This generation is constantly clamoring for unity, love and acceptance while also demanding that all nations and all faiths be embraced, that all individuals have the right to do as they please, that there be no police, no laws, no incursions on the rights of the individual. What kind of la-la-land does this current generation live in?? They claim that they are for love and harmony, but they are the most INTOLERANT bunch of haters of everyone or anyone that does not think, feel or believe EXACTLY as they do.
The problem is that the world is demanding that man be glorified, honored, respected, satisfied and happy. This can NEVER HAPPEN. As long as man IS KING and everything is focused on self the world will continue to spiral deeper and deeper into darkness. It is my hope that this post will help you understand why.
When I first read the lead on the following article, I thought oh, ok. Some wise folks are deciding that they don’t have to join the crowd who loves to be offended. I am glad I read the article. That is not what it was about at all.
spacer
Oxford University boss says it is ‘unfortunate’ that some students ‘claim a right not to be offended’
spacer
“>Cherwell, Dame Louise Richardson, who has served as Vice Chancellor since 2016, said that “there is a view amongst some students – and it’s not all students – there is a right not to be offended”.
“I think that’s unfortunate. I’d like to persuade them that that’s not a healthy approach to take,” she added.
She said that Oxford was “pretty robust” on freedom of speech.
>“We both know that the press – or some parts of the press – likes to use the issue of freedom of speech as a stick with which to beat certain universities,” she said.
“>“But I think we’re pretty robust on the issue, even if not every student or every staff member would agree with me precisely on where to draw the lines. My own view is that all legal speech should be welcomed at universities.”
“>Dame Louise has previously told students that they must be prepared to “hear the other side” of arguments and that “they should, through reasoned debate, seek to change the other’s mind and above all, be open to having their own mind changed too”.
spacer
𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐭𝐨 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃?
- The act of causing anger, resentment, displeasure, or affront.
- The state of being offended.
- A violation or infraction of a moral or social code; a transgression or sin.
<Let me say first of all, this crazy generation is constantly screaming about their right to choose. It really does come down to CHOICE. This Life is all about choices All about what YOU choose to do with what comes your way. NO ONE can MAKE you anything. YOU have the right to choose how you respond to anything and everything. That is the only power you have in this life. You cannot change anyone or anything but for your response to it. How you respond to anything affects what happens. Most importantly, your choices reveal to GOD where you stand. HE is the only one who can change things, HE can even change you. He can change your heart. You can’t even know your own heart. That is what the Bible says.
The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
spacer
The “Twitter joke case” – on which I posted earlier in the week – prompted an interesting article in yesterday’s Guardian. In it, John Kampfner, former chief executive of Index on Censorship, argues that “the public, both Twitter-using and non-Twitter-using, have elevated taking offence to a human right. We see hurt and danger around every corner and lurking in every missive. For sure, some are beyond the pale. One or two might be prosecutable. But, for the most part we should develop a thicker skin, keep calm and carry on.” (He wrote this before news broke about tweets concerning Olympic diver Tom Daley – but Kampfner has now written a further piece in the light of that story, on which see also this article by Joshua Rozenberg.)
All of this raises a difficult but important question. At what point – if any – does one person’s right of freedom of speech have to yield because its exercise might offend others? This is an issue with which the courts have increasingly had to grapple since the Human Rights Act 1998 entered into force. The Act gives effect in UK law to certain parts of the European Convention on Human Rights – including Article 10. It says that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.” But, like many provisions in the Convention, the right is limited. In particular, Article 10 says that free speech can be restricted to the extent that is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
When, then, does the right to speak freely give way to the need not to offend others? This question arises in a number of contexts. For example, section 5 of the (Remember this is in the UK) Public Order Act 1986 criminalises (in certain circumstances) the use of “insulting” words or behaviour – but the “Free Free to Insult Me” campaign argues that free speech should not be limited in this way.
The extent, if any, of the right not to be offended also arose in 2003 in the ProLife Alliance case, in which a group opposed to abortion sought to air a political broadcast – showing images of mutilated aborted foetuses – during an election campaign. TV stations refused to show it, arguing, in effect, that ProLife Alliance’s right to free speech – which extends to a right to display images – could be restricted because of the offensiveness of the images concerned.
The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (since replaced by the UK Supreme Court) ruled, by a majority, in favour of the broadcasters. One of the majority judges, Lord Nicholls, said that members of the public were entitled to be protected “from being unduly distressed in their own homes”. But in a strong dissenting judgment, Lord Scott disagreed. He said:
In a mature democracy political parties are entitled, and expected, to place their policies before the public so that the public can express its opinion on them at the polls. The constitutional importance of this entitlement and expectation is enhanced at election time … Voters in a mature democracy may strongly disagree with a policy being promoted by a televised party political broadcast but ought not to be offended by the fact that the policy is being promoted nor, if the promotion is factually accurate and not sensationalised, by the content of the programme. Indeed, in my opinion, the public in a mature democracy are not entitled to be offended by the broadcasting of such a programme …
A broadcasters’ mind-set that rejects a party election television programme, dealing with an issue of undeniable public importance such as abortion, on the ground that large numbers of the voting public would find the programme “offensive” denigrates the voting public, treats them like children who need to be protected from the unpleasant realities of life, seriously undervalues their political maturity and can only promote the voter-apathy to which I have referred.
Lord Scott makes an important point here. He recognises that the acceptable limits of free speech depend on the context, and on the purpose for which someone is seeking to express themselves. The gratuitous publication of “offensive” images for no purpose except to shock might well exceed the limits of the right of free speech – but purposeful publication as part of a serious political debate was (or arguably ought to have been) a different matter. In this sense, then, there is a “hierarchy” of speech – some forms being more valuable, and so more deserving of protection, than others. This does not mean that “low-level” speech – such as the Twitter joke about blowing up an airport – deserves no protection. But it does mean that it is less important, and so more susceptible to lawful restriction, than other, worthier forms of expression.
spacer
We live in an increasingly “post-truth” political climate. But even before fake news and alternative facts, few Americans were in agreement about, well, almost anything. Over time, consensus on key moral principles has waned, and the younger generations are now inheriting this new moral landscape. In addition to a growing religious apathy and a singular focus on success, another prominent trait of Gen Z is a more relativistic worldview. Though still in a formative stage of life, the leading edge of Gen Z, along with Millennials, appear to hold notably different views about morality than other generations. In a major study in partnership with Impact 360 Institute, Barna’s Gen Z report examines beliefs about morality among the next, next generation.
Morality Can Be a Grey Area to Gen Z
Looking at some basic principles, there is a curious generational shift in the moral compass of Americans. With some awareness that teens’ views may still be quite pliable, we’ll focus on the respondents who indicate the highest level of agreement with these statements in order to show those presently most committed to these beliefs. At this extreme end, one-quarter of Gen Z (24%) strongly agrees that what is morally right and wrong changes over time based on society. There is a wide generational divide on this point: Twice as many Gen Z than Boomers (12%) believe this. The centrality of the self as moral arbiter is also higher among the younger generations—21 percent of Gen Z and 23 percent of Millennials believe each individual is his or her own moral authority—though Gen X (18%) and Boomers (17%) aren’t too far behind on this one. As mentioned, these are only the proportions who strongly agree, so this is perhaps just a hint of a broader public acceptance that morality can be fluid. Teens in Barna focus groups elaborated on their perspective. One participant said, “Society changes, and what’s good or bad changes as well. It is all relative to what’s happening in the world.”
spacer
Nov 2, 2020 There is no human right, nor legal right in France, to not be offended. What is a human right, and a legal right, is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The basic rights that enable us to live in a civilized and free society do not disappear because one group is offended, and they certainly don’t justify violence.
No one has a right to not be offended, and the world must never give in to such bullying and thuggish tactics such as those used to censor and oppress contrary and dissident opinions, whether from the Muslim world, the Western world, or anywhere else. Nowhere is this attempted censorship more prevalent today than with the protests we see erupting against France over a cartoon (allegedly) insulting a religious faith. We must uphold freedom of speech and expression at any cost!
spacer
Proverbs 19:11 – The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.
Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 – Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee: (Read More…)
Proverbs 18:19 – A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.
James 3:16 – For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Leviticus 19:18 – Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Ephesians 4:2-3 – With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; (Read More…)
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 – Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (Read More…)
1 Peter 2:23 – Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Matthew 7:1-5 – Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Read More…)
Proverbs 27:5-6 – Open rebuke is better than secret love. (Read More…)
James 1:19 – Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Ephesians 5:1-33 – Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; (Read More…)
Acts 24:16 – And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
Matthew 18:7 – Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
LOVE, real, honest, pure, world changing love; can only come from the Father above. To be filled with love, you must be filled with love for our Creator.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:4
Matthew 6:5-15 aka The Lord’s Prayer. Jesus taught us to pray this way.
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 6:5-15
Only when we take our focus off our own selfish wants, desires and demands and turn our focus to what GOD has for our lives can we ever find peace, joy, contentment and fulfillment.
When we focus on lifting up GOD in the earth, he becomes our glory and the lifter of our head.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32
“But you, O LORD, are a shield about me, my glory, And the lifter of my head.” Psalms 3:3
Yes, I know that the disciple stated that scripture applies to his death on the cross. However, God showed me that it also applies to life NOW. If we lift up JESUS/YESHUA before the world, he will draw people back to him, to truth, to real honest love.
Even the so called ‘Churches” of today have learned that trying to please people and avoid offense DOES NOT WORK!
