ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like logical explanations for mockery and ridicule were presented but rejected since they conflict with your worldview. That’s fine, but in terms of the PPR guidelines which I previously cited, it’s deemed acceptable to ridicule belief systems, within reason, here but not people unless they are public figures. Obviously, not everyone likes or agrees with that, but my point is that it IS something that has been discussed and considered over the years. Agreeing to disagree sounds like a good idea.

I didn't intentionally reject logical explanations, as to why ridicule/mockery was acceptable for religion, and not other categories of deeply personal self-identification.... I apparently missed them. I cannot find them. Am I the only one?

I would especially welcome input from blitzkrieg, who seems to better understand my position. If he can find them, while I cannot, then that would suggest that the problem is, in fact, with me.



Yeah, I know it's acceptable per forum guidelines; I was interested in *why* religion was singled out as acceptable to mock, among people who believe that other philosophies should be protected from mockery. It is inconsistent. Unless the answer is that religion/Christianity itself is disliked or hated, and is therefore deemed unworthy of protection from ridicule. Which is an emotional explanation, not a logical one.



Excellent.

There is no inconsistency. Other philosophies are fair game here when it comes to mockery. Being LGBTQ+ or of a specific gender or race are not philosophies, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

Given our differing opinions, including on matters of belief, it’s possible that we have differing perceptions of what is or isn’t logical.

Your posts are like a gift from God himself, Devoted. I love them!

A few points I think that are important to take away:

Whilst religion might be separate from other protected characteristics in that religion, and specifically Christianity, is generally a belief system whilst other protected characteristics in and of themselves might have less volume attached to them in terms of their details or beliefs - I agree with devoted, - that religion can also form a part of a persons identity. In the same way that a person who identifies as "non-binary" for example, and internalizes that identity, a Christian will usually internalize their beliefs and identify as a Christian.

It wouldn't be appropriate to discuss the lack of evidence for a concept such as "non-binary" in biological terms to a non-binary person and some folk who do that are derided as being transphobic, for not respecting the non-binary persons belief that gender is a social construct, as an example.

A person who is not a Christian, who mocks and derides a belief system such as Christianity, and specifically repeats the notion that a belief system and identity are somehow not connected would be missing the part where Christians invariably internalize their belief system, spiritually. I don't think it is easy to separate the two (belief system and identity) for believing Christians, whereas it might be easy for an atheist to isolate those Christian beliefs from the internal experience of being a believer, precisely because they are not a believer.

I agree with devoted in that it is socially unacceptable to ridicule a belief system in the presence of believers, especially when the person doing so doesn't demonstrate any kind of remorse or tact when dealing with their own provocative remarks.

A person can criticize without employing ridicule or mockery or obvious disrespect.

In regards to the topic of LGBTQ+ folk, there is associated with the experience of coming under the umbrella of LGBTQ+, an element of belief, i.e, the distinction between homosexual feelings and acting on homosexual feelings can be a matter of philosophy for some people.

The social implications of committing acts that would place a person into a minority category of sexuality is something that LGBTQ+ folk sometimes ponder.

There is no more element of belief, ideology, or philosophy involved with being LGBTQ+ than being straight. It’s simply part of who a person is and there’s scientific evidence to support it. There’s also evidence which demonstrates problems with suicide/suicidal ideation among sexual minorities in environments where being gay is viewed negatively. [See footnote.] Religions that push the notion that one can’t have same sex marriage/relationships or that they are wrong are intrinsically homophobic and should expect to receive ridicule based on how they treat people. Saying such or highlighting other facts about organizations, beliefs, or holy books is important because they raise awareness about serious problems that affect people, perhaps especially believers. In addition to that and given the seriousness of the topic, it’s understandable that many would get upset about this issue as well as others which were previously alluded to. This can contribute/lead to more generalized ridicule of the institution in question. It’s likely that criticism in its various forms will decrease if the Church improves its policies.

I agree that religious debate and statements which may cause offense are not appropriate for every platform. They are not appropriate for The Haven or designated support sites for example. If people are likely to get offended, they may wish to avoid certain forums or threads instead of seek them out as they sometimes do because criticism isn’t going to stop where it’s allowed and appropriate as per established rules and guidelines.

As far as identity goes, sometimes extremely harmful things can become a part of a person’s identity. People can be KKK members, Proud Boys, or whatever else. Those groups can expect all the ridicule they receive because of the harm they cause as well as more serious, thoughtful criticism. Some religions are comparably harmful. The Westboro Baptist church, for example, is considered a hate group. Another problematic institution is Scientology which is ridiculed on WP from time to time, including by people who belong to other belief-based identities. Obviously, most religions aren’t that harmful, but my point is that just because something can be part of a person’s identity doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be above ridicule. It still wouldn’t be appropriate to espouse hate towards followers no matter how offensive their beliefs might be. Harmful religious beliefs exist on a spectrum with some organizations being (way) more or (way) less harmful than others.

Footnote:
Suicidal ideation in certain groups:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10334798/

Edited to add: The data cited above is from a large scale survey that was performed on 18-29 year old college students.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Nov 2024, 1:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.

To Devoted: I will not respond to any of your points because I can't do so without expressing great anger and disgust.