ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

I actually agree with this, but I'm not sure that you do.

^ I was thinking the same, lol.

Here’s the rest of that post which I’m sure was too inconvenient for some of y’all to engage with:

This is true. Some beliefs are harmful/cause harm which is why going with the “all understandings of morality are valid” line of thinking is not a good one and why pushback is so important.
Yes!

It shouldn’t be deemed a valid stance, especially considering the fact that it often leads to problems that extend beyond one’s own thoughts despite some seeming to suggest otherwise. As this thread has made clear, homophobia is promoted in churches, indoctrinated in children, and espoused in forums as a valid worldview. When data about the harm it causes is presented, it goes ignored.

Historically, religion has promoted as a “moral issue” racism and segregation (which is also racist), including the notion that interracial relationships are wrong. I could cite scriptures which people have referenced to support such BS, but I’m not feeling that motivated. Perhaps most people these days know that racism is wrong and would be offended by the idea of a church promoting it. Some churches’ stance on the LGBTQ+ community is comparable. Religious bigotry is still bigotry, and as such, it can and does have devastating consequences.

Yep...

I illustrated to you how what you'd posted was functionally identical to the bigoted: black men shouldn't be {something} because {reasons} and was removed on that basis.
Note that the rest of your post remains unaltered.

I don't want to get sucked further into debating your world view with its lofty church teachings of sinner vs. sin etc., as if they were somehow universal and applicable to everyone. They're simply what you believe, nothing more - and of course you're welcome to believe whatever you want.
But it's unrealistic to expect everyone else to uncritically tag along with it, and doubly so when expecting the belief to be protected from criticism.

As regards freedom of speech and criticizing religion generally -

"Freedom of Speech" refers to the interference of government with the expressions of its citizens.
It does not apply to a private website governed by a rule-set which defines acceptable behavior, where certain content may be censured or removed when failing to meet the conditions of membership as defined by those rules.

Certain things are not permitted on WP - racism, transphobia, personal attacks and so on.
But what is permissible is the examination and criticism of belief systems, philosophies, political views, etc. and while those things are not protected, their proponents are.
Thus, "this Cheesemaker cult is ridiculous because {reasons}" is permissible, but "Cheesemakers are stupid because {reasons}" is not.

Religions, political ideologies, belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. are lifestyle choices and not protected from examination and criticism. It's permissible to ask "why", and seek explanations or justifications for aspects of the belief - but only when done without ridiculing, demeaning, or attacking the believer.

Inherent, inalienable states such as nationality, skin color, sexuality, physical or mental conditions, etc. are protected attributes and while discussions about and around them are permitted, they cannot be held up for criticism.
Where a belief system is inherently critical of those attributes or other disallowed topics on WP, members subscribing to the belief are expected to self-censor their comments to avoid criticism or rule-breaks.

So you'll be first in line to denounce, say, the treatment of women in Muslim countries and communities? How about the homophobia in the American Black community? The misandry of feminists? The harmful incoherence of the oppressor/oppressed moral framework of progressives? To keep this within the spirit of the thread, how do you think any of those subjects would fare here as a topic of discussion?




Do you extend the same intolerance to non-religious ideologies that promote bigotry? By what authority do you believe you can condemn stances as "invalid?

See, here's a basic dislike of the major organized religions - that we are unworthy and expected to grovel for forgiveness. None of us is without sin, apparently.

It's too tribal, too primitive, too reminiscent of performing special ceremonies intended to please god and grant a good harvest.
In the 21st century?

And the idea that anyone should actually worship this imaginary sky friend is laughable.
I can't do better than Richard Dawkins with: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (from The God Delusion)

There is an entire thread here devoted to the recorded history of these appalling acts, provided by no less an authority than the Christian bible.

Seriously? See above.

My idea of a god knows my heart and loves me all the same. Think of two gold rings, each linked in the other.

And here you are again, doing just that. Did you think I'd forgotten what it means?

Also it's not case of sensitivity, more one of just being aware of it.

Dox, this conversation is about issues related to Christianity, so I’m not going to engage with your pointed questions deeply. I will say that I denounce bigotry wherever it occurs. For instance, I have been quite vocal about the plight of women in some locales, including of the fundamentalist Islamic variety. As a free and thinking individual, I am free to condemn any stance that causes harm as homophobia does. I’ve not heard of or observed “homophobia in the American Black community,” so I can’t comment further on that. The vast majority of us feminists are not misandrist although I suspect that you are just striving to take the conversation off-track by bringing up unrelated hot button issues.

It seems likely that people would be more inclined to talk about stuff that causes more problems closer to home which is why Christianity is a more popular topic here than Islam, not that I haven’t been critical of that, too, and of the Quran in particular. Given the oppression that many Muslims experience in the West, it’s important not to add to their burden here. It doesn’t mean that dialogue and criticism can’t and doesn’t happen, though.

Most people commit sins at one time or another since there are so many different types of sins, as per bible guidance. Male femininity can be interpreted as a sin, homosexuality can be considered a sin, blasphemy can be considered a sin, adultery can be considered a sin and so on.

From the ESV bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"

Not only do men have bible guidance in regards to sin, but they also have guidance in what the bible refers to as "in their hearts", i.e, intuition and so on.



You are of course, entitled to your opinion.



Yet so many people do worship God and many believers do not believe he is located in the sky, though before aircraft (or long distance tools to observe/analyze the contents of the sky) were created in previous historical eras, it is understandable that some people might place the location of God somewhere beyond their reach, i.e, in the sky, whereas in the current day and with current scientific understanding, such wonder might be thought of differently by Christians.



You are correct. You cannot do better than Richard Dawkins. I think if you tried you'd probably just come across as a someone mimicking him, not the real deal.



A reference from "The God Delusion" that contains a bunch of deity slurs in the hopes of damaging the reputation of the God that Christian believers worship? Really?



I have seen the thread and I am not particularly impressed by it.



Some people might consider that sort of thing a bit egocentric.

[satire]I’ve been advocating for bringing back stoning as a punishment for horrific behavior, including blasphemy, but people have the nerve to mock my treasured beliefs that are based on the inspired Word of my virile deity. I’ve been quoting the Old Testament incessantly, but they keep on saying my beliefs are batshit crazy. What’s the world coming to?! I can’t even stone my own kid for misbehaving without going to jail. And to top it all off, they let gay people marry!! Jehover is going to rain fire and brimstone on us all.

Calling me out on my Bible-based beliefs is hate speech. When I tried bringing this stuff up to a lawyer, they just laughed at me. I am SO persecuted. I don’t see why I can’t push and practice “bigotry” without pushback when it’s supported by scripture and my personal convictions.[/satire]



Obviously, we should follow what holy books say without question./s

Some Christians choose not to espouse bigotry and follow the words of Christ who never had anything to say on LGBTQ issues. 1 Corinthians was written decades after Jesus’ death. That’s not to say that Jesus didn’t say anything problematic, but the homophobic Bible scriptures are not from him.

Deity slurs?

It’s calling a spade a spade. There’s evidence in the Bible to support every one of Dawkins’ accusations as has been proven elsewhere.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 01 Dec 2024, 3:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I'd argue YHWH's reputation as established by his own followers propaganda is as described by Dawkins. With that in mind, Dawkins isn't ruining YHWH's reputation, he's merely reciting his already established reputation.

The fact that believers double-think the deeply problematic parts of their own religion away when need be doesn't mean that YHWH's reputation is any better (or more deserving of being viewed positively) than Zeus'. They're both petty, jealous, wrathful beings who (if they were real) aren't worthy of veneration.

^^ I did say all of those things I mentioned can be considered a sin, depending on a persons own bible interpretation. Many different Christians have different variations of belief within the same framework of their religion.

There are progressive Christians out there, there are conservative Christians out there and everything in between.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that some people do try to hide behind terms like “conservative.” It’s like they’re trying to say: “My bigotry is okay because I’m a ‘conservative Christian.’”

Bible-based bigotry is still bigotry. People and organizations can make the choice not to follow or promote harmful precepts. You can’t expect folks not to criticize, even harshly, that which is harmful or abusive.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 01 Dec 2024, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed, but if they read their bibles they'll see Dawkins is spot-on when it comes to describing YHWH.

This isn't even a new phenomenon. Even early Christians struggled to reconcile personality of YHWH as depicted in the OT with the claims about Jesus' nature. That's a big factor in why Gnostic Christianity was a popular heresy, a lot of early Christians found it easier to view YHWH as an evil deity based on the description provided by their own faith.

A lot of the time it seems like mainstream Christian theology is held together with duct tape and popsicle sticks in hopes the contradictions aren't noticed.