ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe while you comb back through the thread, you could keep that deleted comment in mind as well as any messages from moderators you may have received. I’m sure that stuff could prove illuminating, if it hasn’t already.
And we agreed with you. It IS wrong to mock people or innate human characteristics. Ideas, including much-loved/cherished ones, are neither of those things. People can find religion, change religions, lose their faith, modify their faith, and undoubtedly other possibilities I can’t think of right now, but you can’t change being gay or straight, not that you’d want to! Both are just a normal and healthy part of who a person intrinsically is.
The topic came up because it was pertinent to the overall theme as it’s expressed in the OP. It’s appropriate to criticize religion, however strongly, when it causes harm, not that criticism is wrong in a more general sense. You can disagree with that and not like it all you want, but it’s not going to stop people from doing it, especially not in PPR and News (when there’s an interesting headline) on WP.

Much of this thread seems to be attempts at, not so much clarifying, but justifying a church’s (or theoretically a person’s) bigoted stance on things. “Justifications” for piss-poor policies does not change the fact that they are piss-poor policies. I will stop saying that the Catholic Church has a homophobia problem when they fix their homophobia problem. Being aware of the unconvincing reasoning they use to support their stance on LGBTQ+ issues doesn’t really change anything. Until they allow gay marriage and full rights for LGBTQ+ individuals as advocated for by organizations run by Catholics such as DignityUSA (which has been previously cited), New Ways Ministry, and Call To Action among others, they deserve whatever ridicule they receive. Well, there’s other stuff they need to work on like fixing their ongoing problems with CSA/CSA coverups and allowing female priests, popes, bishops, rooks, knights, etc.

Religions that don’t engage in a lot of problematic behavior don’t seem to experience much backlash. The problem is more about churches who practice bigotry in its various forms, who have controlling or abusive policies, who preach Biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the Bible, who have a well-known problem with child abuse coverups, and/or who exert control through political involvement/lobbying. That’s not to say that people can’t and won’t criticize ideas for whatever reason, but much of it stems from real concerns/issues. Frustration with a group’s policies or the plight of oppressed demographics within it can seep over into more generalized criticism or ridicule.

I have always kept my deleted comment in mind, as well as the reprimand. I understand that I somehow broke forum rules, even if I disagree with the reasoning. I have been illuminated, but probably not in the way some people here would like.



That is not my understanding of what was said, at all. Again, we are at an agree-to-disagree point.



I never took the position that I was going to stop people from doing it. I wanted to know why it was acceptable to mock/ridicule (not merely criticize).



Noted.



I would argue, like ShwaggyD (whose post didn't receive the recognition it deserved) pointed out, that:



And this is especially powerful:



Knowing that there are folks out there, who think like this, gives me a lot of hope.

You “somehow broke forum rules”?!

It was one of the most offensive comments I have ever seen on WP and, perhaps, the most offensive one you could make about the LGBTQ+ community, especially placing it in the context of other remarks that have been made in this thread. I feel I need to say that because you are undermining your behavior here in a consistently manipulative and passive aggressive way which could give some a false impression about what has occurred in this thread as well as other ones.

The homophobia here needs to stop. Justifying it with religion is simply not okay.

Let me clarify a previous comment in case there was any confusion.
Obviously, I’m not just picking on the Catholic Church in this thread. Bigotry is a widespread issue in a lot of churches. I respect organizations that treat everyone with the same dignity and accord the same rights to all no matter what their intrinsic characteristics may be. Organizations that don’t do this shouldn’t be surprised if they receive ridicule and scorn in return. It seems like a natural consequence for atrocious behavior.

We strongly disagree on several things. The moderator obviously agreed with you, especially regarding a comment I made. Those who missed the comment cannot judge for themselves; they are left with my word against yours. Which is fine. You have been here longer, and it seems the general culture here would side with you. I cannot change that, and I don't intend to try.

I have been on the receiving end of very personal attacks, and those posts have been edited or deleted. I would've preferred that they remain for all to see, so that the vitriol was observable, and folks could decide for themselves.

I am not being manipulative or passive aggressive. I am not ridiculing, mocking, or using sarcasm. I genuinely offered apologies. The likely explanation I have, for our extreme disagreement, is that our perspectives and personalities are largely incompatible.



No confusion here.

No personal attacks have been made by me, and I’ve had no comments removed. However, being aware of everything that has occurred here, I think it’s understandable why they were made and wouldn’t hold it against someone for making them. Homophobia is a serious issue - more serious than run-of-the-mill attacks, so it’s against the rules for good reason. People are human and will react if given enough provocation although it’s something we do strive to keep in check.

Sometimes folks don’t know the full situation here when disagreements arise which can lead to unfortunate misunderstandings. That’s the only reason why I wanted to comment on the removed statement - to provide more context/transparency in the interest of fairness although many posts and comments which remain speak for themselves.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 03 Dec 2024, 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

With apologies for the haste and possible out-of-sequence responses here following.

and

Egocentric: adj. thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others; self-centred.

So no, not at all egocentric. Just a feeling like so much expressed here.
Or are you - sorry, "some people" - attempting to delineate what I may think? Now that's egocentric.

Still, top marks I guess for gamely quoting the Christian bible at me like it objectively means something uh, "universal" - it doesn't.

Then those people should be ashamed, arrogantly framing as immoral an accident of birth.

Once again, see how the bigoted truth of the argument is revealed when substituting some other accident of birth - black man, a woman, etc.

Marginalised? Critical examination is not marginalization.

And perhaps Christianity is in rapid decline because people are thinking about it, directly or indirectly questioning it and the many things it stands for at odds with a more enlightened view.

It seems to me like Galileo's conflict with the Church was but one example of that continuing progression away from religious dogma.

But it's not a protected characteristic on WP, as has been explained many times (here, for example) and like political ideologies and other belief systems is open to questioning and criticism.

Again, as has been explained, the adherents of those beliefs are protected from personal attacks because of their belief, being personally criticized, being personally ridiculed; attempting to frame a belief as an innate part of anything conveniently ignores that belief of {X} is a choice. No-one is born believing in {X}.

The longevity argument is about as useful as claiming 10,000 flies can't be wrong for eating poo. So let's all eat poo?

With your permission I'll quote the context and the related response I censured.

I find that the sort of social justice atheist that a person meets on message boards like this one, tends to be like you imply, a specific type of atheist. Supposedly, religion, or any sort of superstition or irrationalism should not be tolerated, and in practice it would seem like these sorts of people use the same type of tactics that sometimes followers of various churches have demonstrated historically, i.e suppressing dissent, cracking down on heretics and so on.

Non-supporters of LGBTQIA+ culture, or people who don't advocate for LGBTQIA+ folk or pay lip service to them, people who prefer other people who are straight as a general rule, or people who simply don't care about LGBTQIA+ issues - all of these people are supposedly terrible, irreconcilable, morally despicable creatures who are not to be accepted by the social justice atheist type or their in-group.

They aren't just morally grey humans to them or people who might be perceived as misguided, they are just hopelessly 'evil' sorts of people.

I find it a bit sad to be around that sort of hatred.

I don't really agree that being gay is strictly genetic or unchangeable or arises at birth and remains throughout a person life. That can happen or be the case, but it doesn't have to be.

I believe that a person might be inclined towards being LGBTQIA+ at birth, but that humans have epigenetics going on, which are influenced by their environment, and typically how gay a person is falls on a spectrum. For people in the middle of the spectrum/who are bisexual (which includes extreme heterosexuality on one end and extreme gayness on the other end) or close to the middle of the spectrum in either direction, there is probably an element of choice for people like that to be gay or not be gay. If a person has gay feelings with zero gay experience, or is a practising gay, I would personally draw a distinction between the levels of gay of those two states of being.

A heterosexual could go through their whole life practising heterosexuality, identifying as heterosexual and not know that they might like a bit of gay sex, simply because they have never tried it, and have never had the opportunity to get to like that sort of thing?

Well, obviously you believe that Christianity should be in decline, due to your presumed atheism? But surely you must recognize that marginalized groups deserve some social protection?

A persons religion is a protected characteristic under UK equality law, but I do recognise that this website falls beyond the remit of those laws, and so I acknowledge what you are saying about that.

I think there's often an over-reaction to having one's bigotry identified, where instead of it being seen as hey, you can do better there's a tendency to act like it's an accusation on par with murder and to flinch from the accusation and from any introspection that might result. No, I can't be a bigot, bigots are bad people and I'm not bad people, therefore the person making the accusation is a hateful as*hole.

Saying that better can be done isn't hate. Speaking critically of positions one holds isn't hate, even if one uses religion as their justification for holding those positions.

I was pointing toward your "my idea of a God" train of thought as being a bit self-centred, as God may exist and judge you whether you like it or not - and may even be responsible for creating you. But good for you for excluding the possibility of a God that might have some sort of impact on you in any way - if that is what helps you sleep at night?

Last edited by blitzkrieg on 03 Dec 2024, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.