Cartoon was offensive, no matter what Chronicle says

Editor:Like many others, I was mildly offended by the cartoon advertising activities based on perceptions of the LDS Church. I hoped that similar to the offenses felt by the Black Student Union and MEChA, the ones directed toward my church were unintentional. Thus I was very disappointed by the corresponding editorials not only justifying the cartoon, but bemoaning the fact that such offense was taken in the first place.

Yes, I understand that we have a Constitutional right to express any thought or idea in a public forum (thanks for reminding me though, Lindsey Sine).?Furthermore, I agree with Matt Patton that many people often react unduly to truly innocuous statements. However, the thing I found most disturbing was the idea that the solution to such problems was simply not to think.

To quote Patton, “It seems that before speaking, acting, writing or moving, we have to think?” Oh no. We have to think, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t know about you guys, but I am spending thousands of dollars every semester to learn how to think. Even more discouraging was the later comment, “It is up to those that could take offense to understand that not every person can identify and comprehend what his or her life is all about, and therefore they shouldn’t allow themselves to be offended.”

I would like to remind Sine and Patton that the country providing them the right to express their opinions was based on taking offense. The early colonists of the Revolutionary War were offended that they had to pay taxes without representation. Rosa Parks was offended by laws directed at subjugating her race. One could argue that the recent victory of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives and the Senate acts as a result of the American people being offended at the actions of the current administration.

Yes, we have the right to say what we want in a public forum. However, we also have the right, and possibly the duty, to remain offended when that right is abused to promote ends that as Sine noted were “insensitive.” I would encourage Sine and Patton to continue expressing their opinions, but please remember that I, too, will maintain my right to be offended. At least I know I am in good company.

Stephanie NielsonJunior, History Education