I wish to argue that we do not have the right not to be offended. It is likely the offended party has views that others would find offensive so we cannot judge the argument based on one sides displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings (this is the definition of offended).

“Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea we’re so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!’” Douglas Adams

People usually defend their current views regardless of their current validity. This is seen in cases of conformational bias where we emphasis evidence that agrees with our current view.

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons saw outrage and protests against what was intended as humour. Many people were killed in demonstrations around the world. I consider this over-reacting to say the least. But then Islam is not tolerant of critisism:

Those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. Quran 33:57

But this quote does illustrate an all powerful God does not need defending from insults – he can look after himself! Why then the outrage? Some religions are more tolerant, for example Father Ted is considered amusing, while some took exception to Dogma.

In an example of cultural offense: “An Indian court has issued an arrest warrant for Hollywood actor Richard Gere after he kissed Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty in public.” Most people only heard about this because it was splashed across newspaper headlines with photos. If this was offensive, why did it end up selling newspapers and their owners profiting from the supposed outrage? A smart observation: “If the human body’s obscene complain to the manufacturer not me” Larry Flynt in the movie (question: is that a direct quote?)

Dawkins’s views have been considered “insulting” and “patronising” by many commentators. The insulting aspect of his views is the physical world is all that there is and there is no God – and if you disagree you are “delusioned”. This is in a nutshell materialism which “holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.” Is it insulting that he said opponents of materialism are deluded? Well possibly but he did not intend to insult – its just his view (and mine). If I say people who believe in Odin are deluded is that insulting? In this case there are no believers to offend (that are known to me*). Unsurprisingly, the non-existence of Odin is accepted without complaint.

*Update: Apparently Germanic Neopagan groups believe in him. Instead of Odin, imagine I had said Flying Spaghetti Monster – a god who definitely has no current believers.

Perhaps people who rush to the defense of religion should take a look at their sacred texts which generally are more forgiving.

“..do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” Luke 6

“Repel evil with good.” Quran 28:54

An exception or related rule is people should not be harassed. If I stood outside your house with a megaphone and ranted at you all day with upsetting opinions, or posted shocking photos then that is not cool. :)

If you voluntarily watched a TV programme or read a book, that is not harassment since you can switch off/put it down at any time.

Also, for a thought experiment, imagine a person that was offended by absolutely anything – we could not do anything for fear of causing offense. Everything is forbidden. Reductio ad absurdum, etc. That is why I oppose censorship (which usually an instrument of state control) but accept classification of material. On the other hand: “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary” George Orwell.

My ideal is people can freely discuss their views without forcing or imposing them on other people. My current view is summed up in this quote:

We must accept the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. HL Mencken

And a quote that I just found:

“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” — Winston Churchill

Anti Citizen One