Is it ok to offend religion?
 

ok no bashing :p when I say offend I don't mean say obscene words w sab w mocking in a bad bad manner, when I say offend it means question things that religious people say you shouldn't question, posing funny hypothesis... (bala ma a3teh example a7mala nwale3 civil war :P )

I was reading an old interview with George Carlin, for those who don't know Carlin was a comedian that used to make jokes about religion. The interviewer asked him how come he offends religion and isn't it wrong to do so? isn't it like telling racist jokes and offending blacks(the question was something like that :p )
to which Carlin answered

do you agree?
do you think it is wrong to offend a different religion than yours? what if you see it as absurd and you know it is wrong, and you would like to question the other person, what if the other person't belief is that the earth is flat and some giant is holding it from below and he is worshiping that giant :p don't you have the right to point out to him where are the flaws in that logic? what if he insists on that logic, and he builds the government legal system based on it? :hawhaw: what makes something holy and beyond argument and jokes? is it the fact that some people believe it? how come it is acceptable when it comes to politics ?

on the other hand, don't you think it is wrong for religious people and religious "holy men" to stand and preach in front of a huge crowd about how the other people that don't follow their faith will burn in hell, and how you must avoid certain people and certain arguments and books? ):

share with us

I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. And if you want to question other peoples beliefs then you have the right to do so but I don't do it out of respect, if I think someone is wrong about something I'd rather have him see what I believe is the truth by himself, unless he asks of course.
I also believe that truth, when it's most important, is subjective and temporary. Truth is a concept formed by humans, therefore it's only relevant to and can only be defined by man.
Let's say that everyone in the world believed in "Truth A", then A would be the truth. Kill everyone and A would be irrelevant. Now let's assume that 51% of the people in the world believed in "Truth A" while the rest believed in "Truth B", who can say which truth is the real truth, considering that it's subjective and only relevant to the ones thinking about it?

P.S: I fail to see how George Carlin is any different from those holy men preaching to the crowds. He wants people to live and think in a certain way and the holy men want them to live and think in a different way.

Put Carlin's stand up aside. Looking at that quote i believe he is right. He has every right to question that choice INTELLECTUALLY. Ya3ne 23od 2eddeme w ne2eshne. Not only does he have to do it intellectually but he also has to do it respectfully.

You can't debate someone about his beliefs (which he holds sacred and dear) while making a mockery of everything:Tawa:. That is no way to debate. That is only unprofessional, childish, and shows an extreme lack of intellectual ability. Byotla3 wa7ad 7afezlo kam kelme w nafakh sedro w jeye bado yetshatar :Tawa:

Yes sarcasm can be used:p but only when the other side shows to be lacking of any debate ethics or capabilities allowing him to debate. But even sarcasm has certain limits.

Long story short: Question me all you want. But do so logically, respectfully, and thoroughly, and I should be expected to do the same. Do that and you will earn my undying respect regardless of who you are.

P.S: The title should be changed:p Change offend into question :p

no, I want to talk about offense, not just question, there is no doubt that you can question, no one is going to bite your head off if you ask :hawhaw:

well the way Carlin sees it, the religion he was mocking caused the death of thousands of innocent people, people were burned alive in its name and it is not backed by real evidence and witnesses. Bush said God asked him to wage the war on Iraq masalan... for these reasons he saw religion as something harmful and he disliked it...

maybe not talking about it and not offending it would be a way to let these things slide without consequences...

If he wants to offend people who have used religion to forward their political agenda or people who have used religion to gain any kind of power over people then he's welcome to do so, but he has no right to offend people who live by their religious laws peacefully.

And I find it very naive when people think that if religion ceased to exist then we would have world peace. Politicians and warlords use religion as a tool, and if you take that tool away they will just get another one.
Take the cold war for example, no religion, capitalism vs. communism.
There will always be wars and their numbers will never be reduced by removing their causes.
If you'd ban every cause that ever caused a war you'd be without religion, freedom, money, capitalism, socialism or communism.
Freedom = war.

George Carlin wasn't that special, his view were typical of any liberal junkie. I agree with him on many issues but I find him as close minded as most people on almost everything.

Well there is nothing that should not be questioned. Everything should be put to question. But there is nothing called offending someone intellectually:p If you want to question you're free to do this any way you want.

If you want to follow an intellectual process then you need to debate respectfully and refrain from offending. I don't believe Carlin's way was intellectual or even justified. But that's another debate, and that's only my point of view.

I already answered the question from my point of view. I don't want to enter another debate about his method or even if it was justified :p


Edit: I believe Adam's posts on this topic represent my point of view:p His second post is more than enough to demonstrate why Carlin's method is "cheap".

I'm using him as an example, not saying he was special, but he was the most famous when it came to that

you don't have to answer, but I do not want to end the discussion of what you said because you don't want to answer, I will offer a counter argument to what you said, and there are others in here with similiar point of views to yours that can take it from there :W

but we are kinda drifting off topic because the original question here was if he has the right, not whether you like it or not, in the end of course you wouldn't like it, he was offending religions, you are religious :p
but the reason for my question is for example... in Lebanon, lets say a news paper writes an article(or a comic strip) that offends a certain religion, bet2oum l2iyémé and people bi2imo l2yémé. doesn't that go against freedom of expression? does a writer or a newspaper have the right to publish such things?

He has no right to publish it with the intent to offend. And I'm sure someone will still be offended if you don't have the intention to offend because even if you write that you hate elephants, I'm sure there will be at least one person offended. And the offended has the right to express his views as well as long as he doesn't go on a rampage, burning the streets and smashing windows.

You also have to take into consideration that in Lebanon, insulting a religion is insulting the people more that in other countries because people are split along the lines of religion, whether they are practising their faith or not.

but is it our duty to suppress our opinions or their duty to respect laws and logic?

PS: I have no intentions of offending any religion :p I am debating for the sake of logic