Being offended is everyone's right, just like being angry, or happy, or any emotion there is. Our nation was conceived on the basis of freedoms, and fortunately, those of us who live in America have many of them. Individually, we have the right to exercise our freedoms, and if being offended is one of them I want to exercise, then so be it. Nothing and no one can stop me.
I think most Americans would agree with this sentiment. But would they still agree if I decided that my being offended by your exercising of your rights meant that I could force a restriction of your rights? What if you and your friends and your family commonly exercise your rights, there are many more of you than just me, I'm the only one offended by your actions, but I can still restrict your rights? You are in the majority, and I am the minority, but my single vote trumps yours and all your buddies.
Now let's turn it around. I'm still in the minority, exercising my rights without a care in the world. You and your friends and your family, the majority, are all offended by my exercising of my rights. But I don't care. You can't stop me. Your right to be offended is all you have, and it does not include any right to impose restrictions on my exercising of my rights.
See the common denominator here? In both cases, I'm the minority, but I win. That's what has happened in our country. Our legal system allows the minority to win, to impose its being offended on everyone else's rights.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001, 76.6% of the United States population identified with a Christian religion. That would be a majority. The minority would be 23.4%. That minority is responsible for the removal of the Ten Commandments and other Christian icons from nearly every government building in the country. Why did that happen? Because the courts said they could. It wasn't because of the constitution; the presence of a Christian symbol in a federal building has nothing to with a "law respecting an establishment of religion". It is a religious artifact that provides faith, hope, strength, and inspiration to more than three-fourths of our nation's population. Yet when the courts force removal, they effectively do make a law disrespecting any number of established Christian religions. That offends me.
The U.S. Census Bureau says that in 2001, only .5%, or one-half of one percent, of the U.S. population identified themselves as Muslim or Islamic. In 2007, the state-run Minneapolis Community and Technical College, which incidentally banned Christmas carols on campus, installed at taxpayer expense special sinks in public restrooms so that Muslims could wash their feet. The Kansas City International Airport did the same thing. And New York City, in the fall of 2007, opened the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a public school which offers Arabic language and culture. It is impossible to teach Arab culture without also teaching Islam. A public school' exists at taxpayer expense, but in this case the school is also partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. These instances also offend me.
Let's do another one. The 2000 U.S. Census put the gay population of the country, in terms of same-sex couples, at just over 1%. Across the nation, percentages ranged from 0% to roughly 7%, depending upon the locale. Twenty-six states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage. California, whose Supreme Court just recently overturned laws against same-sex marriage, has become the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize gay marriage. Again, it's the courts. Governor Schwarzenegger, elected to office by the majority of voters, has twice vetoed proposed laws to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2000, a law to ban same-sex marriage was on the ballot, and passed with over 60% of the votes, a clear majority. Yet the highest court in the state found it acceptable to override the majority and let the minority win. I don't even live in California, but that offends me.
I'll bring it closer to home. Say that you and your family spend your Saturday afternoons at your home town's local park, along with hundreds of other families. You take advantage of the open space to let your children run and play, and of the playground to let your children slide and swing. You nurture them and in every way, act as responsible parents and American citizens. Then someone's child falls off a swing and is injured. The parents sue the city. The city settles out of court, but removes all of the playground equipment because it cannot afford to be sued again should another child be injured. Hundreds of families lose the playground because of one child's injury. And because of the courts. This is a true story, and it could and does happen in many variations all over the country.
What offends me most is that we allow the courts to do this. They aren't interpreting existing laws, they are making new laws, and that is not their constitutional role. When the offended minority can infringe upon the rights of the majority, effectively removing those rights while gaining previously non-existent rights for their minority, there is a problem. This problem is slowly deteriorating the fabric of our legal system, and is well on the way to doing the same for our culture.
It wasn't long ago that a man sat in a public library at a computer and surfed through multiple pornographic websites. Those people around him, including children, raised enough of a stir to bring the librarian over, who promptly told the man that he had to stop. He complained to the librarian's supervisor that his rights had been violated. The librarian was fired. Which right is greater, the right "to" or the right "not to"? Does the man have a greater right to view pornography, or do the other adults and children in the library have a greater right not to be exposed to pornography against their wishes. Perhaps they just shouldn't look. Tell a child that it always works. Where do common sense and decency come into play?
Ours is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Why do we accept this? Fear of offending someone? If I'm offended by your language in the presence of my children, you can bet you will hear about it. I don't have the right to force you to stop, but neither should you have the right to force me, or my children, to listen. I have the right to complain to the proprietor if we are in a business, and I have the right to never visit that business again if the proprietor ignores my complaint. We have all been conditioned not to expect better. We have all been conditioned that we are the little people with no power to enact change. We are responsible for the deterioration of our culture and our court system. We let it happen, and we let it get worse. We have the power "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". We can vote. But first you have to care enough to be offended.