Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

[Smoke]

If is wrong to offend violent religious fanatics? Must we admit that every point of view is equally valid, provided that it's a religious point of view?

If, for instance, you learned that a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad had been arrested for blasphemy and was threatened with forty lashes and imprisonment, and if you learned that a Briton had, in disgusted reaction, named a dog Muhammad, would you be more offended by the Briton's naming of his dog than by the schoolteacher's plight?

 

[Storm]

Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

It might not be a good idea....

Must we admit that every point of view is equally valid, provided that it's a religious point of view?

No.

If, for instance, you learned that a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad had been arrested for blasphemy and was threatened with forty lashes and imprisonment, and if you learned that a Briton had, in disgusted reaction, named a dog Muhammad, would you be more offended by the Briton's naming of his dog than by the schoolteacher's plight?

Absolutely not.

 

[vandervalley]

It's wrong to offend anyone but it's not wrong to express your opinion in a legal manner

 

[Buttercup]

If is wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word....but it sure is dumb and not worth it.

 

[Smoke]

I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word....but it sure is dumb and not worth it.

If you're an atheist queer, you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

 

[Buttercup]

If you're an atheist queer, you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

Could you explain that a bit more my love?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think it's "wrong" because then you'll be punched in the face....

 

[standing_alone]

If is wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

No, though, of course, religious fanatics can be quite a dangerous bunch--which is precisely the reason you shouldn't tip-toe around their sensibilities. Religious extremism is dangerous and threatening to a humane and free society and should be fought against. That religous fanatics (and those moderates who find a need to excuse their extremism) are offended by criticism and reasonable challenge to their often barbaric behavior is merely inconvenient for them and unavoidable, but that's no reason not to call barbarism for what it is and work to eliminate it.

Must we admit that every point of view is equally valid, provided that it's a religious point of view?

No, that would be foolish. Not all points-of-view are equally valid--and they certainly must not be treated as equally valid especially when they are playing a crucial role in national and world events, or being used to justify inequality, violence, or barbarism.

If, for instance, you learned that a schoolteacher who allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad had been arrested for blasphemy and was threatened with forty lashes and imprisonment, and if you learned that a Briton had, in disgusted reaction, named a dog Muhammad, would you be more offended by the Briton's naming of his dog than by the schoolteacher's plight?

I find the treatment of the school teacher far more offensive and intolerable than a Briton naming his dog after a religious figure. The name of the dog merely offends some people's sensibilities, while the punishment of the school teacher has very real physical, psychological, societal, etc. consequences.

 

[Smoke]

Could you explain that a bit more my love?

Violent religious fanatics are already offended by my atheism and my homosexuality, so what have I got to lose?

In England, it used to be a capital crime to steal livestock. Since you would be hanged if you were caught stealing a lamb or a full-grown sheep, you might as well go ahead and steal the sheep. Hence the saying, "as well hanged for a sheep as a lamb."

 

[yossarian22]

Never disagree with a loaded gun

 

[Buttercup]

Violent religious fanatics are already offended by my atheism and my homosexuality, so what have I got to lose?

They might be offended by your orientation if you tell them but will probably leave you alone....especially in the US. If you burn a picture of Muhammed in front of them knowing how they've reacted to such acts in the past, you're just dumb. Even in the US.

In England, it used to be a capital crime to steal livestock. Since you would be hanged if you were caught stealing a lamb or a full-grown sheep, you might as well go ahead and steal the sheep. Hence the saying, "as well hanged for a sheep as a lamb."

Yeah, I knew that part. Just wasn't sure how it tied it to what you wanted to get across.

 

[Fluffy]

It is right to strive to avoid causing offense because:
1) Causing offense is wrong because it harms those who are offended
2) Causing offense is unproductive because it utilises and elicits unreasonable emotional states
3) Causing offense is self defeating because it undermines whatever aim we are trying to achieve

It is also always right to strive to avoid taking offense.

Sometimes, we will be unable to continue a particular course of action without causing offense. In this case, causing offense is only justifiable if the outcome of the act survives sufficiently intact, benefits others and is not done to cause, parody or protest offense.

 

[Sunstone]

How could it possibly be wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

On the other hand, if you set out to offend violent religious fanatics, is that justification for ignoring "collateral damage" -- that is, is the goal of offending violent religious fanatics reason enough not to care whether you offend others who are neither violent nor fanatics?

 

[Sahar]

So if i was offended by naming a dog "Muhammad", would this mean i am a violent religious fanatic?
Is this what the OP is saying?

 

[Fluffy]

How could it possibly be wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

I believe that it is wrong because we should not cause harm to others and two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Smoke]

So if i was offended by naming a dog "Muhammad", would this mean i am a violent religious fanatic?
Is this what the OP is saying?

Not necessarily, but the dog was named with the intent of offending violent religious fanatics.

Do you find that more offensive, and more blasphemous, than the violence done in the name of your religion?

 

[Buttercup]

So if i was offended by naming a dog "Muhammad", would this mean i am a violent religious fanatic?
Is this what the OP is saying?

No, not at all. I'm sure you wouldn't call for the death of the dog's owner. It is your right to be offended however.

 

[Sahar]

Not necessarily, but the dog was named with the intent of offending violent religious fanatics.

Oh! So, tell me, do you know any of those violent religious fanatics who log on this Forum and you know they will receive the message? Or the violent religious fanatics are the Muslims who you and others engage in discussions with daily?

Do you find that more offensive, and more blasphemous, than the violence done in the name of your religion?

As a Muslim who finds naming a dog Muhammad as offensive, i find what happened to this teacher as very extreme and unacceptable.

 

[Valjean]

Deliberately inciting violence or baiting someone with the intent to illicit a violent reaction is wrong in most cases. But I'm not entirely comfortable withholding an opinion or fact just because it might discomfit someone.

An inability to process an inconvenient or disconcerting idea is the fault of the hearer. Those who can't withhold themselves from attacking the messenger rather than seriously considering the message probably need therapy, not to mention education.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe that it is wrong because we should not cause harm to others and two wrongs do not make a right.

Good points, Fluffy. I'll have to chew on those.