The Culture of Offendedness?

Albert Mohler, Monday, July 27, 2009 [if you don't know who he is, refrain from this link until after you've read the article]

A new and unprecedented right is now the central focus of legal, procedural, and cultural concern in many corridors--a supposed right not to be offended. The cultural momentum behind this purported "right" is growing fast, and the logic of this movement has taken hold in many universities, legal circles, and interest groups.

The larger world received a rude introduction to the logic of offendedness when riots broke out in many European cities, prompted by a Dutch newspaper's publishing of cartoons that reportedly mocked the Prophet Muhammad. The logic of the riots was that Muslims deserved never to be offended by any insult, real or perceived, directed to their belief system. Unthinking Christians may fall into the same pattern of claiming offendedness whenever we face opposition to our faith or criticism of our beliefs. The risk of being offended is simply part of what it means to live in a diverse culture that honors and celebrates free speech. A right to free speech means a right to offend, otherwise the right would need no protection.

Tags: culture of complaint, free speech, hate speech, offendedness, surprise

Views: 25

Replies to This Discussion

How can someone so logical be associated with Dobson?
Sounds like he accidentally stumbled on logic in this case
If I was to define the essence of Islamism in one sentence, it would be "they demand the right to be not offended". Of course, historically, when they run out of things to get offended about, they start murdering each other, so it might not be a bad thing.
Overall, a well written article, but one thing really annoyed me. That fact that people complain about religious symbols in public places is not (at least not generally) because they are offended by it, but because it is seen as an endorsement by the government of one particular faith over others (or no faith at all). If it was just a matter of being offended, you would see just as many complaints about religious symbols being displayed on peoples private property, which would indeed be ridiculous.

It is a question of secularism, which does not mean endorsement of atheism, but government neutrality toward religious matters.
There is an article in today's Kansas City Star about a Sedalia, Missouri high school band whose "Brass Evolution" T-shirts depicting an ape-to-man progression with ever-improving brass instruments were recalled because some parents didn't want their children exposed to evolution in school.
Dim. It's getting harder and harder to live around here.
Religious symbols themselves do not belong on public land or in public areas period. They belong on private areas and private lands. If we are going to continue with this nonsense of letting religious symbols being on public land then frankly I want to see ALL RELIGIOUS symbols on public land not just all the damned giant plus symbols scouring the landscape. And that way when it becomes far too too cluttered they'll have no choice but to remove them and place the their the only symbol Americans can truly appreciate and care about.... $$$$$$


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service