Serious question, please respond.
I am apparently completely fucking wrong about something and a completely reprehensible person for being wrong about it.  I'm trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible so as to hide which position I take here so everyone will give me an honest answer.

If a group of activists dedicated to a cause engage in actions that are offensive to an entire religion (even the practitioners of said religion that support them), wouldn't it logically follow that the practitioners of this religion (which is not generally sympathetic to the cause) would become more unsympathetic to the cause as a result and the ones who are already most strongly opposed to the cause would gain credibility because these people did the offensive things that they always said they wanted to do? 

And do in-group/out-group dynamics really matter in this situation?  Is it any more or less acceptable for a group without power to offend a group with power in this fashion as it would be for a group with power to offend a group without power?

I want to know what people think on this.  Am I really an absolute idiot?