ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

JWs focus more on the OT than Jesus, but yeah, they don’t really celebrate YHWH’s traits so much as gaslight themselves into believing that his sh***y behavior is a-okay.

Let me give you an example. Here in this disgusting passage at Deuteronomy 21:10-13:

What further complicates the issue is that Jesus himself upholds the OT at Mathew 5:17-20:

Just in case anyone gets the wrong impression from some of my posts - whilst I do often ponder the issues of LGBTQIA+ in relation to the Christianity, in no way do I generally dislike homosexuals of any type, or any LGBTQIA+ folk simply for having any of those characteristics.

In real life, I tend to keep any controversial topics I have in mind quiet, for the sake of peace.

I can't help what goes through my head though? And I would hope that people would be a bit charitable when estimating the intentions of my postings here in PPR.

I think that people have been remarkably charitable throughout this thread taking various factors into account. It’s really not a controversial topic or, at least, it shouldn’t be.

From GLAAD:

I have been to several countries around the world during my life and have met and known people of all religions. Some were good, some were bad, and most were somewhere in between. Each and every religion has both amazingly good and horrifically bad events in their past that cannot be changed, only learned from. I personally do not subscribe to any religion but I do view the universe as a living entity. I care not what religion anyone chooses to follow, I only care if they are kind and treat others with the respect of an equal. People are the same everywhere, the only things that separate us are languages and cultures. Everyone's poop stinks.

Making fun of other peoples religion, race, culture, and so on isn't anything new. I believe in the fundamental tenets of free speech, but I also believe free speech is never free. Everything we say and do in this world causes a ripple, has an effect even if we never see it. Mocking anyone's religion in the context the Virgin Mary is free speech, but as we see it rippled into censorship and then back into a circular backlash loop spiraling into nothing but hate from all towards each other. Who wins? We live in a world today on a brink of insanity where dark minded people keep trying to provoke others into 'starting something' with these sort of taunts.

I guess the question is if there is anything each of us can to do when these thing happen, and if there is then what it is we can do. We need a plan. For me the plan has always been simple, treat people as I want to be treated. Words have emotional power and therefore I try to keep emotion out of my words, I verbalize my emotion with behavior and words when necessary and appropriate. Kindness is never a weakness, it is always true strength. Compassion, empathy, and tolerance is paramount; if I have nothing nice to say I shouldn't say anything. I still struggle with sarcasm when confronted a little bit but working on it. Nobody is perfect after all, except everyone's God.

The word “charitable” has different definitions. I’m employing the one that involves being lenient when judging others.

We’ve mostly been able to maintain a respectful dialogue in this thread, critiquing ideas and beliefs, without excessive rule breaks. This isn’t just a casual topic. It’s one that carries a lot of weight and emotion with it as all topics involving bigotry do. The fact that the thread hasn’t been locked by this point says a lot. People don’t need to be ‘nice’ in PPR, and they won’t be if something offends them. Staying in the rules can be a feat when it comes to certain topics, and we’ve mostly done that. Depending on how offensive posts are, sometimes not engaging in personal attacks can be being charitable, so “being charitable” depends on context.

Explaining why something is or may be offensive, in general and in certain contexts, is not being uncharitable. It’s more about being helpful. In this thread, people have covered an astonishing array of common anti-LGBTQ+ talking points and terminology. Bearing that in mind, it’s cool that the level of dialogue has remained as respectful as it has although I think the occasional misstep is, perhaps, understandable given some of the things that have been stated and behavior that was engaged in here.

^ A person could theoretically be disinclined towards gay people, as a private matter, but still wish for equal rights for gay people.

Person A might not want gay children for example, as a preference, but would likely wish to have equal rights for any unborn offspring they might eventually have, who might be gay.

As an example of religious preference, Person B might not wish their family member to become Islamic, but if their family member did become Islamic, they wouldn't want that persons lawful rights affected in any way.

There have been some recent issues with GLAAD over the lavish spending of the CEO, but it’s absurd to suggest that that or any similar controversy negates the extremely important work that they have done for decades. Automatically dismissing what they have to say for such reasons would be an example of the genetic fallacy.

About GLAAD:

I think this thread has probably demonstrated an element of religiophobia that seems to be present on WP, as well as any perceived homophobia.

I wonder why religiophobia isn't talked about more often?