discussed, tunesmith?. Some people can discuss differences without being offended, or selling out on their convictions.                  Seems that those who shout the loudest about others being offensive, are more than happy to foul mouth abuse the objects of their disagreement.

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!

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: 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: 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: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 May 14 - 10:40 PM

Well said, Steve.

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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,Mrr at work
Date: 28 May 14 - 09:55 PM

Rat own, Steve Shaw!

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,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 - 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,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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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,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,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: 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 - 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: 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,#
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: 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: 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 - 10:31 AM

OK TC.
So why is he still doing it?

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: 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: 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: 03 Jun 14 - 03:22 AM

Preferably different parties.

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 - 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 - 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,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: 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: 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: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:08 PM

Indeed. The right not to be offended.