After the ban of the c/christians community for having a rule against LGBTQ+ content. I wonder where is the actual line of what is allowed and what is not on this instance. (https://lemmy.world/post/1762563)
There are plenty of instances allowing hate speech against religious people. Looking through them I can see how they can be pretty offensive for someone who was brought up religious.
For example !atheistmemes@lemmy.world.
From their description
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
Some of the content:
- https://lemmy.world/post/1783216
- https://lemmy.world/post/1766629
- https://lemmy.world/post/1591110
- https://lemmy.world/post/1585721
To clarify, I do not feel offended, as I am in no capacity religious and I am an atheist also. I also do not ask for the removal of that community as I don’t believe neither of the two should be removed.
But going through the content on atheistmemes the content there is far worse and more offending than it was on c/christians. While on c/christians only the rules where marginally breaking the rules, while there were no content that was in violation. This community in my opinion does both.
Allowing anti religion community while banning the pro religion one is creating a real deficit of different opinions here.
What is your opinion? Do you think that one should be allowed while the other not and why?
deleted by creator
Precisely. They are banned for being intolerant, and any tolerant community must not tolerate the intolerant.
This is called the paradox of tolerance. If the tolerant people do not eliminate or rid themselves of the intolerant people then eventually the intolerant people will rise up and destroy the tolerant people. The only way to prevent either of those two extremes from happening is to not tolerate the intolerant.
If you fail to do that you cannot have a lasting tolerant community.
Plus I honestly want to know what the fuck these dumbass Christians think they’re doing by ostracizing and excluding people from their community when by Christ’s own teachings you’re not supposed to do that.
He hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes and showed them love and acceptance and mercy and compassion and as Christians you are supposed to act like Christ so how about you stop finding reasons to hate and to wage non-violent culture wars or violent wars against people who you think are going to hell.
What do you achieve?
Do you think God’s going to give you an extra shiny Gold pip star on your lapel because you bullied a trans person into committing suicide?
You think he’s going to give you a pat on the back when you kick your child out of the house and disown them for being gay?
Any Christian that really thinks about it, just really takes just one good solid day to think about it would realize they’re not being very Christian when they choose to hate.
I agree, you can be an atheist without offending the religious groups.
That might be true, but in my experience many religious people get personally offended by any criticism of their religion. For example, discussing the idiotic contradictory ethically challenged or obviously false sections of holy texts is very offensive.
You are absolutely right.
deleted by creator
If you are so insecure about your sexual identity that you can’t handle some dumb kid posting funny images on the internet, then you probably need to rethink some of the choices you made in life.
If it’s more than just dumb memes, actually harassment or targeted hated, then take it up with the admins.
deleted by creator
One thing to note is that the posts you’ve linked criticize or make fun of religious beliefs, but they don’t call for violence, discrimination, or other injustice against religious people.
The community that has been banned wasn’t discriminating people either, they were discriminating specific discussions. Where do we draw the line?
From OP’s linked post regarding this community, the rule in question was this:
This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles
That doesn’t appear to be related to mere discussion, but the basic being of LGBTQ+ people. I’m not sure what else “practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles” might refer to, and the phrasing is just a longer way of saying they reject their being.
If that was the case I would agree with you. But it’s not what they were banned for, they were banned for not allowing LGBTQ+ content on their community.
Your response doesn’t make sense to me. I’m referring to the four posts you linked on the atheistmemes forum. None of them express “hate speech” in the sense of calling for anyone to be treated hatefully, excluded from society, etc. They all express mockery or criticism of religious beliefs.
While this may be disliked by religious people, it’s not the same as (e.g.) calling for them to be discriminated against as individuals, driven out of society, etc. which are all commonplace anti-LGBTQ+ remarks from American, Russian, or African right-wingers.
“Hate speech” does not mean “speech that I hate”.
I still ask you to give me a post where c/christians were calling for someone
to be treated hatefully, excluded from societyThey literally had a rule excluding an entire marginalized group.
Are you saying excluding a whole group based on sexuality from their community isn’t discrimination?
I didn’t say they were. I said that the four links you provided did not seem to be examples of the thing you were claiming (“hate speech against religious people”).
I said a very specific thing. Please don’t read into it the thing that you wished that I had said, in order to have an argument that you wanted to have.
they were banned for not allowing LGBTQ+ content on their community.
This is false. They were banned for maintaining a policy which denies that LGBTQ+ people have a right to exist as they are.
Also, you were totally allowed to make anti-LGBTQ+ content. You were only prohibited from making anything pro- because let me tell you, if you’ve ever tried to get glitter out of an echo chamber, it is a total hassle.
Rule #8: This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles, with the exception of the ace/aroace (asexual/aromatic-asexual) lifestyle in certain contexts. However, abuse towards members of the LGBTQ+ community will not be tolerated. Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed; however, sincere questions and discourse about LGTBQ+issues are permitted.
Despite their desire to be, Christians are not persecuted like they claim.
This is not true. Christians are prosecuted world wide, and its not only Christians, but also Muslims, Budhist or any other religion.
Christians being prosecuted in Nigeria has no weight whatsoever on people writing things you don’t like on Lemmy. Don’t be so super whiny
Do you think people in Nigeria don’t access internet and there are none of them on Lemmy?
Would it be a false equivalency to claim that sea-lioning, Gish galloping, and goalpost moving, are all just different manifestations of the same trolling strategy?
I mean at this point its not worth engaging since this is an account that was made only an hour ago and this last argument is so fucking silly.
They have not yet complained about people saying things about christianity. Only you do, abusing their suffering for your hurt feelings.
You really think that’s a relevant response to the commenter you’re replying to?
It is absolutely shocking to me the number of “I am an atheist but…” posts with crazy false equivalence arguments I have seen in the past several weeks on Lemmy.
It’s understandable as the religious people also migrate away from Reddit. The fediverse cuts down their stupid “equal time for dissent” argument. The fediverse explicitly enables them to fuck off and start their own instance where they can put up their own rules and federate with whoever they want.
I’m with world on this one. Punch the damn nazis in their faces. No false arguments about tolerance here.
This is such a fucking wild take - I doubt you’d actually say that to a religious person’s face, let alone punch it.
It is absolutely outrageous to call religious people nazis.
Right? They’re way more likely to be neo-confederates or KKK members than they are to be Nazis.
Not all Nationalist Christians are Nazis… but almost all Nazis are NatCs.
Evangelical Christians and Nazis share most of their positions.
I do know some hardcore Orthodox Christians, and they are some of the kindest people I know. Far from being nazis
Nice Nazis are still Nazis. You may not be their target group yet, but it will come.
The two are different. My mother and the mother of my childhood best friend are some of the kindest people I’ve ever known. In the past 5 years I’ve discovered they support putting people in cages, selective human rights, and general Q adjacent beliefs that came from nowhere that I could see. They both are religious, not hardcore orthodox by any means, but both are indoctrinated weekly and it has changed them fundamentally. They’re still extremely kind and generous but don’t mistake that they would absolutely agree with a religious based government and whatever killings it deems necessary.
A decade ago I would have bet a million dollars I’d never hear those things from either of them. You’re right, they aren’t nazis. They’re Christofascists.
Well, all nazis consider themselves Christian
It’s a new audience for old trolls.
Care to explain why is it a false equivalence?
And yes people can still be atheists but stand for the right of freedom of religious expression. The same way someone who is straight can stand for the right of free sexual orientation.
One is a community of people saying “these people should be killed” the other is “these ideas are stupid”. You didn’t link anything from atheist memes that advocates the death of religious people.
But you are just assuming, you have no proof of this kind of posts on c/christians. They were not banned because of content, but because of not allowing pro LGBTQ+ content. Please read the linked post first. (https://lemmy.world/post/1762563)
There is no line. It’s up to whoever runs each instance.
I know you’re looking for a broad moral rule that applies here, but you won’t find it. Federation allows us all to coexist.
So if an instance owner decided that a specific community has policies they don’t like, it’s totally fine for them to shit can them.
Religion is about what a person believes. LGBTQ+ is about who a person is.
If you want to hate people for who they are, do it somewhere that isn’t Lemmy.world. If you don’t want to see people posting about your belief, go make your own Lemmy server and defederate.
Some people are brought up since childhood in religious environments, and for all they know they are Christians. They didn’t really chose to be one.
The same way I don’t want LGBTQ+ people to not feel welcome, I do not want religious people to not feel welcome, just because they were born in such an environment.
The whole point of the fediverse is choice. Religious groups can create their own instances and put in rules that reflect their values. They can federate or defederate from other instances based on their desires.
What you don’t get to do is say “Hey, I want to present my views that are antithetical to your community because you are a popular instance”.
This is an inherently ridiculous position. You can stop being religious at any point for any reason. Hell, if you willingly participate in a system that calls for discrimination against innocents, you are not welcome in any space at all.
I don’t care if the book that tells you to HATE THE DEGENERATE is the Bible or Mein Kampf. Religion is not an excuse to be evil.
Oh, you’re a fun troll.
I’m not sure whether to ask you
a) why, if you “don’t want LGBTQ+ people to not feel welcome” you;re okay with a community who’s basic rule system includes making LGBTQ+ people unwelcome or…
b) if you were brought up in a rich family, would it be unkind or offensive to post about people who have food or shelter insecurity and blame the rich for their problems? Should all socialism or welfare communities be blocked so that you are not offended by people who don’t have money?
No reason for hostility.
a) by the same point I would disagree with a community that is making religious people unwelcome. I am only advocating for applying the same standards across the board.
b) Well you came exactly to my point, no they should not be banned!
Some people are brought up since childhood in religious environments, and for all they know they are Christians. They didn’t really chose to be one.
In my opinion, the people who have been indoctrinated into a religion from birth, and who have never been exposed to fair religious criticism or alternative ideas, are the exact people who should be.
Like political parties and clubs, religion is an idea, and in my view ideas are never above questioning or criticism.
I agree, but I would not be selective in allowing criticism of one group while banning criticism of another.
It’s a false equivalency. Sexuality and sexual identity are innate characteristics not learned beliefs or behaviors. Sexuality and sexual identity cannot be changed ideas can.
What’s funny is I’ve seen lots of Christians say that going to hell is a “choice.”
To OP: no, hate speech & discrimination against religious people is not acceptable nor allowed. The examples cited appear to not meet that threshold to the admins or moderators of that community. I would recommend discussing this with either group if you believe otherwise.
If you would like to discuss religion there are a variety of communities you can find here and for Christianity specifically, here.
While I think the topic of religious discussion across the fediverse could be interesting, I don’t think this thread offers a constructive basis from which to have this discussion, and as such I am locking it. For those interested in discussing the topic on a more constructive basis feel free to make a new thread here, or for religion more broadly or Christianity specifically, whichever active communities you find in the linked search results.
Imo, you should be allowed to mock everyone, religions, LGBTQ+ or atheists
The moment you start giving special treatment to atheists and consequently inferior treatment to Christians you start threatening the basic tenets of freedom. Which in the long run could be very dangerous for a free society
To me, “This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles” isn’t hate speech, but is anti-lgbtq, which is a thing the admins of lemmy.world are right to take action on if they’re trying to cultivate an instance that is friendly to lgbtq folks.
I think that’s why even though the community had additional rules in the sidebar about not condoning violence against lgbtq, and athiestmemes has content Christians find offensive, the admins deleted the community. It’s clearly still a contested subject within the thread, but at the end of the day lemmy’s general response to people that don’t like the rules of their instance is to find another instance.
Something else to note is that there are multiple levels of shunning in fediverse. The admin in the thread deleted the community, but would still federate with a server that hosted it.
To me “This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles” implies if you are a queer or queer affirming Christian, you are not welcomed in this sub, which is excluding a large amount of Christian fed users. Even with the views towards queer people aside, you are basically drawing a line in the sand in a faith based sub based on interpretation, denomination, and belief.
No, hate speech isn’t okay. But your examples are not hate speech, so there’s no problem.
Speaking as an Atheist and lapsed Catholic:
I agree completely. While religion has a component of belief, it is primarily an identity, that the vast majority of people are born into. Despite not believing in God, in many ways I still consider myself a Catholic (as does the church). The idea that religion is about your personal relationship with God and belief is a Protestant one.
There is a reason why religion is included among other protected classes, but political affiliation is not.
Atheist communities online have a sanctimonious tendency to consider their bigotry above reproach. It’s how you get the slide of figures like Richard Dawkins into the right-wing on the coattails of islamaphobia.
There’s a fine line between making fun of a belief and stereotyping an entire religious group. And some religious groups - like Mormons or Wahhabists - are deserving of most of the hate they get. But the Catholic Church is not as bad as many make it out to be and millions have been massacred even in modern times over anti-Papistry. Spreading the ideas of Islamaphobia and anti-Papistry kills people.
I think there’s a gray area with State Atheist countries. I think the way, say, the DPRK handles it - with the complete outlaw of religion - is not the right approach. In China, religious minorities are protected under the law but not allowed to join the Communist Party, which I think is close to the right approach.
I think you understood perfectly the point I was making.
I fail to see the examples you give as hate speech against religious people.
If there was content like memes equating jews to lizards, going off on muslims being inherently violent, or saying all catholic priests were child molesters, I think you would have a case, especially since the last two are memes I would commonly see on Reddit’s religiousfruitcake sub.
The first example you give just comes off an an edgy (lol I’m so logical. These ideas are the same)
The second is making fun of the placements of two signs
the last two are plays on the question “If god exists, why does he let bad things happen?” Which is a question that many atheists ask themselves.Hate speech would be a call to do violence against religious people, or spreading stereotypes that perpetuate violence and discrimination. All I see here are mid to bad jokes.
Also, and this goes for any community here, just because a joke or meme offends you, doesn’t inherently make it hate speech. I think a christian sub would be in their right to post memes poking fun at atheism.
Like this one? https://lemmy.world/post/1440242
I am not saying that the community should be banned, I am just saying that if the c/christians were banned just for not allowing LGBTQ+ content, then applying the same standards this one should be banned as well.
And hate speech is incredible volatile definition, it seems like everyone is using it how they feel like.
The Fediverse is pretty radical. I’m an atheist also, an exmormon, and I think this might just be a misunderstanding.
The rule, “no LGBTQ+ content,” I don’t think is saying “no gay people.” I am pretty sure it is just asking to avoid the topic, to prevent bigoted discussion from happening.
As fair or not as you want it to be, LGBTQ+ is a controversial topic for religious people, and I think it’s fair to just put a pin in that discussion in your community. But what do I know?I wonder where is the actual line of what is allowed and what is not on this instance
I’d like to know this too, because banning a community just because they don’t want to talk about something - and that apparently offended someone, while allowing other communities free rein over content that could offend someone, makes me confused about how the rules are actually applied.
Honestly, I love Lemmy as a platform and the idea behind it, but currently it really feels like an echo chamber when it comes to religious/political subjects.
As much as I hate to say it, I saw a much bigger diversity of opinions on Reddit.
