Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?

[Smoke]

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?

I didn't name the dog, and I wouldn't name a dog, Muhammad*, but I can understand the decision to do so, and I find it disconcerting that people feel that offense is the one they feel they must take issue with, and not the plight of the schoolteacher. It seems to me to evince shockingly misplaced priorities.

*Actually, I considered naming a dog Mehmet some years ago, not after the prophet but after the Turkish sultan Mehmet II, but I decided against it, partly because the sultan shared the same name as the prophet.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd rather see a thousand dogs named "Muhammad" than see even one teacher lashed for her classes' decision to name a teddy bear after the Prophet. The former is merely offensive, the latter is barbaric.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I agree. It is unfortunate that her plight is being propagandized, but the same person who is capable of slandering the prophet in such a manner (and those who tolerate it) have obviously not had a problem with it.

 

[Sahar]

I didn't name the dog, and I wouldn't name a dog, Muhammad*, but I can understand the decision to do so, and I find it disconcerting that people feel that offense is the one they feel they must take issue with, and not the plight of the schoolteacher. It seems to me to evince shockingly misplaced priorities.

When some people are unable to respect me and find it's okay to offend me so what are they waiting from me? Why should i even participate in a discussion or an argument with them and why should i respond to their questions? I don't really understand.

 

[Smoke]

When some people are unable to respect me and find it's okay to offend me so what are they waiting from me? Why should i even participate in a discussion or an argument with them and why should i respond to their questions? I don't really understand.

You shouldn't feel compelled to discuss anything with anybody if you don't want to. I still discuss things with Muslims after being told by Muslims that they support the death penalty for people like me, though, so I really don't have much sympathy for your indignation.

 

[Zephyr]

I'd rather see a thousand dogs named "Muhammad" than see even one teacher lashed for her classes' decision to name a teddy bear after the Prophet. The former is merely offensive, the latter is barbaric.

Agreed in full.

 

[Buttercup]

I agree. It is unfortunate that her plight is being propagandized, but the same person who is capable of slandering the prophet in such a manner (and those who tolerate it) have obviously not had a problem with it.

Says the same guy who used to HOUND the LDS members on this board.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You shouldn't feel compelled to discuss anything with anybody if you don't want to. I still discuss things with Muslims after being told by Muslims that they support the death penalty for people like me, though, so I really don't have much sympathy for your indignation.

The problem I've had with this whole bundle of crap is that the naming of the dog Muhammad does not only offend the "fanatics", but every Muslim with any measure of respect for him. I cannot imagine a Muslim separated enough from their tradition to not be offended by this, even if they were to accept homosexuality completely and otherwise be politically correct ((interestingly enough, naming one's dog Muhammad would certainly not be an act of tolerance and acceptance and otherwise warm and fuzzy)).

It would be like a Christian saying that Jesus is Lucifer incarnate, an act of pure nonsense would separate the believer from everything normally associated with the religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with MidnightBlue.

The problem here is that, oftentimes, religious people are given free reign to take offense at things for which they have no rational reason to take offense.

I may love the writings and saying and teachings of Thomas Jefferson. I may think he was the greatest person in history. I may base my entire worldview and way of living around him. But the fact remains that the man lived hundreds of years ago and, as an historical figure, he belongs to the world. He wasn't family, or even a close friend of mine. I have no right to claim the man or his name as my personal property, or as the property of 'Americans' in general. I have no right to act as though others are abusing my property if they fail to show sufficient "respect" for the name Thomas Jefferson or if they discuss the man critically. The same should go for any figure in history, whether they have modern-day 'religious' adherents or not.

As it happens, I rather like America and I think Thomas Jefferson was a great man. I wouldn't necessarily like it if someone--a Muslim, say--drew a disparaging cartoon about him or named a mangy animal 'Thomas' to show their contempt for him. But of all the things to be 'offended' about in the world, I would still be far more offended by Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, and other atrocities that my fellow Americans have committed--many of them against Muslims. I wouldn't dream of chiding a Muslim for taking Thomas Jefferson's name "in vain" after learning of yet another case of mistreatment of Muslim prisoners at the hands of American soldiers.

 

[Valjean]

The community's reaction to the teddy-bear incident is doing more to damage the status of Islam than the bear ever could.

 

[Smoke]

The problem I've had with this whole bundle of crap is that the naming of the dog Muhammad does not only offend the "fanatics", but every Muslim with any measure of respect for him.

The problem I have with your problem is that it relates entirely to the name of some dog in Britain and insulting of tender religious sensibilities. You've expressed at some length your indignation over the name of this dog, but no indignation at all over the plight of the schoolteacher, no hope for her deliverance from the hands of these fanatics, and no regrets at all about her situation except that it is, in your view, being propagandized. In this you seem to share to a great extent the view of her oppressors -- namely, that blasphemy is worse than injustice.

I cannot imagine a Muslim separated enough from their tradition to not be offended by this, even if they were to accept homosexuality completely and otherwise be politically correct

I honestly don't care. Christianity and Islam are both overwhelmingly and virulently anti-gay, despite the existence of pockets of relative tolerance. The tiny minority of Christians and Muslims who are actually committed to treating homosexuals equally are condemned and marginalized by their brothers and sisters in the faith. How many Muslims do you know who consider it morally unacceptable to make the hajj, pouring piles of money into the hands of medieval potentates who punish homosexuality by imprisonment, the lash, and even death? How many Muslims are willing to separate themselves from their masajid over the unequal treatment of LGBTs? How many are believe it's desirable or even permissible to question the violence of Muhammad? How many Christians are willing to separate themselves from their churches of the unequal treatment of LGBTs?

I am, frankly, astounded that you would expect me to be grateful for the partial acceptance and the limited commitment to justice of the very most liberal Christians and Muslims. It's incomprehensible to me that you feel I should be careful to be respectful of the religious sensibilities of the two religions that piously and proudly do the greatest harm to LGBTs, and that you further expect me to disapprove of other people who disrespect those religious sensibilities.

I decline to accept the proposition that I must be respectful of religions that despise me and everyone like me, and I decline, to the extent it's in my power, to be put in my place by people who have no problem enjoying rights and privileges that are denied to me and no problem supporting religions and institutions that help to perpetuate that inequality.

 

[Sahar]

But of all the things to be 'offended' about in the world, I would still be far more offended by Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, and other atrocities that my fellow Americans have committed--many of them against Muslims. I wouldn't dream of chiding a Muslim for taking Thomas Jefferson's name "in vain" after learning of yet another case of mistreatment of Muslim prisoners at the hands of American soldiers.

I would be offended by violating any innocent human being's life, I would be offended by leaving one kid die from starvation far more than drawing some cartoons for the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

The problem here is that, oftentimes, religious people are given free reign to take offense at things for which they have no rational reason to take offense.

I may love the writings and saying and teachings of Thomas Jefferson. I may think he was the greatest person in history. I may base my entire worldview and way of living around him. But the fact remains that the man lived hundreds of years ago and, as an historical figure, he belongs to the world. He wasn't family, or even a close friend of mine. I have no right to claim the man or his name as my personal property, or as the property of 'Americans' in general. I have no right to act as though others are abusing my property if they fail to show sufficient "respect" for the name Thomas Jefferson or if they discuss the man critically. The same should go for any figure in history, whether they have modern-day 'religious' adherents or not.

The thing is if the reasons are not rational to you, they are to me...maybe according to me what I say shouldn't offend any body but if i found it did offend some people and i knew this from the bottom of my heart, what's the point in keeping offending them?
Honestly I don't ask from anyone to look at the things from my view, but if you want to have a civil conversation or discussion with me, then you have to show some respect. Insulting or degrading the prophet in front of me won't harm him but it will harm me. And if I saw someone degrades him, I will say this is offensive and I have the right to say so.
The last thing, what's Muhammad to me and many other Muslims is not like what Jefferson might mean to you. True Jefferson wasn't your family nor a close friend but if the prophet (pbuh) wasn't to me dearer than my family, friends and myself then i would have to recheck my faith. If i saw someone talking badly about my father or my mother, I would be offended, how would it be like if this person was Muhammad sala Allahu 'alaihie wa sallam?
Again i don't ask anyone to view the prophet as i do but to be civil.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

not4me,

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you said.

Again i don't ask anyone to view the prophet as i do but to be civil.

That seems fair.

 

[Bathsheba]

"Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics?"

I do not think it is wrong.

These things should be informed by our values.

For example, if I value human rights greater than being concerned about giving offense and if in the course of striving to protect human rights I give offense, I might conclude that giving offense was an unfortunate byproduct of my actions.

There are religious fanatics that abuse human rights and if they are offended because we confront their abuse, so be it. It takes courage to fight against intolerance and oppression, especially in the face of fanaticism.

It is wrong when we do not stand up to religious fanatics that violate the no harm principle. It would be pathetic to let concern over giving offense stand in the way. This says nothing about practicing diplomacy. If we can obtain what we value by not giving offense then of course not giving offense would be the preferred strategy.

Consider the last century, many courageous people had to stand up against cultural pathology and were found to be quite offensive (by those they challenged). If everyone believed it was wrong to offend others and if this prevented them from speaking out (and no amount of diplomacy was going to prevent giving offense) then we might still have slavery, colonialism, and apartied

I think it is fairly clear that giving offense is not worthy in and of itself. To offend just to offend is not something to value IMO. Giving up freedom because of a misguided sense of propriety is naive.

 

[Sahar]

not4me,

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you said.

That seems fair.

Thank you so much for your understanding! This means a lot to me.

 

[sandandfoam]

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?

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. Violence or the threat of it is intolerable, moreover disgusting. People are entitled to be religious fanatics, they have no right whatsoever to put upon anyone else because of their beliefs. This is the reason society must be secular.
The treatment of the schoolteacher is wrong, that violence be threatened as a result of her actions is wrong. The man is entitled to call his dog anything he wants, as an aside I find it a little odd that he wants to name his dog after something that he has issues with but that is for him.

edit- forgot to say, if I were to offend religious fanatics by actions which did not impinge upon them the problem is theirs, everyone deserves respect and that is what guides me. It it is not for me to alter my thoughts, behaviour, beliefs or utterences due to fear.

 

[Fluffy]

I'd rather see a thousand dogs named "Muhammad" than see even one teacher lashed for her classes' decision to name a teddy bear after the Prophet. The former is merely offensive, the latter is barbaric.

This is a a very good point and I will use it to illustrate two further points:
1) It is evident from this that at least in a hypothetically, avoiding offense should be sacrificed for a more worthy but mutually exclusive goal.
2) No evidence as yet been brought to the table that this is an event of that kind and we need to justify this point in order to justify our act of causing offense.

 

[Random]

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

 

[Don Penguinoini]

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

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Stupid thread.

No its not.