But attacking Jesus pretty much feels like a personal attack to A LOT of people... don't you realize that?
Jeez, I am making myself seem like a religious individual with strong beliefs, and I really am not.
I just like respecting people whatever their beliefs are, and I expect people to respect me back just the same way.
The image is offensive for a lot of people, hence he shouldn't use it.
I also agree with you that religion and its entities shouldn't get half the immunity they get most of the time, but that is a whole other story..
Of course I realise that. I am well aware of the fact that many people will get instantaneously offended by stuff like this. My point is... let me put it this way:
We have here a case of an "offence". We have an offender, Filo V, and a hypothetical offendee, let's call him Mr. X.
Filo decides to express his opinion about Christianity by using this avatar in an internet forum. Mr. X sees it and is outraged and offended. Why do we, in face of the situation, automatically turn our heads to Filo, hold him
responsible and urge him to delete his avatar? Why is the offender at fault by default? Does Filo V, and every user here, have to cater to the personal feelings and beliefs of every single other user? Why must that always be more important than the right to free speech and to the free exercise of opinion?
The man in my avatar is my favourite living philosopher. If another user considered him to be a terrible thinker and a man not worthy of praise, but rather of criticism, and decided to sport an avatar ridiculing him, and if that hurt my feelings and offended me, would you say it would be reasonable for me to demand he got rid of that avatar? Of course not. Why is this any different? Why is this a whole other story?