The Nature of Offense

Offense is such a fascinating and vibrant tool

It defines limitations in interaction. It can be reciprocated. It can be created, taken, and given. It can be said to be not offered yet received regardless (No offense). Originating from the Latin offensus, meaning 'collision' or 'knock', the synonym is how I find it most often used.

Offense as a Defense

In the world of the indefensible, the ideas that are too complicated, not well thought out, or based on no evidential reason whatsoever, offense comes out surprisingly quickly. How many times have you asked someone to explain their position on something *cough*Chiropractic* and they respond with a very personal answer or perhaps by making it an attack on them personally or their judgement?

Similarly, religious people, or those with faith often tend to bind the notions of their existence with that of their faith and reproach those who question the belief itself as an attack on their identity.

It would seem that whenever you have a double standard in society, offense will make it's way in an effort to resist change. Be it war on Christmas, prayer in classrooms, or gay marriage, offense has always played a role. But let me make it very clear. Offense is a choice.

Offense is a choice

See, I made it clear. No matter the topic, offense is a choice of those who claim to be offended, not those supposedly offering offense. If I told you your shoes looked horrible with that suit, it would be entirely on your shoulders to take note of my intentions, tone, and relationship with you and evaluate whether or not you want to be offended. If you chose to be offended, it is your choice. Remember that.

So when I say many of the things I say in public regarding religion, many find it prudent to take offense perhaps in an attempt to silence me or make me look bad. For too long has this led to some of the most important topics being ignored or suppressed. The very nature of the passive Midwestern society we live in must be confronted head on in order to get over the anti-intellectual state of mind we have so often submitted to.

Offense must occur

So before civil rights showed the racists and bigots of the world, it was considered offensive to call whites and blacks equals. Before the LGBT movement opened the world's eyes, gay and lesbian relationships were considered to be offensive. It used to be offensive to question your elders, tell people not to smoke around you, and to interact with your teachers. All progress will cause some level of offense.

When I am told by the liberal religious and accommodationist atheists that I should not be offensive to the notions of faith and religion, I have to ask why? Why, for example, is it OK for those of faith to believe that atheists are heathens contributing to the downfall of civilization (something I do not take offense to), but not OK for me to suggest that faith is detrimental to society (something people often take offense to)?

Should I be taking offense to others? Would it make a difference? No to both, in my opinion. I understand my ideas are offensive to some, and I also understand that is a necessary offense for the sake of progress. I ask the people in the world not to take offense as a defense, but to engage in dialog so we may better understand our positions. Let's build a better world together without such vacuous responses or reactions.

The World We Live In

In Darwin's Pharmacy, Richard M. Doyle speak of the nature of dreams, of how dreams, aspirations, and hopes shape reality. If the role of human imagination is to conceive of all these delightful ideas, and grip fervently onto them in hopes they become reality, then I feel my dreams for the future of society are justified if I can simply convince another human being that it would be beneficial to enact them.

 I dream of a world where we can live side by side in a skeptical society which desires to better itself via critical thinking, corrections, and the humility of doubt.  In each of these is a recipe for the improvement of the world, but together they would offer a civilization capable of forward thinking and eventually transcendence of our Pale Blue Dot.

When I am corrected in my language, I swallow my pride and say 'Thank You'. When I am informed of my errors, I adjust accordingly and apologize. When my deeds have been shown to be harmful, I subject myself to penance.

So why am I treated with such hostility when I would like to hold my friends, my relatives, or my colleagues to these standards? Is there a legitimate reason why these standards are not good enough for the world around me? Perhaps am I merely striking a chord with society's personal bubble and probing into otherwise untouched insecurities?

I would like to hear from the readers: Have I placed an unfair expectation on the rest of society? Why should we not expect our fellow humans to indulge in self-improvement? Why should we not nudge people to embrace themselves and tackle their fears?

How many times have people been enabled in their insecurities, fears, and weaknesses because we were afraid to offend? As a community we must offer support, friendship, and compassion, but not enable the worst parts of people. We must embrace idiosyncrasies,  yet drive out biggotry and intolerance.

Above all, the objective verification of evidence and the avoidance of subjective truth is integral for this system as it creates a sense of humility in the experience of the individual and simultaneously builds empathy and reason.

That is the world I want to live in. Who is with me?

New Optimism

A new wave of optimism has struck the Fargo area, an area marred by corporate interests, national religious lobby groups, and a drastic misrepresentation of the masses.

Since my previous posts, the last being in May, the Secular Community has thrived, providing an opportunity for a taboo-free discussion and a weekly venting for so many like myself who are discouraged from expressing critical thinking during the course of the average day.

The last half year has been eventful, with awareness campaigns in the streets, helping to bring together student organizations, secular movie showings, and group efforts in engaging the local scientific and religious communities.

Last month, The Interfaith network, hosted by David Myers, had a panel discussion with four atheists of diverse background on Concordia Campus, including Trevor Nelson, and Jeffrey Eide from the F-M Secular Community. We were received very well by a public hungry for dialog on a topic they are told not to discuss.

Lastly, let me shout out a boisterous congratulations to the entire group who helped to put together and plan the Great Plains Atheists, although I am not sure if they want to be named just yet. In the coming articles and entries, I intend to lay out our greater plans and explain why I am inspired by the efforts of my friends and partners.

It is good to be back on the blogosphere, so by all means, please browse my previous entries, many of them from the last of my travel days, and comment as much as possible. I hope this can become a source of dialog for the area.