ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

I find it interesting that 'free speech' is often given as a reason for espousing hateful rhetoric towards Christianity, even when that speech is often an expression of hatred and causes offence on the grounds of religion to those affected.

These same sorts of people who commit this sort of hateful speech with regards to religion, often seem to be aware that it is not okay to express mocking or disrespect towards other groups who have protected characteristics, such as those as part of the LGBTQ+ community, or people of a different ethnic background, or those who have disabilities? And yet they often seem to make an exception for religion, despite it being a lawfully protected characteristic.

Quote from the article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/23/free-speech-row-regulator-bans-advert-mocking-virgin-mary/

We have similar illogical/inconsistent attitudes here in the USA. It's socially acceptable to attack Christianity (especially Catholicism), and has been, for quite some time. As a member of the faithful, I like to keep in mind that....

Two thousand years ago, Christianity revolutionized the world, by proclaiming that all people are valuable in the eyes of God, not just the wealthy, those in good health, and those who hold positions of power. We are called to continue the ancient Christian traditions of feeding the hungry; clothing the naked; caring for the sick, widows, and orphans; embracing life, compassion, and hospitality for the unborn, the disabled, and the stranger; loving our neighbors, etc. We have good work to do, this side of Heaven, and we cannot let cruel words, attitudes, and actions distract or discourage us.

Gotta stay focused and keep our eyes on The Cross.

I find it appalling that 'free speech' is always given as an excuse for espousing hateful rhetoric towards anything.

There’s an important distinction to be made between criticizing a belief system and criticizing the people who adhere to it. I agree with WP’s stance on this topic:

viewtopic.php?t=204613&p=7249308#p7249308

I don’t believe that unproven religious figures (e.g. Mary, Jesus, a god, prophet(s), or whoever else) should be above ridicule although, ideally, there would be a reason behind it, perhaps related to logic or morality, and a purpose for it (e.g. bringing about awareness and/or change). Inciting hate towards groups of people who adhere to whatever belief system is something else. Policies and laws themselves aren’t above scrutiny. They continue to change and evolve as society does. However, hate or discrimination towards any group is certainly wrong. Causing offense isn’t necessarily.

There’s not an unproven ideology/belief system behind being LGBTQ+, a woman, or a racial minority. That’s why the topic of religion differs in core ways even though its adherents are still protected. A person can critique the ideology without attacking the people who believe in it. You can’t do that so much with other protected groups although discussing socialized behavior norms is generally okay. Criticizing or even mocking toxic aspects of an ideology is not hate speech. Attacking the people is.

Scrutinizing and criticizing belief systems have been an important conduit for change. It can push some groups to change harmful doctrine and policies, and even play some role in how one approaches political matters. Political cartoons have often served to highlight problems in specific religions and the frequently problematic role they play in politics. Given how pervasive the issues of homophobia, misogyny, child abuse, anti-science, and even support for terrorism and the current genocide in Palestine are in religion, often rooted in the problematic holy books themselves, I think we need to be careful about unduly restricting freedom of speech here by calling things hate speech that aren’t.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 25 Nov 2024, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am 100% opposed to restricting free speech. It is my deeply held belief that every person is granted freedom of speech and thought, by virtue of being a human being created by God, not by any government. Since governments and other entities cannot grant this freedom, they are in grave error when they suppress it.

It is generally accepted, among anthropologists and historians (not just theologians of the three main Abrahamic monotheistic religions), that Our Lady and Christ are real, historic figures. Even if they were not, it is deeply disrespectful to ridicule religious founders and deities. I don't agree with the existence of any of the gods of Hinduism, for example, but I do not criticize or ridicule them. To do so would be highly disrespectful to the people who believe in them.

Mockery and ridicule stem from a lack of understanding, a lack of respect, and a disregard for peace.



Inciting hate toward the people is the exact effect of the mocking and ridicule of a faith system, because human beings are emotional creatures. While the argument is made that there is a difference between hating a person and hating a religion, there is no difference *in practice*. Hate is such a strong emotion that it doesn't draw those distinctions.



Identifying Christian ideology, in whole or in part, as "toxic" demonstrates a lack of understanding and a fear of the worldview in question. People have every right to disagree, but to label another religion or culture "toxic" is ethnocentric emotionalism. It is perceived as an attack against the people because it is.

The terms used to describe or critique an idea are a clue to the person's objectives. Aggressive heated terminology is not indicative of a logical critique of ideas. Negative emotional terminology is indicative of targeting the people not the idea, since ideologies are not at risk of being offended.



Since the thread is about Christianity -- I would argue Catholicism in particular, since the original post involved our Blessed Mother, whom most Protestant sects have a mild acknowledgement of, and therefore would be mostly emotionally unaffected by attacks against Her -- I will respond to the above through that lens only.

To the faithful, it is obvious that a statement accusing Catholicism of homophobia, misogyny, child abuse, anti-science, and support for terrorism and genocide is coming from a position that cannot be supported. Since we are discussing the actual theology (not the flawed participants of the faith, or the folks who hold untrue beliefs of what the Church is or what She teaches), I would like to mention that there are no Church teachings that support or condone any of the things mentioned above. Devout adherents actively -- and accurately -- disagree with all of the aforementioned worldwide problems. Homophobia, misogyny, child abuse, anti-science ideas, terrorism, and genocide are passionately condemned by a faith that teaches love for all of God's creation, which includes all of humanity.

When discussing the actual religion (not relying on the imperfect practice of the religion by certain individuals, or the emotional reactions to the religion by those who fail to study it for themselves), I find it a complete mystery how anyone can accuse the Catholic religion of supporting any of the things above. It is not a mystery to me, at all, how people can accuse specific Catholics of supporting the above mentioned problems, because I have struggled with individual people of all types who support those things, regardless of religious affiliation.

To lump all of us together (which is what happens when ridicule/emotional verbiage is used for a so-called critique of our theology) is uncharitable and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the actual teachings of the Church.

Even though we don’t have much evidence that Mary and Jesus existed outside of scripture, I agree that they were probably real people although it’s unlikely that they were anything like the tall tales that are in the Bible. Any scrutiny and criticism of them are about the tall tales, not the historical figures. There’s no evidence that miracles happened. The Jesus story likely grew over the decades and centuries and with other myths thrown into the mix since the gospel accounts were written decades after Jesus’ death was purported to have been.

There are lots of beliefs that I do not respect. I do not respect much of my family’s Christian beliefs because of the harmful tenets they adhere to. I still love and respect my family very much as well as appreciate old acquaintances and friends even though they are shunning me. We aren’t obligated to respect that which we find harmful. We are free to have whatever opinions we like as long as such opinions do not involve hate or discrimination towards people.

Ridicule and mockery can be inflammatory. I’m not denying that. However, when it’s more about satire rooted in evidence, it’s rather different than making blanket statements about an ideology (i.e. saying that Christianity is stupid). I personally think that Christianity is deeply problematic and facets of it ARE stupid/not supported by evidence or logic and toxic, but I tend to discuss specific issues I have with it rather than denounce Christianity as a whole because I think that’s more useful/productive.

Once again, this isn’t an attack on Catholics or Christians. It’s about Catholicism/Christianity as belief systems. There have always been issues with homophobia in the Catholic Church since they do not condone same sex marriage. There are also problems with misogyny since there are no female leaders and the Church is staunchly anti-choice. Obviously, there will be individual variation among followers of any Christian denomination. Child abuse is a problem in the Church due to their pervasive issues with coverups, just as it is in other churches like among Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. I think people expect there to be bad people in any demographic. The key is how it’s handled.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 25 Nov 2024, 12:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Criticism of an ideology, even in a mocking and heavy-handed manner, is not hate and it is not hate speech and it should always be allowed in a free society. It is completely different from attacking people for who they are. It should always be acceptable to critique people for what they believe.

In Catholicism the doctrine is preached by the Church leaders, it is not determined by an individual's personal interpretation of scripture, and there are countless concrete examples of Church leadership, in word and deed, that espouse or tolerate those beliefs very openly and specifically. It's impossible to pretend otherwise. It's either been stated outright by the leadership or it's in the historical record of their actions.

It’s not uncommon for religious groups to change problematic policies after receiving enough backlash/bad press/criticism. As with any ideology - religious, political, philosophical, etc., free speech is incredibly important. It’s hard to make progress if our free speech is censured over ideas. There is a decent chunk of Americans who are raising their kids to be scientifically illiterate - to ignore evidence in favor of believing that the Earth was created in 6 days and that evolution isn’t real. It’s abusive because it’s stunting their future. I don’t even want to think about how much potential has been lost over ideas. On this very forum, people have used the Bible to support Israel’s genocidal behavior and colonialism, and there’s plenty of biblical justification for it. Criticism of the Bible and/or doctrine can help with these issues.

I know that stuff is not applicable to the Catholic Church, but Catholicism has its own abuses to answer for - guilt and the fear of Hell in addition to their institutional problems with bigotry that have already been alluded to. Obviously, on an individual level YMMV. The criticism is directed at the institution that is the Catholic Church.

I’m thankful that criticism (formal and informal) was readily available for me to read/view when it came to leaving the abusive religion I was raised in. Many former Catholics have felt similarly. I’ve known some who even referred to Catholicism as a cult. ExCatholics are often the most vocal in speaking out about the injustices propagated by the Church. It takes a lot of guts to get to that point, and yet, there are those who want to silence them. You can often avoid reading and seeing material you want to avoid, but people should be free to express themselves as they see fit as long as certain lines are not crossed (e.g. denigrating real people rather than beliefs, institutions, and ideas).

Whilst it is true that religion is a bit different from other protected characteristics, in that it is technically a belief in and of itself - in relation to people, it can actually be an intrinsic part of a person. If a person believes in the idea of the Christian God or a different God from another religion, it often becomes a part of them emotionally and internally. Theism is a common characteristic of human beings - atheists and agnostics are a minority, worldwide.

Most people who have a bit of decency wouldn't constantly mock or deride a religion in the presence of others who believe in that very religion, it is just considered rude - even if not hate speech. People would probably not do this sort of thing in person, and being online doesn't mean it is a free-for-all in terms of disrespecting other people or their beliefs. It is a matter of proportion also - if someone makes the occasional remark about a religion that is negative, that seems to me to be okay, but if someone goes on about it a lot, they can come off as appearing hateful towards that religion (and sometimes the people who believe in that religion).

I don’t think that expressing one’s thoughts and positions on a topic is rude unless the topic is deemed so offensive it’s forbidden or if personal attacks, trolling behaviors, or anything else that violates the rules/guidelines for a specific forum are involved - all of which should be reported if we’re talking about behavior on forums. Most often, it’s not like people are trying to disrespect others merely by expressing their point of view.

As far as WP is concerned, the topic of religion is likely to come up here often, especially in PPR seeing as how religion is in the title and given its overall importance in current world events. Religious debate is appropriate here unlike most other forums. Religion comes up in small ways elsewhere, too, sometimes due to the impact that it can have on a person’s life. The books that some read, the quotes they cite, or the music they listen to could all be deeply meaningful to them while offensive to others. Trying to silence personal expression isn’t cool - it’s not cool in the wider culture when folks seek to ban books or pieces of art because they’re deemed rude or offensive by some. It’s something we need to be moving past.

You are right that online spaces are not a free-for-all. There are typically rules and guidelines that people must abide by. Being respectful to fellow members, despite ideological differences, by not engaging in personal attacks and similar behaviors is one of them. There’s nothing wrong with avoiding certain threads, too. I know I would’ve avoided certain ones back when I was trying to quell my doubts and be religious.

It seems pretty normal that some people will talk a lot about certain topics on autism forums given our tendency of having both special interests and more trauma than the general population. Talking about the MAGA cult is likely to offend some people, but it’s an important topic that some of us have talked a lot about nonetheless. The MAGA cult is also centered on ideas. Scrutiny and criticism of ideologies seems reasonable in PPR but not The Haven for example.

Yes, mocking or deriding someone's religion can be rude and disrespectful and unpleasant, even malicious, but you're right that it's not hate speech. This is particularly true if the religion in question is the dominant religion in that country or region and has been that way historically. That's why one can be rude and disrespectful toward Christians in Western countries, and it's not nice and can be unpleasant, but it's not hate speech and people who identify as Christians are not protected against it, nor should they be. I think the standard is a bit different for people who are already members of a marginalized group, like Muslims in Western countries, because denigrating their religion can shade much more easily into denigrating them for who they are. But having one's feelings hurt because religion is important to one and one doesn't like to hear disrespectful comments about it is not a hate crime.

It depends. Of course, contentious topics should, and must, be discussed. What is very important in this age of misinformation is the starting point of the conversation.

Modern-day trolls work by presenting a false, misleading or toxic angle on an otherwise reasonable topic, and provoking discussion around it as if it were a two-way street. It doesn't make the topic invalid, it just makes the conversation invalid. Such a conversation serves no purpose but to empower the bad actor and push his opinion into the mainstream.

There's a perfectly valid discussion to be had around, for example, changing gender roles in society. But if the starting point of that discussion is a Jordan Peterson video, then the whole discussion is polluted from the word go.

We do. There are secular texts (from the Roman Empire), as well as Hebrew/Jewish texts, and Islamic texts, that all affirm their existence.



I understand that not everyone will believe the more extraordinary aspects of the faith, but I will argue that there isn't a good way to separate the extraordinary from the ordinary. Because of that, when mockery and ridicule (the original points of this thread, not scrutiny and criticism) are expressed, it doesn't matter to which "side" the aggressor is referring. Mockery and ridicule are meant to harm. Intentional harm shouldn't be justified by anyone. Employing evil, even in the hope of a perceived good coming from it, is still evil.



We obviously disagree, and I can respect your position. Nothing I can say, nothing I can present to you, is likely to change your mind.



I am keenly aware of the history, having extensively studied Judaic history and early Christianity, including primary historical documents and texts (at a secular university, no less), prior to my conversion to Catholicism as an adult. We disagree on Christ's legitimacy, and I will leave it at that.



I really am sorry that your family has turned away from you. I can see how being poorly treated would result in hostility toward Christianity. There are several Protestant beliefs that I, too, do not understand or agree with, and a few that I strongly oppose. So, if I can feel that way about another Christian sect, it makes sense that you could feel that way about Christianity in general.



The argument that ridicule and disrespect are acceptable whenever it holds a grain of truth (another way of saying "rooted in evidence," yes?) or twists the truth, rather than examining the whole truth, is something that I don't comprehend.

I agree that mocking a specific point of a religion is technically different than mocking the religion in its entirety, but why is the aggression acceptable at all? If the effect is the same, why is mockery and ridicule acceptable, based on the target?



Logical, respectful discourse surrounding a topic is fine. That's not the subject of this thread, though; it's the illogical justification for intentionally disrespecting Christianity (and, by extension, Christians), when doing so to other groups is deemed unacceptable.



For many people of faith, these elements cannot be separated. It is also incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to demonize an entire belief system, due to the complexity and nuances inherent in a theology that is thousands of years old. When someone attacks an entire system, especially if they make points that are indicative of a weak grasp of the material they are arguing against, they come across as irrational, aggressive, and disrespectful. Mockery and ridicule do nothing but provoke sadness and/or anger, which doesn't help anyone. It often worsens the situation.



"Same sex marriage" is not possible in the Catholic worldview. It is not simply that it is not condoned or not allowed, but that it is literally impossible to change God's Natural Law. In Catholicism, marriage is not a right, it is a calling -- The entire point of marriage is to help your spouse get to Heaven. Not everyone's faith journey includes marriage (strong homosexual proclivity is not the only disqualification from marriage in the Church), and it is Catholic belief that God desires ALL of us to reach Heaven, with His plans for each of us being different.

I understand that many people will have trouble wrapping their heads around this concept, and will outright reject it. Disagreement is expected. Disrespect and mockery are not.



I am familiar with the misogyny arguments. The misogyny accusation is inconsistent with the deepest love and respect (not worship) of the only perfect, fully-human-non-divine being in the history of mankind being a woman. The very woman who is the original subject of this thread. I consider mocking and ridiculing Our Lady to be misogynistic, especially if the mockery relates to childbearing (lactation being the last stage of childbearing), which is THE defining aspect of femininity, that is unique to women.

In the Catholic worldview, God chose a woman to change the course of salvation history. That is far above any honor ever given to a fully-human-non-divine man. (Christ is a fully-human-fully-divine being.) This is not misogyny.

Before Christ came, women were considered unclean, lesser, and not capable of the holiness afforded to men. He changed that by literally growing inside a woman's body from conception until birth, and by being nursed and nourished by her body as an infant and toddler. God could have come down to Earth in any way He wanted -- He chose to ask a woman for her permission, which she granted. This is not misogyny.

Prior to Christianity/the Catholic Church providing women with an alternative to marriage (becoming a nun), nearly all women pursued marriage as a means of survival, whether they wanted it or not. Once Christianity took hold, women had a respected alternative, which was revolutionary. They had a choice. This is not misogyny.

Not permitting women to murder their preborn children is not misogyny. God does not permit anyone to murder any innocent person for any reason. Women are not given an exception to the murder rule, they are equally held to the same standards as men. This is not misogyny.



We are discussing theology and ideology. Child abuse is aggression and injustice against the most vulnerable of God's children and is completely unacceptable in the Church. It was not "the Church" that abused children, it was a handful of terrible men in positions of authority who did; most priests and deacons are holy men who don't abuse anyone, let alone children. The same is true of other denominations and faiths.



If distinctions cannot be made between official Church teaching (which a lot of people think they know, but in fact do not) and the opinions of some Church leaders (up to and including the Pope himself), then I'm afraid I can't educate everyone here in the time and space this forum permits.

It is also possible that we disagree on the definitions of words like homophobia or misogyny, of which there may be no solution. We might have to respectfully agree to disagree.



I am only familiar with Catholicism, and I am unaware of any changes in theology based on backlash or bad press. If you know of any, I would welcome the information so that I could look into it myself.



Agreed. I didn't think anyone here was arguing otherwise.



With every respect, it is not anyone else's business what other people teach their children. None whatsoever. A diverse group of people is what the world has, and with it, a diverse group of ideas, skills, priorities, and beliefs. Just because we don't like something, doesn't make it abusive.

My apologies -- This particular subject hit very close to home. I had a close family member try to undermine how I married the concepts of human evolution with my Catholic faith, to my children (the Church teaches that Catholics can either believe in Literal Creationism, or Theistic Evolution, of which my family adheres to the latter).

I understand that, in some circles, me teaching my children Theistic Evolution is morally corrupt, or abusive. It is neither. The same holds true for the reverse. It is not morally corrupt or abusive to teach children Literal Creationism.



I haven't witnessed this here (I haven't been here very long, and I tend to stay in the Parenting section), but I believe you, that folks use the Bible in this way. (The Holy Book is on the receiving end of quite a bit of misuse, which comes as no surprise, I'm sure.)

In Catholic theology, there is no justification for genocide, full stop. Any Catholic who says otherwise is uninformed at best, heretical at worst. My parish (the head of which is Lebanese) prays for peace in that part of the world every single day, many of us especially upset with the killing of fellow Christians in the region.



No, it can't. That's not how people work. Folks like to think it works that way, but in reality, it doesn't. We can argue whether it should or not, but the fact is, an "outsider's" or a "former's" criticism (especially in the form of ridicule and mockery, the original subject of this thread) does not help.



I suspect there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, regarding Hell, happening here. Hell is not some fire-and-brimstone punishment that Our Creator conjured up to eternally torment "bad people" after their time on Earth has ceased. If that is what you're referring to, I'm afraid it's being confused with another sect of Christianity's version of hell.

Throwing out words like "institutional bigotry" is a nice nonspecific accusation. It could just as easily describe any number of organizations who disagree with people like me.



I appreciate that you are keeping me human in this conversation; that doesn't always happen during these kinds of discussions. I acknowledge that your arguments are being directed at what you believe the Catholic Church to be, even though I strongly believe that your characterization of Her is not what She actually is (which also applies to those folks, ex-Catholics or not, who think Catholicism is a cult).



Thank you. Yes, for many of us, there is no separation.



As Western societies become less religiously affiliated, this occurs more frequently. There seem to be folks here who find it acceptable to mock and ridicule a particular religion, but like you pointed out earlier, they don't condone mocking and ridiculing other worldviews. I'm trying to understand the logic in it. Perhaps there isn't any.



The original point of this thread was focused on *mockery* and *ridicule* not simply expressing ideas. There is blatant support on this thread for disrespecting, mocking, and ridiculing, as long as it's "the religion" and not "the person" -- But that's like someone saying to Ellen DeGeneres, "I'm not ridiculing YOU, I'm ridiculing LGBXYZ ideology." Is there really a difference? Practically speaking?

I'm not debating a person's legal right to mock whatever/whomever they want. I'm asking why it's socially acceptable to disrespect Christianity specifically, when an individual otherwise seems to believe it is not acceptable to disrespect other groups.



And these things are largely being done by individuals, smaller organizations, or government officials. I am unaware of official Church teaching (or even a recognized affiliated organization within the Catholic Church) that bans personal expression, books, or art.



After all of the discussion so far in this thread, is it any easier to see that being respectful to fellow members involves abstaining from mocking their faith, or aspects of their faith? Have I been successful, at all, in conveying the notion that when someone, through mockery and ridicule, intentionally disrespects Christ or His Blessed Mother, that they are hurting me personally, as well? People are all connected to their communities, to each other.



I don't have a dog in this particular political fight (I voted 3rd party, for the only consistently pro-life candidate from conception to natural death), but I'm guessing that Trump supporters share the same "it's okay to ridicule and disrespect your ideas" exceptionalism that devout Christians do?

If that is the case, then this is honestly beginning to look a lot like the "bigotry" that many are accusing Christianity of. I had not considered this option before.



I need help with a definition, here. If the above description (rude, disrespectful, malicious) is not hate speech, then what exactly is hate speech? If the rudeness, disrespect, and maliciousness target a different aspect of a person's strongly held identity (race, sexuality, disability), isn't that hate speech? Why is religion any different?

(I'm American, where people can legally spew hateful speech all they want, because hate speech is free speech, so it is possible I am misunderstanding something fundamental here. Where y'all are, is "hate speech" a legal offense that frequently lands folks in prison?)



This seems like a lot of qualifiers to justify mistreating people. Did I misunderstand?



If Christians become marginalized, then denigrating our faith suddenly translates to denigrating us, where it didn't previously? How does that work? Does it then become unacceptable to mock us? Where is the line? I'd like to know, seeing as how our numbers are rapidly dwindling, and there is increased hostility toward us.

I'm trying to follow the logic here.



Literally any group/identity/what-have-you can be substituted for "religion" and this statement is still true. I completely agree with the idea that having one's feelings hurt because some particular aspect of their life is important to them, and they don't like being verbally disrespected, is not a hate crime. It's not a hate "crime," but it certainly can be hateful, no matter who the victim is.

I truly appreciate the time everyone is taking to walk through these concepts with me. This thread has afforded me an opportunity to try to understand a world in which folks are increasingly hostile to people of faith.

I agree that there are differences among words like mockery, ridicule, scrutiny, and criticism although they are used interchangeably sometimes. Some people have different ideas about the point where criticism crosses over into ridicule, so it’s a tricky topic. There are those who think any criticism is ridicule and that beliefs should be above scrutiny. At any rate, I do not automatically respect beliefs. If they are harmful or toxic in some way, there’s a good chance that I won’t respect them. Ridiculing or mocking specific organizations (religious or otherwise) for their insufficient and deplorable response to child abuse, for example, seems appropriate. Ridiculing a church for failing to allow female priests or same sex marriage/relationships, which can and does lead to suicide, is also understandable. Once again, the ridicule or what have you is (or should be) on the institution and/or ideas, not rank and file members. I respect followers like anyone else until they give me a reason not to (like anyone else).

Anyway, those are issues that people get upset about. They inspire a strong response in people, including ridicule. Perhaps they are worth ridicule. Sometimes frustration over valid concerns can lead to more generalized mockery of the organizations in question. If they want less backlash, they might want to work on modifying their behavior/policies. It’s okay not to like strong responses, but too often, I’ve seen people get bent out of shape over it when the specific organization is engaging in truly reprehensible behavior and is causing real harm in demonstrable ways. No one should be mistreating people because of their beliefs, but organizations and/or the beliefs themselves shouldn’t be above mockery, especially if it’s related to serious problems with how they treat people.

Ridiculing ideas is different than ridiculing a person’s sexual identity. Ideas can change and evolve. Institutions can evolve and improve their policies. They sometimes do.

We appear to disagree about sexism in the Catholic Church. Sexism is a problem since women can’t be priests or the Pope. I agree that some groups have a much bigger problem with sexism, but it’s still present to some degree. Not allowing abortion is deeply problematic. Women should have the ability to decide what’s right for their bodies without undue influence. Eliminating the right to choose to women who experienced rape can feel like a second rape - it’s removing consent and agency yet again, not that abortion should be condemned under other circumstances. I’m just illustrating how the Church’s stance is problematic. Just because they venerate Mary doesn’t undo their harmful stances on other matters. The topic of Mary is an interesting one and not without its problems, but I won’t go into that here.

As I said before, the Catholic Church’s issues with child abuse coverups were/probably still are extremely widespread. It’s not just about a “handful of men in positions of authority.”

This is just in France. I could cite more articles if you’re interested.

https://religious-studies.cornell.edu/n ... -beginning

I stated previously that child sexual abuse/CSA coverups is a problem in other denominations as well.

We apparently disagree about what is and isn’t okay to teach children as fact. Teaching pure creationism is harmful. Parents who do this usually don’t know any better and aren’t intentionally causing harm, but they are just the same. All beliefs aren’t equally valid. Some are supported by evidence, others are not. Evolution is a particularly important topic in science. Restricting access to that can limit future opportunities.

Sometimes parents use corporal punishment on their children and back up doing so with scripture. That’s another belief that’s not supported by research and that I also do not respect.

We share this sentiment. Where we differ, I suppose, is that I am unwilling to utilize mockery and ridicule to express my lack of respect for a philosophy or belief.



I acknowledge the reality of the scandal; it was not my intent to minimize it. Again, we differ on the acceptability of ridicule and mockery.



We'll have to agree to disagree here.



This statement is clear; I have not been successful at demonstrating that ridiculing/mocking a religion/religious belief is equivalent to ridiculing/mocking the person of faith. It saddens me, but I accept that this is the way it is.



Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.



You are correct, we disagree. I can understand that different people have different ideas on what constitutes a problem. (I do not find it problematic that women cannot be priests, for example, but I can understand how others who don't share my worldview can define that as a problem.)



I feel very strongly in opposition to what you are expressing here, and I will only repeat what I have mentioned before -- Murdering innocent people is never okay. Even if a perceived "good" might come from the murder, it is still intrinsically evil to murder an innocent person.

We could argue this all day for the rest of our lives, neither one of us changing our minds. I am willing to again, agree to disagree.



The scandal is a terrible one, yes. That isn't debatable. It was horrible from beginning to end, no excuses. It was not, however, a case of the "average" priest being guilty of atrocities. The majority of priests, like the majority of men, are not predators, so yes, the abuses were, in fact, committed by a statistically small number of men in positions of authority (priests and bishops).



Strongly so.



Like I mentioned before, the Holy Bible is often misused. We agree on this particular misinterpretation, 100%.

I would strongly disagree with corporal punishment even IF research was inconclusive or was found to be in favor of it. Corporal punishment is physical aggression against another person, made worse by the fact that a child is the victim. I consistently oppose physical aggression against innocent vulnerable people (especially children), which is most evident in my passionate opposition to the killing of the unborn. I don't make exceptions based on age or where the child is located.

Apologies to Mr. Blitz, if I am wandering too far off topic.

The conversation has been informative, and it seems that Blitz and I are still in the same place we were, when this thread began -- finding it interesting that, as he observed:



I may have to be content with finding it interesting.

I will continue to visit this thread, with the hope that eventually, there might be logical explanations from those who make exceptions for hateful speech toward religion... toward people like me.

Thank you for starting this thread, blitzkrieg.