(June 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: "The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson
BINGO! Thank you and someone who gets it.
Now in all seriousness and to even placate my detractors here I want to state a bottom line that I think everyone is capable of valuing.
I promise every believer here and even the atheists I have duked it out with here if you were bleeding in the street I would lend you aid. If a believer gave me CPR I wouldn't be concerned with their beliefs. If these same people whom I bluntly disagree with wanted to marry into my family or if they were my kid(don't have one), the mere fact that they might hold a position that might drive me nuts, that lone would not be a reason to disown them.
Now I do have an older brother who is a fundy I don't have any contact with. But not because he is a fundy, but even outside the issue of religion he has acted like everything in life is life and death and even physically threatened me over an issue he was not involved in.
We once played a game of pool and no bets no competition, just a game, at a bar and through the first game he said nothing, finally his seriousness about a non serious situation got to me and I asked "Why arn't you talking to me?" His response almost shouting " You didn't think I would let you just beat me". HOLY SHIT! That is just one, but of several reasons I have no contact with him, but none of it is because he believes.
On the other hand I delivered pizza near Falwell's collage, and worked with wonderful students of his and many of them agreed with me that some of the stuff he would say they wish he would STFU.
Two of the most wonderful bosses I had were students there. So it is the INDIVIDUAL I value, not what they believe.
On the other hand, the rest of my family I get along with and they believe the same things my brother does.
So the point is we CAN offend each other without taking it personally and we can still be friends even if we drive each other nuts on certain issues. The founders of this country wouldn't have been able to do it if they disowned each other when they got pissed about the position or words of the other. It is a complete myth that they all agreed and always liked each other. Jefferson and Adams were polar opposites and hated the others tactics and even for a while did not speak to each other.
It isn't that we should ALWAYS go out of the way to hurt someone else, none of us like getting our feelings hurt. But equally wrong is the unreasonable expectation that you should always walk on eggshells to keep someone else happy.
I have been though too many unhealthy friendships and even one girlfriend to know when people start demanding that you never raise any kind of objection because of some insecurity they may have, it is oppressive to you and a denial of self.
We as a species will NEVER agree on all things all the time. It is reasonable to make a request, and if that person consents to it, that is one thing. But if you make the request, and they say no and you still go back to them, then all you are doing is torturing yourself.
When I don't like someone I either put up with it DEPENDING on context, or I avoid them. What is unreasonable is to expect them to deny themselves and bow to me. I have control over myself, not others.
