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.

It is incredibly nice to know that I am not alone on this forum; I was beginning to feel very much unwelcome here. Thank you for such a lovely compliment.



Agreed. This happened to me before I was even Christian. I grew up in a secular, unchurched, pro-abortion home, but have known since as far back as I can remember (age 3) that God exists, and I spent the next 15+ years searching for Him. This isn't something I was taught or "brainwashed" with. Christianity is literally my core, not merely "essential" to my core, but it IS my core.



Yes! It would especially be inappropriate and hateful to use ridicule and mockery.



This is very eloquently stated; thank you for improving on my attempts at conveying this point.



It is heartbreaking to me that this appears to be a difficult concept to grasp.

Our discussion in this thread, thus far, has provided clear evidence that Christianity can apparently be justifiably mocked and ridiculed without shame, when all other ideologies/communities cannot. "Because I don't like it," and "Because I view it as harmful" seem to be the reasons/"logic" used to justify the blatant disregard for peace.

Mockery is hurtful to our fellow human beings, it is born of hate, and therefore, it shouldn't be socially acceptable at all, regardless of the target.

Folks have the right to continue mocking and ridiculing Christianity, for whatever reasons they wish, and I will continue peacefully and respectfully disagreeing with ideologies like communism, LGBTQ, etc.



Thank you for making this point; it is a critical one.



It saddens me that I had this effect on you. Please allow me to apologize. If/when you can/want to, I would be open to knowing exactly what I said, if anything came across as a personal attack.

It's all about boundaries.

I'm a Christian. I found the 'Life of Brian' incredibly funny.

I don't find the Virgin Mary squirting milk at people out of her titties funny at all.

LGBTQ+ is not an ideology.
Organizations, especially homophobic ones like the Catholic Church, deserve whatever mockery they receive due to their policies which cause demonstrable harm according to the research.
If you are feeling unwelcome in PPR, you might prefer other forums on WP in which religious debates are not allowed. You can’t say that “Christianity is stupid” or “Catholicism is harmful/toxic/homophobic/etc.” in The Haven for example. There have been times when I’ve taken breaks from PPR over the years, so that’s an option, too, if it ever gets to be too much. WP is a supportive community overall. PPR is more about open, free discussion than support.
As a former Christian, it’s not at all hard to grasp why some things here might be offensive to some people, but until religion stops causing harm, especially to people in other protected groups, it shouldn’t expect to be treated with kid gloves.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 28 Nov 2024, 8:03 am, edited 4 times in total.

What point has been made here, and how is it critical?

Anyone remember "The Blessed Virgin Mary" art exhibit, circa 1999-2000?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New ... atholicism

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice is a book written by Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, dealing with contemporary anti-Catholic bigotry, particularly in the United States.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/3

Book of John Chapter 3

1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born* from above.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
7 Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’
8 The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?
11 Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.
12 If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?h
13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
14 And just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave* his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19 And this is the verdict,n that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
21 But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
Final Witness of the Baptist.
22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.q
23 John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized,
24 for John had not yet been imprisoned.
25 Now a dispute arose between the disciples of John and a Jew* about ceremonial washings.
26 So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing and everyone is coming to him.”
27 John answered and said, “No one can receive anything except what has been given him from heaven.
28 You yourselves can testify that I said [that] I am not the Messiah, but that I was sent before him.
29 The one who has the bride is the bridegroom; the best man,* who stands and listens to him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made complete.v
30 He must increase; I must decrease.”
The One from Heaven.
31 The one who comes from above is above all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven [is above all].
32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.
33 Whoever does accept his testimony certifies that God is trustworthy.
34 For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift* of the Spirit.
35 The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him.
36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

The Catholic Church will likely experience less backlash once they change their toxic policies and resolve their well-known problems with CSA/CSA coverups. People might be more inclined to treat the Church with dignity once they do a better job at treating certain demographics with dignity. Being anti-LGBTQ+ or whatever else isn’t less bad/less harmful/less abusive if the prejudice is rooted in religious ideology. Religious homophobia is still homophobia. Transphobia is still transphobia. Sexism is still sexism.

Obviously, many Catholics disagree with the Church’s bigotry. The Catholic Church and Catholics aren’t a single entity. There are organizations made up of Catholics who are fighting for necessary changes in the Church.

https://www.dignityusa.org/

In their About Us:

^ I think the last line is supposed to read “Supporting LGBTQIA+ priests and religious leaders”.

At any rate, DignityUSA is fighting for full-equality in the Church, including LGBTQIA+ clergy and gay marriage. There are likely other organizations out there that are pushing for change, but this isn’t something I’ve spent much time exploring.