ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

Because it's not a real thing?

Religious people are not oppressed for being religious, and especially not those who are adherents of the most powerful and dominant belief system on earth (Christians). It's just not the same as being black or gay or a woman, etc. It's a belief, not a state of being.

I think you will find the word in various dictionaries.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religiophobia

Christianity, in Europe especially, has been increasingly marginalized for many decades now and is in rapid decline. Many people who are surveyed on whether they are religious and who identify as Christian, are only very loosely Christian.

There are few practising Christians, versus people who loosely define themselves as being such.

Talking about problems in specific churches, holy books, belief systems, etc. as we have in this thread and others doesn’t mean that there’s hate towards religion in general going on. Some religions and churches do not have a problem with bigotry. Others very clearly do and deserve whatever criticism/backlash they receive for it.

Religions should not be above scrutiny or (harsh) criticism, especially ones that are teaching or promoting any form of bigotry because it causes demonstrable harm.

Attacking problematic belief systems is different than attacking people.

It seems like complaints about religiophobia could be dishonest attempts at shutting down criticism.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 02 Dec 2024, 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blitzkrieg, I know you're very attached to dictionaries and that you use them to define life issues, but dictionary definitions have little relevance to real life issues that are much more complex. There simply is no such thing in actual society as religiophobia, not in any way that is meaningful as a societal issue. It's mostly invoked by the crowd who whine that they can no longer say Merry Christmas when literally no one is stopping them or attempting to stop them.

And Christianity is still traditionally the most adhered to belief system in the Western world, regardless of how deeply religious any given individual is. It has enormous power and pull and is present in every part of Western society. Christians are dominant in the most dominant part of the world. It has in absolutely no way been marginalized. That is just completely and utterly false.

This is a lot like white people complaining about experiencing racism. It's that far out of touch with reality.

I personally have witnessed the word homophobia being used to try to shut down criticism and/or discussion. The reason, it would seem, as to why the word homophobia is used so much is because LGBTQIA+ allies, advocates and activists have such a strong presence on the internet, whereas those who are religious seemingly have less of a voice, hence the general lack of people using the term religiophobia, despite its ubiquitous presence in society and online.

Homophobia is supposed to shut down criticism. It's a hateful and abhorrent form of bigotry.

Whereas religiophobia is not only a concept that does not exist as a real life phenomenon in any meaningful way, but religion is the dominant perspective in society. You can't be oppressed when you are in the powerful majority.

The difference between innate characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and ideas has been discussed repeatedly in this thread.

Unlike being in the LGBTQ+ community, many religions continue to cause problems in the world, so it’s a topic worthy of criticism and debate unlike innate characteristics that should automatically have the same rights and consideration as being cisgender and heterosexual. The Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage, for example, deserves whatever criticism it receives.

^^ Religiophobia does exist though - and you wouldn't know that as a seemingly non-religious person, in the same way that a heterosexual person doesn't experience homophobia directed at them, because they are not gay.

In the UK, only 46% of people identify as Christian, and probably nearly all of those who identify as Christian are only loosely defined Christians.

And by the way, Christmas is more of a commercial holiday rather than a religious festival in this day and age.

A link to 2021 religious census data in the UK.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

It's useless to keep repeating myself. You are not oppressed. Religious people are not oppressed.

Criticizing religious positions is appropriate and important, especially when they condone or promote bigotry.

Gay people are minding their own business and are not trying to impose their life style on other people or condemn heterosexual activities. People that have a problem with gay people are homophobes. Religious people are not like gay people. Religious people try to impose their life style on other people and voice strong opinions about other people's life styles. People that have a problem with how religious people try to influence society are not religiophobic. That's nonesense.

I'd argue anyone who's targeted for homophobic motives experiences the consequences of homophobia, regardless of their identity or orientation.

^ I agree, I just meant from a position of increased vulnerability/a perspective of the person with the protected characteristic, as in a gay person experiencing homophobia, rather than someone who witnesses the homophobia but isn't as affected since they are not gay themselves.

A white person can witness racism towards black people, but for most people, I think that they would acknowledge that the black person experiences the racism more intensely in that scenario.

Religion is a protected characteristic, and it could be argued that religion is an innate part of the human experience, or has been for a long time in history, anyway. Have you ever witnessed a cat or a dog being religious?

I think you've missed what I mean, I'm not talking about witnessing, I'm talking about experiencing.

If a straight person gets gay-bashed they've experienced the consequences of homophobia first hand.
If a white-identifying person gets targeted for racially motivated harassment or violence based on a misidentification of their race they've experienced the consequences of racism first hand.
Etc.

Religion is only a protected characteristic in that someone cannot be targeted with hate for being an adherent of a particular religion. So if someone were to say "Die, Muslim scum," that would be protected. Criticizing religious dogma or stances, or even criticizing an individual for following religious doctrine is not protected. And Christians in particular are not members of an oppressed group in the way that Muslims in Western nations are, for instance, and are much less subject to being targeted with hate, if at all.

Discriminating against people on the basis of religion or directing hate speech at them is wrong, but it doesn’t mean that religion should be above scrutiny or harsh criticism.

What if I used my holy book to argue that we should bring back stoning? What if I tried to push other deluded people to join my cause? I could make a very convincing argument as to why God wants us to stone people to death for minor offenses. There are many stoning scriptures in the Bible, perhaps more than homophobic ones.

Or, to align even closer with this topic, what if I was promoting the idea that racist tenets were good as some churches still do? I could even make a strong case, using the Bible, for slavery. Heck, I could even say that beating slaves is a-okay.

However grotesque the arguments I just proposed may be, I feel similarly about some churches stances on LGBTQ+ issues. They might not cause harm in such an obvious way, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t harmful.

It’s important to be able to criticize ideas. It’s how we make progress. In the past, people used the Bible to justify slavery and rather convincingly. I think there’s more pro-slavery scriptures in the Bible than homophobic ones.