Breaking News - Allegedly 10 people killed at office of satirical magazine in Paris

lily, once again your comment has shocked me with its unjustifiable unpleasantness. I am not offended by your nasty comment, just shocked. I had thought better of you.

jings, don't be silly. Not believing that there are gods is not equivalent to believing nothing.

This is a good article too, by Nick Cohen in the Spectator. It is insulting to moderate Muslims for broadcasters such as Sky TV to "bow to the demands of murderers", as if ordinary Muslims don't detest murder as much as the rest of us.

I'm astonished! But your reaction, bags seems to bear out what I said.

I am going to say soemthing that may be waaaaaaaayyyy off mark, and not even right.
And may be it applies to religions,again I dont know for sure.

When a non believer tries to say something about a religion, it can become personal.
The non believer may not mean it to be personal, but to some people of some religions, it becomes so.

Personally I dont get offended by non believers of christianity very often. Not as much or as often as a lot of christians I dont think. I am not sure why that is.
I suppose, for a start, only one of my parents during my childhood was a christian. And none of my 4 grandparents were christians.

I therefore sort of know where some non believers are coming from.
Everyone comes from different places, both geographically and emotionally. So I am mindful of that.

I think what some non believers of perhaps any religion dont realise, is how deep and part of us, religion becomes.
So it is difficult for believers to even notice the difference between mocking our religion, whichever it might be, and mocking us.
Perhaps that is an error on our part.
To be honest, I hadnt, until this thread, realised that that is what some non believers do.

I need to learn to reread my posts before sending them.

Second line should read all religions.

It can be taken personally. That doesn't mean it is personal. If things such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are viewed as challenging something religious rather than insulting it, I think a lot of offence would be avoided. It has always been thus. I daresay people felt offended by the views of Copernicus and Galileo, but really the idea was to challenge existing beliefs, not to offend believers. It is not wrong to challenge ideas, however sacred people may think them. For me, it really is as simple as that. I never set out to offend though I am aware sometimes that offence may be taken. That does not make any idea challenging of mine, or anyone else's, intrinsically wrong.

You can challenge something without taking he kick!

Why bother with all this "challenging" What exactly has religion ever done to you Bags? Were you also once in the "care" of some mean-minded nuns? ( I say "also" as that seems to be the usual thing on Gransnet.

the mick!

I suppose Bags it depends if you challenge in an insulting, confrontational way or a reasoned way. I bet you use the later and rarely cause lasting offence.

Huh!

Have you been on this forum as long as I have NFK?

That's what I try to do, nfk, but of course someone else might find something confrontational in an aggressive or offensive way that is only meant in an objectively challenging way. Think Galileo. The whole damn Church took offence and yet he was most probably being as objective as it's possible to be.

Where do you stand on deliberate provocation?
Does that come under the heading of objectively challenging?

It can do, soon. Provocation is not always bad. If someone provokes me into thinking more deeply about something and possibly even changing my mind about the subject, why need I feel hurt or offended? I ought rather to be grateful to the 'provoker'.

If I interpret something as being deliberately nasty (it's worth remembering that interpretations are usually subjective in such cases and can be way off the mark), then, if I feel hurt, which I'd only feel if it were untrue, I tell myself that the 'insult' (i.e. what I've interpreted as an insult or an offence) says more about the insulter than about me and I try to shrug it off accordingly. I suppose it comes down to having a strong sense of self respect. If someone thinks, for instance, that my views on gods are stupid and that I'm stupid for holding such views, then so be it. People thinking such things or saying such things doesn't change anything. So, if someone thinks my faith in the godlessness of the universe is stupid, they're welcome to think so and to say so in whatever way they like. It doesn't make any difference to how I feel or to what I believe. New evidence, of the sort I understand, on the other hand (think Galileo and bods of his ilk again), might well make a difference, even to convince me that there are such things as gods.

Sorry. Long post. You did ask

I have no objection to long posts.

A definition of "provoke" is to incite anger or resentment.

I dont think that people should do that, in their personal lives, or publically to the general public.

Also, you do realise that not many people have the same ability to brush things off as you do?
And therefore, behaviour should be sometimes moderated accordingly?

For instance I joke and laugh and may be do light teasing to some people I know well.
But I wouldnt do the same behaviour to others.

I probably agree with you with the second half of your post.

Not sure Jingle, it depends...!

Bags I couldn't agree more in that it is not wrong to challenge ideas, indeed we could not have democratic debate without this. Extremists rely on terrifying people and making them feel small and vulnerable. Our freedom of speech is one of the most important defences we have. 'Respect' can be a synonym for 'fear'.

You may remember the IRA bomb that was detonated in Manchester in 1996 - the largest bomb to be detonated in the UK since the second world war. This was a completely unprovoked attack - not even a single cartoon! - on a peaceful city and the perpetrators have never been brought to justice. Images of the devastation caused can be seen in this link:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/unseen-photographs-capture-the-devastating-and-emotional-aftermath-of-the-1996-ira-bomb-in-manchester-city-centre-9538378.html

soon 'provoke' does not necessarily mean to incite anger or resentment.
It simply means to stimulate a response. It's from the Latin pro meaning forth, and vocare meaning to call.

So someone, or an organisation, can be deliberately provocative without intending to incite hatred.

I think Bags could be right in that the level of offence taken is down to the level of self respect or self confidence. People with considerable and various life experiences do, on the whole, tend to have more self confidence and are slower to take offence. While the young, impressionable and insecure take offence easily.

It doesnt simply mean to stimulate a response.
It can do, but by no means always.

thatbags herself says that "Provocation is not always bad".

I agree with your post NFKDumpling.

I believe that the cartoonists intended to provoke those mainly young people.

Bags I wish you' d stop all this gods business. You know quite well we're only talking about one here. No one gives a monkey's if you worship Thor.

Or whatever else you get up to on midsummer nights in your little Scottish wilderness.

I think the cartoonists are foremostly trying to show how clever they are. Egotists. Mocking others is the only way they know.