Your position appears to be that you should decide for others whether they are allowed to take offense at casual references to their religious beliefs outside the context of discussion of that religion.
You don’t have to be religious or even respect religion at all to avoid being offensive to those who do hold certain strong beliefs.
Your position appears to be that you should decide for others whether they are allowed to think that others can be thin skinned and petty for what they “take offense” in.
It isn’t a word in everyone’s base vocabulary, but I think that LSL is overestimating it’s obscurity. (I don’t see it being synonymous to “sacred cow”, though–much closer to “dog whistle.”
You’ve deliberately chosen phrases that are not offensive and so are sidestepping my point. None of those denigrates the religious belief behind it in the way that the phrase “sacred cow” does, at least in the usages being described above.
I’m not sure I agree. Although in principal I dislike the neutering of language in the name of overwrought offense-taking. The key question in these cases is where/when well-wrought shades into overwrought.
The point of the “sacred cow” idiom is not that whatever topic or practice is religiously inviolate. It’s that it’s stupid and ripe for change / removal / slaughter.
“The daily TPS report update meeting is a sacred cow” is another way of saying “The daily TPS report update meeting is a stupid pointless ritual we ought to remove”. Which in turn is not far from saying “Hindu beliefs and practices ref bovines are a stupid pointless ritual we ought to remove.”
Conjugated that way I have a hard time defending it. Any Hindu annoyance at the comparison would be well-wrought, not overwrought. Probably not worth mass marches in the streets, torching the Student Union, etc.
But still it’s pretty impolite speech it’s probably nicer to avoid.
Thanks for elaborating on this, I was going to post something similar. And I strongly agree about neutering the language. I just think we ought not to automatically dismiss any offense taken as needless PC pandering.
I see now (thanks Darren) that there’s a side issue that may really be the main issue: Does “sacred cow” mean an unquestionable assumption or practice? Or does it mean an unquestionable assumption or practice the speaker believes is ripe for overturning?
I always understood the meaning to be #1 for sure, but with a very heavy dollop of #2. You (well I) wouldn’t use the phrase except to ridicule whatever that assumption or practice was. IOW, “sacred cows” exist to be slaughtered, not to be respected.
Perhaps it’s like “niggardly”. A word I don’t use not because of what it properly means, but because of what so many people misunderstand it to mean. Once you can’t trust that your entire audience understands only the “good” meaning you’ve pretty much lost use of the word.
What difference would it make? Nobody who has posted such a thing so far seems to have cared about that; why would it change? Tact has not been a feature of respondents on this board…
The thing is, only Hindus should decide what’s offensive to Hindus, just as Blacks decide what’s offensive to Blacks, gays decide what’s offensive to gays, etc. Other people should just respect that.