Is it wrong to offend violent religious fanatics? (atheist, point of view)

[MidnightBlue]

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]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

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]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

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.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

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]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

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]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

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.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Could you explain that a bit more my love?