BootsyCollins
Full Member
I dont feel thats the reason at all so maybe thats were we differ. (The bold)Maybe, but offence is not an objective or static thing. It's also a choice to take offence and that has developped within muslim communities while growing more numerous in the West and stretching islamic religious rules out over the public sphere. Claiming offence has also become an instrument of power because 'my feelings are hurt' is not answered with 'so what?' anymore. Imagine muslims claiming you can't draw any cartoon you want in the seventies shortly after the first wave of muslim immigration into continental Europe. The West and Western values are in a process of giving in to religious fanatics.
Also there's the question in what religious feeling they are hurt or offended exactly. This is not about people disturbing religious practices or sneakily feeding porc to muslims. It seems to me the fact they don't want Mohammed cartoons to be shown or exist and made at all is because they're hurt in their religious feeling that islam should rule supreme over the public sphere. And that's not a religious feeling we should respect. The feelings might be real after decades of development, but that doesn't necessarily make it about anything else than power.
Also, i agree that we should be allowed to offend someone if its further us as a people. And i feel like in most cases someone saying my feelings are hurt the respons is often "so what". As it should be in some cases.
Its just my impression that after Jordan Peterson and his likes came to popularity, the point is lost. Now its about offending just for offending´s sake.
Offending someone offers nothing good at all, if thats all it does. We can clearly discuss this theme without showing the drawing, so presenting them seems only too offend.