Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think we must admit that every point of view is equally valid regardless of whether or not it is a religious point of view.

Repulsive drivel!

 

[sandandfoam]

Repulsive drivel!

Why?, why is the point of view of a western atheist or a western christian more or less valid than that of a conservative Islamic cleric or an Indian Hindu or a Chinese atheist?
I would also point out that there has been a marked reduction in the amount of sectarian murder in this country since people have learnt to accept that it is valid for others to hold a point of view which they themselves find abhorrent. I restate my point if you want to foster tolerance you must accept all points of view as valid. Again look at this country, in N.Ireland the majority of the population want to be part of the UK, a sizeable minority are hostile to the UK and want to be part of the Republic, 3000+ murders later people have realised that all points of view are valid. Otherwise some take the logical alternative to be the murder of those that hold an 'invalid' point of view. So, which is repulsive drivel? Do you condone murder of holders of an invalid point of view?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, which is repulsive drivel? Do you condone murder of holders of an invalid point of view?

And if I did?

 

[sandandfoam]

And if I did?

If you did then the onus is on me to try to convince you that murder is not the way forward. If a person sincerely holds a point of view that demonstrably the best way to advance that point of view is persuasion ( I can now thankfully cite the example of this country as evidence). Carott not the stick.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you did then the onus is on me to try to convince you that murder is not the way forward. If a person sincerely holds a point of view that demonstrably the best way to advance that point of view is persuasion ( I can now thankfully cite the example of this country as evidence). Carott not the stick.

Before you were killed? The problem is that our beliefs/ value systems (whether rational or irrational) shape our ethics (what we actually do).

EDIT: I am wondering now how you consider a person's viewpoint valid if you are attempting to change their mind, particularly when someone's life is on the line.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you did then the onus is on me to try to convince you that murder is not the way forward.

And you will do that while simultaneously declaring that: "every point of view is equally valid"?

Again, rubbish ...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And you will do that while simultaneously declaring that: "every point of view is equally valid"?

Again, rubbish ...

Inconsistency can work with you or against you.

 

[sandandfoam]

And you will do that while simultaneously declaring that: "every point of view is equally valid"?

Again, rubbish ...

ok. I'll have to change my mind....

 

[Smoke]

Stupid thread. Do militant Atheist Queers deserve to be offended?

Whether we deserve it or not, we get it in spades from the very people who demand respect from us.

Muhammad was a man. He was probably the most eminent Arab who ever lived, but he was still a man. Many Muslims say that it's impermissible to draw a picture of him, why? Because he was a man, because they are afraid people will reverence him too much. Yet those are the same Muslims who riot if they feel he's not reverenced enough. You can't draw a picture of him even if nobody will venerate that picture. You can't give a dog his name, you can't give a freaking teddy bear his name, you can't question his violence or imply that he was in any way anything less than the ideal man, because it is supposed to offend Muslims, who "love" this man they've never met, who's been dead over 1300 years, more than they love their parents or their spouse or their children. And when people don't tiptoe around their devotion to this man, or even when they do, but misstep, what is it called? Blasphemy. How telling.

And while demanding this respect, demanding that non-Muslims say or do nothing to challenge their idolatry for for this man, they expect you accept it as reasonable that they persecute other religions, that they persecute homosexuals, that they oppress women, that they themselves have no respect for anybody apart from their prophet and their co-religionists.

I have been told on these forums, by Muslims, that Sharia law demands the death penalty for homosexuals and that they have no problem with that, and there was no outcry from the people who now demand that I condemn someone for naming a dog Muhammad. The hypocrisy is palpable. How dare any Christian or Muslim lecture me about the respect due to Muhammad?

I restate my point if you want to foster tolerance you must accept all points of view as valid.

No, nobody does that or can do that. What you must do is accept all points of view as equally permissible, as long as they don't impinge on the lives, property, or freedom of others.

What really disgusts me is that attention has been successfully deflected from the issue that a woman is in jail, under threat of the lash and imprisonment, and with people seeking her life, over the name of a teddy bear, and this has been turned into an argument about what is wrong with people who have insufficient respect for Muhammad. It's madness.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

ok. I'll have to change my mind....

Make sure it's to something good.:yes:

 

[sandandfoam]

Make sure it's to something good.:yes:

I think this is good from MidnightBlue:-


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenw
I restate my point if you want to foster tolerance you must accept all points of view as valid.

No, nobody does that or can do that. What you must do is accept all points of view as equally permissible, as long as they don't impinge on the lives, property, or freedom of others.

 

[Fluffy]

He didnt offend anyone. He ust named the bear Muhammed, whats wrong with that?

It seems that any act can cause offense without the act itself being inherently offensive. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you find an act offensive only whether an act can be found offensive.

There are plenty of things that I could do that would offend you that would not offend other people. Does the fact that it does not offend other people mean that you should not be offended? If not then you can't use that argument simply because you don't find something offensive.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It seems that any act can cause offense without the act itself being inherently offensive. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you find an act offensive only whether an act can be found offensive.

There are plenty of things that I could do that would offend you that would not offend other people. Does the fact that it does not offend other people mean that you should not be offended? If not then you can't use that argument simply because you don't find something offensive.

They'll go around calling every tom dick and harry muhammed, but but when a white person, goes to help them they don't want it. They carry on crying about their problems, when you try and help em, they think twice, is it ok with Islam, Islam sunk their nation down the swanny, here is a perfect example.

If you ask me, don't help them. Until they change, they should grovel in their pit of rubbish.

But, Fluffy, calling a bear muhammed(pbuh), a thing which doesen't even live! A bit over the top.

Thats like calling a bit of wallpaper Buddha.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

It's not wrong to offend anyone, but naming a dog Muhammad isn't offending "violent religious fanatics", it's meant to offend Muslims. Some violent religious fanatics are Muslims, some Muslims are violent religious fanatics, but insulting Muslims in order to offend violent religious fanatics seems a little backward.

Nor does naming a dog really do anything for that woman on trial, nor is being offended at the dog naming thing and outraged at an unfair trial (and tbf, I haven't met any Muslim so far who supports it) mutually exclusive.

 

[Smoke]

It's not wrong to offend anyone, but naming a dog Muhammad isn't offending "violent religious fanatics", it's meant to offend Muslims.

Actually, the person with the dog has clarified his(?) intention on another thread:

Okay let me (as OP in the other topic) clear this up...
The dog naming is not specifically to cause offense, but merely a symbolic gesture of freedom of expression. ...

Freedom of expression for me is paramount. And while during my everyday life I try to refrain from causing unnecessary offense, I just think sometimes we have to put our foot down if we want to keep what freedom we have.

 

[Valjean]

What were the townspeople trying to accomplish by arresting this teacher, ie: what is their goal?

Could the situation not have been quickly and amicably resolved by someone explaining to the teacher that, odd though it may seem to her, many would find the bear's name offensive? I'm sure she would have gone back to the class and had the kids vote on another name.

Why were the kids not arrested? After all, it was they that named the bear, plus, unlike the teacher, they were raised in this culture and should have known better.

Has the class renamed the bear? If not, the offense continues and the situation remains unresolved.

 

[Pariah]

Speculation

Some commentators have suggested other contributing factors in this furore:

• Britain's criticism of the Sudanese government's human rights record in Darfur may have angered the Sudanese authorities.
• Teachers at the school have suggested that a colleague with a grudge against the school, rather than parents, might be the source for the complaints.
• Bishop Ezekiel Kondo, chairman of the school council, suggested that the affair could be related to a tax dispute between the school and the Sudanese authorities.
• Canadian radio commentators have suggested that the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005 may have increased the Muslim sensitivity to this issue.
• After reading comments on the BBC "Have Your Say" boards, it seems there was already a bit of tension in the community due to the appointment of a white lady (assumed to be Christian: remember this is Sudan) teaching a secular curriculum.
  
  I assume the hard-liners took advantage of the situation.

 

[John_672]

I voted: No - it is not wrong to offend violent religious fanatics.
Let me tell you why. Violence in the name of religion is a blatant attempt to force that religion on other people. Attempting to control speech to avoid offense of a particular religion is an attempt to force that religion on other people. While naming your dog "Mohammad" is tasteless and offensive, the fact that you have the right to do so should remain unchallenged.

On top of this, those who are not apart of a particular religion may not know what is offensive to members of that religion. To hold someone accountable for ignorance of something as complex as social mores is unrealistic.

 

[YmirGF]

My guess would be that people who are so easily offended are a bit more fanatical than they may realize, however reasonable they try to sound. Frankly, the deification of Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] has gone too far. When people profess greater love for a total stranger, whom they have never met, than they lavish on their family and loved ones -- one can only question the depth of their capacity to love since nothing can measure up to the status of the ideal.

I voted: No - it is not wrong to offend violent religious fanatics.

Let me tell you why. Violence in the name of religion is a blatant attempt to force that religion on other people. Attempting to control speech to avoid offense of a particular religion is an attempt to force that religion on other people. While naming your dog "Mohammad" is tasteless and offensive, the fact that you have the right to do so should remain unchallenged.

On top of this, those who are not apart of a particular religion may not know what is offensive to members of that religion. To hold someone accountable for ignorance of something as complex as social mores is unrealistic.

I agree wholeheartedly, John_672. This is something that I don't think is well understood in general. By showing our deep and abiding respect for the object of Muslim's love we end up supporting their prophet by our nervous supplication to their unreasonable demands. It is somewhat like giving in to a little child that is going to get all misty-eyed or threatens to throw a temper tantrum to get their way. The question is simple. When will they cease to demand our respect? To me, respect is earned. One can only wonder if this "respect" is worth the forfeiture of ones humanity.

 

[gnomon]

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?

Of course not. Except where others pointed out earlier that it may not be sound based on the proximity of the one being offended.

Quite frankly, I don't care if an individual is not violent, extreme or fanatic. People have the right to be offended. We are not required to respect beliefs. Only respect the fact that people do and what implications that holds.

I could really care less if anyone is offended by naming a dog after Muhammad. I do not respect their view on the prophet Muhammad. I can respect that a small number of individuals would become violent over such a parody.