taking offence
Taking offence is a pitiful display of inserting our needy egos into a situation where it really isn’t appropriate, and then claiming to be a victim of someone else’s insensitivity. It only happens because we’ve put value on something that, in truth, doesn’t have any, but we expect everyone to value it as we do, and when they (rightly) don’t, we monopolise the moment by interpreting their indifference as a personal affront against ourselves.
A book is just pieces of paper with syllabary printed on them, which are bound together and sold for profit. A bible is just that, and can never be anything more than a book. Even if some want to imagine it to be sacred, and believe that the text holds special meaning, that is only a subjective and fanciful interpretation. It is only when they expect others to bestow the same value on that block of printed paper, that ‘taking offence’ become possible.
If someone can’t read or they don’t agree with the message conveyed in the text, they might use a book as a doorstop; it could be a dictionary, or a copy of War and Peace, it doesn’t matter, because it is a practical solution to a problem, and does not harm anyone. And if that doorstop happened to be a bible or any other religious book, it’s no different. For anyone to take offence because a book is being used in that practical fashion, is imposing their unsubstantiated belief onto others, and making it about them. It is manipulative, egotistic, and wholly inappropriate, because it is forcing others to respect the irrational
Take a crucifix, for example. We can naively believe whatever we want, but willing a piece of metal – fashioned by the same processes as any other metal object – to somehow possess magical properties, is absurd. We can appreciate things for their beauty, craftsmanship, artistic creativity, and functionality, but to believe that a piece of metal is capable of influencing anything just by its shape, is not only delusional, but worrying too.
Symbolism and all beliefs not only create divisions, but also offer some people the excuse to be offended when someone else does not believe the same, yet they never think to question the validity of their belief, or why they themselves happen to believe it. It is not just belief and symbolism where offence is taken; whenever people arbitrarily take sides in any scenario, be it sport, politics, nationhood, and all forms of competition, they invariably show hostility towards those who happen to find themselves on the other side. Hostility is just a more physical manifestation of taking offence, and war is just a tragic inevitability of that attitude.
Simone, for very rational reasons, views the Earth and its life-giving properties as the most precious thing in existence. And when she see it being recklessly destroyed by others who value a belief in an intangible place they call heaven above the reality of this incredible planet, she can only conclude that this destruction is an outrageous act against life itself. Why, then, would Simone respect anything that promotes or represents that deluded belief?
Humans are destroying the planet, and with it, the future of life. Unbelievably, 85% of those humans still identify with a religion, most of which promise an eternal afterlife in the company of an invisible god somewhere beyond the material universe. They build monuments to those beliefs, wage wars in the name of their god, and spend much of their lives hoping to secure a place in that paradise – all while neglecting the very real world that gave them life, a reality more awe-inspiring than anything they can imagine.
If we must believe in something, it makes sense to believe in LIFE, because the evidence for it is all around. Believing in a fantasy god should not give anyone the right to disrespect the natural forces which, ironically, gave them the means to do so.
Belief is just a desperate attempt to give an ignorant perspective a degree of credibility, which people then define themselves by, and when challenged, they take offence.
There is a growing tendency for people to use themselves as the subject upon which they can be offended, where taking exception to their opinion, belief, or other subjective identifier is enough to provoke indignation. This belief in an unyielding sense of self-righteousness is not only intolerant – as it reflects an unwillingness to accept that our diverse influences and inherent limitations will naturally lead to a range of perspectives – but it also reveals a deeper vulnerability and godlike arrogance. Their identity is so fragile that the slightest challenge triggers an aggressive and thoughtless reaction, which is completely contrary to our natural tendency to learn and embrace a more comprehensive understanding of the world we all share.
Assimilating new information, even when it invalidates our previously held beliefs, is the only way towards consensus and the dissolution of the divisions which stand in the way of realistically mitigating the crisis we all face.
Many people undoubtedly find comfort and inspiration by believing in surreal possibilities, but we should be more concerned with why those needs and motivations aren’t being met by tangible, real-world opportunities, rather than investing our hope in unverifiable hearsay. The reason is that the world we’ve created is dysfunctional and fails to meet our true human needs, so we’re forced to look outside that dysfunction for answers. Unfortunately, it’s not a solution, more of distraction, because all we’re doing is avoiding the problems rather than fixing them. There is genuine purpose and meaning in fixing our world; both very real human motivations. That is where we should focus our energies.
Aug 2024