Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Are these statements offensive?

55 replies

JellySlice · 25/08/2020 15:30

And if so, to whom? Are there any circumstances where it is acceptable or unacceptable to state them publicly?

"Jesus was not the Messiah."
"Mohammed was not the last prophet."
"There is more than one god."

Does it make any difference if these statements are preceded by "I believe that..."?

OP posts:
Beamur · 25/08/2020 22:27

Black
I suspect we're not arguing different points.

BlackWaveComing · 25/08/2020 22:22

@Beamur

They don't offend me. But they will offend somebody. That's very dangerous thinking Black WaveComing just because you currently hold the 'right' opinions (and feel safe from accusations of bigotry) what if prevailing thinking changes and you're no longer in tune with that? Freedom of speech is not without limits but as a society we need to embrace the ability to disagree.
It's dangerous to say that a religious bigot will perceive hate? Confused. They will. Doesn't mean society should organise itself around that perception.
BlackWaveComing · 25/08/2020 22:20

People can say there is more than one God wherever and whenever they like. People being a practicing Hindu is hateful now?

Jeez Louise. It's all just blasphemy law. I don't believe in blasphemy laws. That's my actual hill to die on.

I would go to prison for the right to blaspheme. Not because I hate religion, or religionists (incl genderists) but because the principle of blasphemy law is abhorrent.

I've got scant regard for the religiously offended anyway, having been harassed by rosary wielding nutters on my way into an abortion clinic. They get their right to offend me, I can bloody well keep my right to offend them.

Of course, being a nice person, I don't spend my days outside a church telling them that Jesus is not a true prophet or whatever. But I very definitely reserve my right to say whatever I want, short of inviting violence, about religious teachings, up to and including mockery.

Remember Charlie Hebdo? Those people were murdered for being against blasphemy law, de facto or otherwise. The least we who mourned for them without victim blaming can do is say no to blasphemy law, in any of its guises.

DidoLamenting · 25/08/2020 22:19

"It is always difficult to balance the right to protest and the right for uninterrupted services," said Mr Kelly. "I'm sure some people will have been disgusted and deeply offended by your conduct. Some, of course, may have applauded. But I expect that the vast majority will have regarded your conduct as an insignificant and transitory incident in the history of a great cathedral."

Comment from the judge in the Peter Tatchell case. So sensible.

Beamur · 25/08/2020 22:16

They don't offend me. But they will offend somebody.
That's very dangerous thinking Black WaveComing just because you currently hold the 'right' opinions (and feel safe from accusations of bigotry) what if prevailing thinking changes and you're no longer in tune with that? Freedom of speech is not without limits but as a society we need to embrace the ability to disagree.

BlackWaveComing · 25/08/2020 22:09

Of course not.
They might be perceived as hateful by a religious bigot, but so what?

gardenbird48 · 25/08/2020 21:56

I would be offended if someone tried to make me say any of those things (or anything at all for that matter). As long as it is not being shouted disrespectfully or with the express intention of upsetting someone then people can say what they like - I can choose to ignore it (and quietly think my own thoughts about them).

GrolliffetheDragon · 25/08/2020 21:44

I am not sure that offence is a choice, but rather an emotional/visceral reaction that may or may not be warranted.

I don't know, I think being offended can very much be a choice. Not always, admittedly.

JellySlice · 25/08/2020 19:32

Not directly to do with Scotland's Hate Speech law, more to do with freedom of speech and conscience in general. Particularly freedom of conscience, I think, because establishing what are effectively blasphemy laws against certain forms of belief is very much an attack on freedom of conscience.

OP posts:
Freespeecher · 25/08/2020 18:56

If this is regarding the Scottish Hate Crime Law, it's less of a tool for protecting the downtrodden (and offended) and more of a hefty weapon to allow the Woke to keep the populace in line. Kind of like playing whack a mole with a ten pound lump hammer.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 25/08/2020 18:37

I am not sure that offence is a choice, but rather an emotional/visceral reaction that may or may not be warranted. Sometimes I feel offended but realise that there is truth in what is being said - doesn’t stop the feeling though. Sometimes I think something is utterly wrong/abusive/hateful, but I am not offended by it.

I think being offended is about taking something very personally because it challenges/attacks something that is personal to you or that makes up part of what you see your ‘identity’ (for want of a less loaded word). This is different from thinking something is utterly wrong and to argue against it.

Aesopfable · 25/08/2020 17:31

I don't think they're offensive at all.

But that is it - we each of us get to choose for ourselves what we are offended by. You cannot legislate on personal morals, beliefs and taste.

Aesopfable · 25/08/2020 17:28

Being a ass is offensive

Shouting outside a church or mosque, or in a cemetery is offensive

Telling people you think their beliefs are nonsense is offensive

There are a lot of things I find offensive but do I think the speaker should be locked up for something I find offensive? No. For a start it would land a lot of people in jail considering I find profanities offensive.

queenofknives · 25/08/2020 17:27

I don't think they're offensive at all. I don't think it would be appropriate to voice those opinions as a teacher to students, though, without qualifying that it was your personal belief. Shouting them outside a mosque or church may cause offence, I suppose. But offence is such a personal thing. People might be more concerned about your mental health than offended by your statements. I take offence to the word 'bitch' but many women use it in everyday language and it doesn't bother them at all. I don't think it's at all possible to legislate on the basis of offence because that would first entail agreeing on what people find offensive, and that's not really possible or practical.

Aesopfable · 25/08/2020 17:15

They can be a forceful proclamation and they wouldn't achieve unacceptable or hateful public status!

I agree. But they would still be offensive. We should be allowed to offend people.

GingerPCatt · 25/08/2020 17:05

And saying those things doesn't make you Islamaphobic or Christophobic.

totallyyesno · 25/08/2020 17:01

There is no human right not to be offended. On its own, any statement is not an offence. Continual harassment is another matter.

BlackeyedSusan · 25/08/2020 16:54

It might be a bit annoying if someone or lots of people were standing outside the church and yelling Jesus is not the Messiah, however, Christian religion is taught to expect opposition and to pray for enemies. Also it is also more of the historically main religion here.

I would think it much more offensive to shout outside a mosque about Mohammed. But, I am not familiar with their teachings. It is more they are a minority in this country and often subjected to racism as well.

Neither religion is monochrome. There are variations of belief, emphasis etc.

Thisismytimetoshine · 25/08/2020 16:49

@merrymouse

Legally, if somebody were to stand outside a church shouting "Mary wasn't a virgin" at everyone who left, would you need 'hate speech' legislation to convict them of a crime?
Breach of the peace, maybe? "Hate speech" is utterly ridiculous.
Goosefoot · 25/08/2020 16:49

@merrymouse

Legally, if somebody were to stand outside a church shouting "Mary wasn't a virgin" at everyone who left, would you need 'hate speech' legislation to convict them of a crime?
No, I don't think so. People would just think they were crazy or very rude.

I suppose though the question is where it crossed over into really bothering people. Being a nuisance. Interrupting the church service would be a no-no but also yelling at people going in and out all the time could get a bit old.

You could also talk, rather than about offence, about being disrespectful, and I think that's a much more useful idea. Treating people disrespectfully is bad, but generally it's not criminal.

Thisismytimetoshine · 25/08/2020 16:48

Of course they aren't. You can believe whatever the hell you want, no reason for anyone else to take it personally.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/08/2020 16:44

It doesn't really matter whether they are or not surely? People don't have a right to be not offended as far as I know?

merrymouse · 25/08/2020 16:44

Legally, if somebody were to stand outside a church shouting "Mary wasn't a virgin" at everyone who left, would you need 'hate speech' legislation to convict them of a crime?

Goosefoot · 25/08/2020 16:44

I mean, if you are talking to our Muslim friend about theology, you would be kind of an ass to say "but Mohammed was NOT a prophet" as if that was just obviously true. Maybe being an ass is offensive.

Goosefoot · 25/08/2020 16:41

No.

Context can influence what's offensive. I don't think that is generally a complicated thing though, most of us know 95% of the time when it's more appropriate to keep our mouth shut.

Of course if you say things like that you need to be prepared for people to tell you with equal conviction that you are wrong.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.