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 believe 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. Criticism of the Bible or church doctrine can help with that. I know that’s not entirely 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.

I’m thankful that criticism (formal and informal) was readily available for me to read 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. They 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 material you don’t want to, but people should be free to express themselves as long as certain lines are not crossed (e.g. denigrating people rather than beliefs, institutions, and ideas).