I was so disappointed

It's also easy to be calm and rational about wanton destruction of things that have religious or other cultural value to others, such as the recent damage caused by members of Greenpeace to the ancient and very important Cuzco Lines in Peru. I feel angry about that and, if I used the language of offence, I'd say such behaviour offends me. Actually, such behaviour does offend my sense of right. I'd be just as offended and angry if the sacred place or other artefacts of any religion were wantonly damaged.

My point remains that blasphemy cannot really be defined in the same way as actual damage to things that people value or actual injury to a person or people. You cannot damage an idea or a belief. You can challenge ideas and you can use words in a way such as the TV presenter used them with no intention of offence or anything bad. No-one is damaged. Nothing is damaged. Hurtness of feelings cannot be measured except individually so, I and many other argue, we cannot and should not legislate against ideas or thoughts or spoken words except where there is an actual physical threat to someone or something.

BTW, I also agree we should try to avoid giving offence to others. The problem is that a lot of the time one cannot know what will offend someone else so I think we should also try to avoid taking offence where obviously none is intended, as in the case of the OP situation.

Would the offence takers say that great works of art that some people have taken offence at should not have been made? because that is essentially what you're asking for.

We have to be free to express ideas and emotions that someone somewhere for whatever reason might find offensive. And they, the offended, have to have the right of reply. That's the sum total of it. Feelings we have to just deal with calmly and, if possible, with some rationality too.

Words are loaded pistols. Once something is said it cant be unsaid. Hurt "feelings" have led to all the wars we`ve ever had! It would be terrific if we could all just shrug off offence or embark on animated discussions giving point and counterpoint but, unfortunately, we are human and not everyone is sufficiently civilised to do just that. There`s something about choosing your audience before giving potentially contentious opinions.

I could say I'm offended by the assumption that I'm indifferent to something someone else values but, once again, that assumption is not about me; it's about the person who makes the assumption. Therefore I shrug it off.

I can see a difference between Gordon blurting out "Jesus wept!" when suddenly confronted by something totally awesome, and someone deliberately setting out to insult and denigrate a believer in a religion.

It's a minefield trying to figure out who you may innocently offend.

Some people are thick skinned, some are touchy and sensitive, some have religious beliefs etc, etc.

It would be interesting to divide the audience of this programme to discover the percentage of those who were offended and those who were not.

I can see a difference between mocking a religion or a god or an idea/belief and mocking a person for believing something one disagrees with. The first three are open to mockery, the last one (the person) is not. Saying "Jesus wept" does not mock anything or anyone; it's just an exclamation of awe.

Jane10 I totally agree with what you say about this programme.Although Gordon was very involved, I thought he was overly emotional and not all that interesting in what he had to say.How much of this emotion was heartfelt and how much was for the audience is another matter. I only saw the second part, and thought in fact, he was a bit of a twit.The male wolf [that he called Scruffy, as if it were a dog] was interested in finding out if it could eat him and if he was a threat.No more and no less.A beautifully filmed piece on these snow wolves though.

If the film makers had wanted to, they could have edited out or changed any language that may offend. They obviously didn't want to.

So if people found his language offensive they should let the tv channel bosses know.David Attenborough manages not to swear or blaspheme in his nature programmes, so it CAN be done.

Taking the Lords name in vain is a serious matter to God.

When did she tell you that, soontobe?

Oh FFS!

Where the hell is this thread going now?

Perhaps it is soontobe's* belief that it is a serious matter to God. That's ok.

People can google.
That is all I am saying on this thread.

That is SOONS belief , I say good on her.

Surprise , surprise it maybe the belief of many others also.

Who maybe don"t wish to come forward because of the mockery!!

Erm...isn't FFS offensive to some people or doesn't it matter as long as it doesn't insult someone's god.

[wooden spoon]

Jane10 Hurt feelings may have played a role in causing wars but, if so, it would seem to be a very minor one. Greed, a desire for more power, suppression of minorities, revenge for past harm and many other factors have always played a much bigger role.

soontobe Would this particular instance be taking the Lord's name in vain or was it, in fact, taken with respect? Surely this will be known only to the Lord and Mr Buchanan.

'Jesus wept' is well known to be the shortest verse in the Bible. (John 11, 35). So is it not simply a quotation by the speaker, rather than blasphemy?

This discussion has been pretty predictable and par for the course, but I'm surprised that there has been so little made of the assertion by the OP. that if any comment had been made about Mahommed the beeb would have apologised.

Sorry if we're boring you Gerente.

Did you want a lot to be made of it, Gerente?

Gerente - do you think the BBC would have been in trouble had Mohammed's name been taken in vain rather than that of Jesus? I think they might have been. You would think a presenter might have a better command of English than to use phrases which are obviously going to upset some people although I don't object to the use of eg 'Jesus wept' per se.

I seem to remember someone on the thread saying that what is at stake here is NOT what would happen if it had been a different religion. That is a red herring - whether or not he should have said "Jesus wept" should stand alone as a question, regardless of whether he could or could not have involved Mohammed.

It would be too easy to be drawn off the point and into mere Islam-bashing.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with criticising a religion. There is something wrong when members of a religion respond to criticisms of their religion with violence. Calling justified criticism "bashing" is not helpful.

The above can be applied to all religions and all philosphical ideas and all scientific ideas.

Jesus's name was not "taken in vain". Just by the way, Jesus is a very common name in Spanish speaking countries. Are the people who call their baby boys Jesus "taking the name in vain". This is turning into a load of tosh.

Stop taking offence, people!