The Right to Offend

Ok, so I would like to have a little debate about the right to offend.

The following link goes to a rather offensive (not illegal) photo of bin laden, and what would be a mock representation of our flag. I know it's offensive, cause I was offended.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/...6a052c82_b.jpg

However, I recently had a debate on MDS about the San Fransisco last supper advertisement that was done, and someone told me that it was in bad taste, and shouldn't have been done. My response was, well if you feel that way about that representation of the last supper, then you understand about the Muhammad drawing with a bomb for a turban.

I am curious to know what the folks here think of each situation?

my best reply to you on this is the old saying

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please ALL the people all thetime"

The sensativitiy towards bin laden photos ect, may be that American, are still nervous over 9/11 and anything that offends Bin Laden supports ect, in the United States or elsewhere will be usaed by these extremists as an excuse to jab our great country.

I have seen MANY ads, cartoons, ect that have offenend me greatly for one reason or another, but I keep in mind, being a United States Citizen, born and raised here, that one "downside" to out Freedom of Socieity, expression, press, speech ect, is that WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS publicly without fear of being arrested ect for Anti-Government, Anti Religion painting, remarks, Cartoons ect.
And altho I am offended by these things given the rights we have as American, as Micheal Stivick used to say on "All In The Family" I believe he was the one,
"I may not agree withwhat you say, do, creat ect, but I will defend with my life, your RIGHT, to say it, create it, display it ect, the ONLY exception to this, are the 3 things that are NOT guaranteed or protcted by the United States Constitution to say, do or show
Yes buring the American Flag is and outright insult to every American and Soldier who gave their life so we may enjoy the rights and freedoms we have, however, the United States Supremem Court rules it is Freedom Of Expression.

I was mildly amused by all of them.

I can understand why you were offended by the Bin Laden/Old Glory picture. And I guess the amusement I felt here was because the representation of both man and flag were outrageous.

The same applies to the Mohammed drawings.

I tried to imagine the same representation on the Union Jack, and I was unmoved by the thought. I also tried to imagine Jesus in a soldier's uniform patrolling an occupied country, and although it was incongruous, I didn't feel there was anything wrong with the image if you wanted to use it to make a point.

I actually thought the Last Supper picture was clever, good natured and well presented. it appealed to me much more than the other two because it really was funny.

I think I would have to say that it would take a hell of a lot more than what you showed to offend me. None of those pictures came even close. And, like TYWD, I thought the "last supper" pic was rather clever.

What really does offend me, though, is how much people around the world seem to want to bend over backwards to avoid offending those who have proven to be offensive to almost everyone. Yes, in this instance I am speaking of those radical members of Islam who have no compunction against ridiculing other countries, other flags, other religions, but who will immediately beat their breasts in pained outrage if you reciprocate.

So portraying Muhammad with a bomb for a turban was offensive to them? Tough shit! Seeing people dancing in the streets because thousands of people died in the WTC was just as offensive to me! Do caricatures of your religious leaders make you mad? Too bad! Bombs going off in buses makes me pretty pissed off, too. Don't like people criticizing your religion? Stop sentencing rape victims to harsher penalties than their rapists!

The Bible and the Koran, I believe, are in agreement here: Ye shall reap what ye shall sow.

People are offended too easily and if anything they add fuel to the fire by showing they are offended. Demonstrators around the world burn the US flag but for some strange reason I don't see them burning the Union Jack. I doubt its because the Brits haven't upset anybody. It's because they know that how to rattle you guys, the flag is more important in the US than in any other country because without a common language, culture or heritage the only thing that makes you all american is allegaince to the flag. Personally speaking if somebody wants to burn the Union Jack, great I say, then I know who's with us and whose agin us. The English civil war started when the King raised his colors and those who came to his call were royalist, those who didn't showed where they stood.

As regards religion, didn't they mock christ and is that not a critical element in faith. It's a test of faith, the ability to withstand ridicule and insults. The less it bothers you, the stronger your faith. So if were a devout christian or muslim, bring it on I'd say.

See below

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Seeing people dancing in the streets because thousands of people died in the WTC was just as offensive to me!

---

If you see them as enemies and they see you as enemy, why are you offended or suprised if they celebrate a "victory". I'd be more concerned than offended. Concerned that people I want to be friends with celebrate my suffering!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

If you see them as enemies and they see you as enemy, why are you offended or suprised if they celebrate a "victory". I'd be more concerned than offended. Concerned that people I want to be friends with celebrate my suffering!

---

I never said I considered them enemies. Terrorist organizations, yes, they are enemies to all. But these were, apparently, ordinary people who were demonstrating their hatred for us by celebrating the deaths of innocent people. And not just Americans. There were people from all over the world in those buildings.

Neither did I say I wanted to be friends with them. I prefer a "live and let live" policy, for the most part. What concerns me, and saddens me, is that this country (USA) is generally among the first to jump in and offer assistance, both physical and monetary, whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world. Yet it seems that far too many people around the world revile us anyway. They say that charity begins at home. Perhaps it's time for the US to pull back from International aid programs and contend with our own problems. Let the rest of the world go hang itself.

Thorne says: What concerns me, and saddens me, is that this country (USA) is generally among the first to jump in and offer assistance, both physical and monetary, whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world.

This is a bit off topic, because I thought we're talking about respect for national symbols, but nevertheless, it's undeniably true. In 2006, USA gave more international aid than ANY other country, and nearly TWICE what the next country (UK) gives. USA's aid saves more lives and feeds more starving people than any other country's. USA's aid helps more sick than any one else's.

USA gave $22,739,000,000 compared to UK's $12,607,000,000 and Luxembourg's paltry $291,000,000. (OECD statistics.)

The world needs America's aid more than anyone else's and would be a sorrier place if they really did say, "Let the rest of the world go hang itself."

TYWD

Thorne

Precisely my point. Ordinary people rejoicing in the 911. But you take offense and never stop for one second to ask the question why? Your concern is not about them by your flag. 3000+ died in NY, we al grieve, But how many in Iraq to find that non existant "massive arsenal" of WMD. And they are still dieing today as we speak, but hey who gives a F. Lets talk about a flag and forget human lives and suffering.

May I respectfully suggest to you there is something wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Thorne says: What concerns me, and saddens me, is that this country (USA) is generally among the first to jump in and offer assistance, both physical and monetary, whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world.
TYWD

---

i dont want to comment to much on this for fear of hijacking the thread. But... come on. The fisto jump in. Bosnia, Rwanda or even when my country stood alone against Germany. Yes you jump into Iraq in search of the mythical WMD and come up with oil, but hey lets not play the benefactor role too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Thorne

Precisely my point. Ordinary people rejoicing in the 911. But you take offense and never stop for one second to ask the question why? Your concern is not about them by your flag. 3000+ died in NY, we al grieve, But how many in Iraq to find that non existant "massive arsenal" of WMD. And they are still dieing today as we speak, but hey who gives a F. Lets talk about a flag and forget human lives and suffering.

May I respectfully suggest to you there is something wrong.

---

In the first place, I have not ever condoned the war in Iraq. I have always believed and still believe that the we had no business going in there. However, after learning in much more detail what kinds of things were happening there under Saddam's regime, how many of his own people he and his sons were killing, and seeing the unbridled joy in the faces of those people when they pulled down his statue, well that ALMOST made the whole thing palatable. And there is little question that Saddam had WMD's. He used them, several times, against the Kurds. The fact that they weren't found only means that they may have been well hidden. After all, Iraq is mostly burnt over desert and mountains. You can hide a lot of stuff out there. Or not.

For my part, I find it hard to get too upset over symbolic attacks on the US. If someone wants to burn the US flag, it doesn't really bother me. If someone wants to hang an effigy of a political leader, I don't care. It's too easy to manipulate people by making them cherish symbols rather than reality. Let them destroy the symbols all they want. But when they attack someone else's symbols, they shouldn't be too surprised if their own symbols come under attack.

And

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

i dont want to comment to much on this for fear of hijacking the thread. But... come on. The fisto jump in. Bosnia, Rwanda or even when my country stood alone against Germany. Yes you jump into Iraq in search of the mythical WMD and come up with oil, but hey lets not play the benefactor role too much.

---

First of all, I'm a Brit. And Britain jumped into Iraq on a lie to the nation. We were in Bosnia too. (Why, I wonder aen't we in Zimbabwe or the Sudan, right now?)

Second of all WW's 1 & 2 happened a long time ago, and it's time to get over our little irrelevant niggles.

Furthermore, we stood alone with Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, India, a whole hunk of Africa, and God knows where else, including, while they were free, Holland, Belgium and France. In my opinion, Britain with the help of its Empire would have held Germany in Europe while Germany exhausted itself on the Eastern Front, unless USA had come in on their side - which they might have done, but for Pearl Harbour. (When FDR declared war on Japan, Italy and Germany declared war on USA. Decision made.) And in they piled. And before you knew it, the war in the west was won, and half of our young female population had suddenly got pregnant!

However, let no-one overlook the fact that Germany was broken, not by the Brits, and not by USA, despite what Hollywood says, but by the Russian winter and the desperate Russians. The Germans rushed westwards in order to surrender to us.

I don't know how well we'd have fared if USA had left us to deal with Japan too. I suspect we'd have done very badly in both theatres. Japan captured Burma, drove us out of Singapore and attacked Darwin, Broome and Sydney Harbour. Certainly the Aussies were glad of the American involvement when it came.

If USA was guilty of dragging its feet, that's because FDR wanted to see the Empire broken up so that American interests could move in. Pure and simple.

Interesting fact, Britain had to repay the USA for all the help it gave during WW2, after we had bankrupted ourselves fighting. The last repayment was made (with accrued interest) on 31st December 2006. If there's a problem with US aid, it's the strings that are attached. But I expect we attach strings to our foreign aid too. We just don't noise it around the UK too much.

But we are in the here and now, and USA does provide more aid than any other single nation, whether that's playing the benefactor card too much or not.

But all of that should go in another thread, shouldn't it? The Grumpy Old Men thread. We're talking about whether people have the right to offend by abusing national or religious symbols, or definitive works of art ... or at least we were ...

ThisYouWillDo

Totally agree its off topic, thats why I said so in my post and kept my post brief. It was just the "first to jump in" comment seemed to me not quite true. Regarding aid, I don't know the stats but I think if you go per capita and by GNP the stats may change a little from simply more than any other nation.

Whatever.

Again I say I don't want to hijack this thread so this will be my last comment on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

The fact that they weren't found only means that they may have been well hidden. After all, Iraq is mostly burnt over desert and mountains. You can hide a lot of stuff out there. Or not.

---

True but when you have the relevant generals and ministers under the soft touch of your interogators you most probably know the full truth. Your view that they're still there but hidden isn't whats in the official reports now. Incidentally don't chemical and biological weapons degrade so would have been useless.

Quote:

---

But when they attack someone else's symbols, they shouldn't be too surprised if their own symbols come under attack.

---

I think the problem may be it isn't just symbols being attacked and that the people whose own symbols are coming under attack aren't the ones who attecked yours.

Moonraker: In terms of aid given as a proportion of Gross National Income, USA is ranked about 20th and Luxembourg is ranked 2nd. But a dollar given by a rich man buys just as much food as a dollar given by a poor man. USA gives most dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Thorne says: What concerns me, and saddens me, is that this country (USA) is generally among the first to jump in and offer assistance, both physical and monetary, whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world.

This is a bit off topic, because I thought we're talking about respect for national symbols, but nevertheless, it's undeniably true. In 2006, USA gave more international aid than ANY other country, and nearly TWICE what the next country (UK) gives. USA's aid saves more lives and feeds more starving people than any other country's. USA's aid helps more sick than any one else's.

USA gave $22,739,000,000 compared to UK's $12,607,000,000 and Luxembourg's paltry $291,000,000. (OECD statistics.)

The world needs America's aid more than anyone else's and would be a sorrier place if they really did say, "Let the rest of the world go hang itself."

TYWD

---

298 444 215 population in the US = 76,2$ per capita
......465 000 people in Luxemburg = 625$ per capita

your comparison is way off. US gives wayy too little money compared to Luxemburg. Don´t you agree?

you can use statistics however you like but I find that money per capita is way more accurate than just money / country.

just to throw my 5 eurocents into the discussion.
bah totally missed your last post Tywd, since it said the same as mine did basically.

not that it has much to do what the thread was about

Logic: I agree you can use statistics however you want to (see my last post): but a dollar's a dollar, and both bills buy just a dollar's worth of rice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Logic: I agree you can use statistics however you want to (see my last post): but a dollar's a dollar, and both bills buy just a dollar's worth of rice.

---

definitely agree with that yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Logic: I agree you can use statistics however you want to (see my last post): but a dollar's a dollar, and both bills buy just a dollar's worth of rice.

---

This is all true, but I wasn't only speaking about monetary aid. How much money did the US (and other countries, no doubt) spend during the relief effort for the tsunami victims? Not just for food and clothing, but for the military units which were sent to help distribute food and clothing, and to help with rescue efforts. How many American volunteers have travelled all over the globe aiding in relief efforts everywhere?

But even that is beside the point. The American people are always quick to open their hearts and their purses when others are in trouble. And we are hated for it!

Again I dont want to go off topic but since I live in Thailand which was affected by the tsunami (albeit less than others) just thought I'd mention Thailand refused aid because had they accepted it their credit rating would go down and the bottom line on the economy would be worse than had they accepted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

This is all true, but I wasn't only speaking about monetary aid. How much money did the US (and other countries, no doubt) spend during the relief effort for the tsunami victims? Not just for food and clothing, but for the military units which were sent to help distribute food and clothing, and to help with rescue efforts. How many American volunteers have travelled all over the globe aiding in relief efforts everywhere?

But even that is beside the point. The American people are always quick to open their hearts and their purses when others are in trouble. And we are hated for it!

---

No. Mostly, USA is admired and envied for its wealth, its freedom and its lifestyle. Many have reason to be grateful to America for their very existence. Where it is hated, it isn't for the aid it gives, it's for other reasons.

You will never be able to buy friendship from those who feel oppressed by you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

No. Mostly, USA is admired and envied for its wealth, its freedom and its lifestyle. Many have reason to be grateful to America for their very existence. Where it is hated, it isn't for the aid it gives, it's for other reasons.

You will never be able to buy friendship from those who feel oppressed by you.

---

and there we go. the bottom line :)

Thorne says: Seeing people dancing in the streets because thousands of people died in the WTC was just as offensive to me! A great observation Thorne. I saw what you saw and I was offended too. Thorne went on to say: But these were, apparently, ordinary people who were demonstrating their hatred for us by celebrating the deaths of innocent people. In my opinion, another great observation.

Others responding to this thread have been impressive with your logic and understanding of the topic. Each of you add greatly to the epiphany this thread gives me. The epiphany which this thread provides answers several questions for me about the current political situation that exist in the USA.

Please do not be offended if you are a Democrat but I am going to be an apologist for President Bush with the hope that some of the hatred towards Bush and the Republican Party will be lessened. Our country is in crisis at this time and needs the support of both Democrats and Republicans.

The people who were dancing in the streets over the WTC were normal people. Why were they dancing? Most of them probably had never met an American. They were dancing because their leaders told them that it was a good thing when Americans died or suffered.

The election of 2000 was a difficult pill to swallow no matter which side you were on. The reaction of the leaders in both parties was strong. The leadership of the Democratic Party decided that their followers should oppose Bush in every thing he did, say nothing good about him, blame him for everything that went wrong, and give him no credit for any good that happened. As a result the leadership has had the Party members dancing in the streets. For two terms duration the message that has been broadcast throughout America has been one constant "Bush is bad." It took all these years to destroy his approval rating, which has been determined by those who hate him. Middle class America held out to this constant badgering very well. The election of 2004 proves this. The fact that the Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush also tends to support this fact.

One interesting thing, as the nomination process goes on in the Democratic Party, the primary candidates' views on Iraq are becoming similar to those of the President's and John McCain's. All agree that if Al Quieada establishes a stronghold in Iraq, that each of them (both Hillary and Obama) would send in American troops. Of course they had to admit this because the country will not elect a President that it feels will not protect the interest of the USA.

Here is the epiphany. If the Democratic Party, in the end, was going to do the same thing Bush did, why have they not said so sooner? Why did they have the membership dancing in the streets in protest of the war in Iraq? Why did they strengthen the resolve of the enemy to be more determined to kill our solders? To say you support the troops but oppose the President, for whatever the reason, was not a act of patriotism.

As the two parties continue to come closer together on what should be done in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more true patriotic Democrats and Republicans will see that the left wing, liberal leadership of the country has been wrong. They will come to see why the liberals told its followers to dance in the streets, to hate George Bush! Can you hear them? They want to take their country back! As these take their county back, let them explain to the parents of our dead solders why they contributed to their deaths.

When the Democrat Party elected the Blue Dog Democrats to Congress in 2006, the country was not telling America to pull out of Iraq, as Nancy Palosia and Sen.Reid thought, but it was to tell the Republicans that the GOP had failed to keep their promises to the country. The fact the Democratic Party has rejected the leadership of the Liberals in Congress and has done nothing for the Liberals is proof of this defense I give you of President Bush.

No matter what the Liberals say is bad about Bush, history will record him as one of the great Presidents. History will credit him with having been strong on national security. He will be credited for freeing Iraq and establishing democracy there. He will receive credit for managing a strong economy while fighting a war on terror. I am not trying to say that other Presidents were bad, such as Bill Clinton, but if all the facts are laid out to be viewed, you as an American can be proud of President Bush.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. I can't agree with everything you are saying.

History will credit him with having been strong on national security.
History will condemn him for eroding away our Constitutional freedoms and rights for the illusion of security.

He will be credited for freeing Iraq and establishing democracy there.
He will be blamed for destroying the Iraqi nation in order to let his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war.

He will receive credit for managing a strong economy while fighting a war on terror.
He will be reviled for leading the country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him.

I am not trying to say that other Presidents were bad, such as Bill Clinton, but if all the facts are laid out to be viewed, you as an American can be proud of President Bush.
I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy.

I hate that first picture. It disgusts me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

if all the facts are laid out to be viewed, you as an American can be proud of President Bush.

---

I don't agree with most of what you say.

The above quote shows your ignorance of the facts presented. You are right to say that the nation is in a crisis, you are right to say that we need the democrats and the republicans to band together to keep America free and strong. However you can't possibly be serious to say that Bush is doing a good job. Any literate self aware person should be able to discern for themselves that what has happened in Iraq is far more an atrocity than what Bush would like to have us believe.

I am with Thorne, I am proud of the American men and women that go over there to do the task for which they have been ordered to do. I do wish however that the entire situation would have been avoided.

There have now been more American men and women killed in the War on Terror than were killed in the 9/11 event. To what gain, to what end? For better security in the USA? Lets examine the security here in our homeland:

* Illegal immigrants cross our southern and norther boarders everyday (we know this is true as it is part of the debates for the presidential race).
* Illegal wire tapping is happening, and is sanctioned at the highest levels.
* As a result of our "war on terror", more nations, and groups of people have an ill view of America and its policies than ever before. American used to be where others wanted to come for a better life. That image, that dream and ideal is tarnished. The result of this tarnished view has enabled Al Qaeda to recruit more people, less militant groups of individuals towards their cause of hurting America.

Then lets look at what the objective of a terrorist is, and evaluate the results from Bush's policies.

* The ultimate goal of a terrorist is to instill fear in its target. We as an American people are fearful for our freedom, for our liberty. Mission accomplished!
* The goal of Al Qaeda was to hurt the American economy. Mission accomplished!

So who's side is Bush really on? Gasoline is over $3. This is due to the instability in the Middle East. As a result of the high Gas prices, we are less able to afford to shop, to spend, to dump money into the economy to maintain its momentum. As a result of Bush's actions in the region he has had to start a program to save the m.o.r.t.g.a.g.e industry.

No, I am sorry. I can't be proud of Bush. And I think if you were to clean the shit out of your ears after you pull your head out of your ass maybe you will be able to see the truth, and stop perpetuating the ignorance American is living in.

Thorne, thanks for the evidence that is self evident in your reply.
History will tell it as it was. The fact that your are still alive is no illusion although Bush ;hater would rather there had bee more 9/11's so they could blame Bush. (Evidence of this will be forthcoming!)

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

Check your logic and get back to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Thorne, thanks for the evidence that is self evident in your reply.
History will tell it as it was. The fact that your are still alive is no illusion although Bush ;hater would rather there had bee more 9/11's so they could blame Bush. (Evidence of this will be forthcoming!)

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

Check your logic and get back to us.

---

Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress??

Sure why not they can't be any worse then Bush has been