I've just finished an enjoyable read - "Brick Lane" by Monica Ali - Flora bought it in an airport bookshop. At the end of the book is an article written by the author after the book was published. It is titled: "The Outrage Economy". Clearly Monica Ali took some flak for stuff in the book/film.
As she points out, stock in the market for "outrage" or offense is rising. To put it another way - it is the trump card of the protestor: "I was outraged/offended/hurt (delete as applicable)".
As someone said I think - implicit in freedom of speech, has to be the possibility of giving or taking offence.
But is that a defence for being offensive? Answer: Maybe. I suspect that giving offence is sometimes the only way to make an important point (Jesus did it). But not always.
Sometimes offensive humour works - sometimes it is crap.
Taking offence - that is another issue - I think that playing the "I'm offended" trump card is just fueling "offence inflation".
It seems that some Christians see it is their role in life to be offended and make a lot of noise about it. That is so far from the core of the Gospel. "Im deeply offended" - is such an un-gracious response.
I'm not saying that people who find something morally wrong should stay silent. We do need to speak out sometimes - but let's not fuel offence inflation. We need signposts on the moral map not cowpats.
I find this mental tape a good one to play: "I am not responsible for what happens to me, but I am responsible for my reaction".
Would someone like to remind me of this post next time I act all offended?
