Why do you allow people to attack and ridicule Christianity?

No - a difference of opinion is not mockery.
its true that religion can be very divisive. I think history teaches us that tolerance - including religious tolerance- is necessary if we are to live together in peace because there will always be different views and different beliefs.

“don't see why religions or religious belief themselves should be protected from criticism or satire any more than any other opinion (e.g. political affiliation) should.”
Criticism is fine . Mockery is different- it reduces individuals who are believers into objects of scorn. Mockery of religious belief is not the same as legitimate criticism.

Do you think the same is true of any type of belief or opinion? Are there no beliefs or opinions you think it's ok to mock?

I've asked this several times in different ways on this thread and not really got an answer. None of the defenders of Christianity seem to be keen to say 'Yes, I will respect literally any belief of any kind' or admit 'No, actually, I probably would ridicule a belief in unicorns or the idea that the world is flat or dinosaurs were made up'.

I think this is an important point, because either unsubstantiated beliefs must be respected, or not. Given that there is no proof that any gods exist, why should religions command any more respect than any other belief?

The UK is not predominantly a christian country.
Speaking out about the clear shortcomings of christianity isn't mocking, it's speaking honestly and factually.

Again, a difference of opinion is not mockery.
I'd argue that religion itself is often the divisive factor.

Do (some) christians also not lack basic manners when they force others to listen to their evangelism then?

May have been true not so long ago, but Christianity is clearly in decline, and as I said previously, even being the single largest religion does not grant Christians any right or legitimacy when they try to claim the entirety of the UK for Christianity.

In England I think it was 52% or around that who claim to be Christian, and in Scotland it's 38%. This obviously includes all the people who notionally claim to be Christian but do not actually practice the religion. The single largest group in Scotland is those who profess "no religion", so even if Christians still want to insist England is a "Christian country" due to that 52% number, it's clear that by the same measure Scotland is no such thing.

I think the concept of "former Christian" is interesting, because I've always considered myself an atheist for as long as I can recall, including standing in religious observance as a child and thinking to myself "this is all nonsense and I don't believe a word of it", yet, I was actually Christened as a child, bafflingly, since both parents are also atheists, so I suppose technically I could be described as a "former Christian" even though if I ever was a Christian t was only ever notionally and before I could express my own view.

This is why I'm sceptical of those 52% and 38% numbers. I don't think it's even an accurate picture of the reality of religion in the UK. There will be a large number of people who still lazily scrawl down "Christian" without giving it any thought whatsoever, simply because their history, family, and perhaps upbringing was notionally Christian.

I think you’ve got a point in that most of the people who are mocking are former Christians but I don’t think it’s true that this is primarily a Christian country.
I think criticism is absolutely ok ( and necessary) but mockery is divisive and unhelpful

Thanks @XDownwiththissortofthingX for summing things up well in your first post (and the follow ups).

This is primarily a Christian country, OP. The majority of people have some experience with Christianity. Most people who mock and criticise it are former Christians.

Yes, but like I said, I'd far prefer the matter just wasn't discussed in the first place.

I don't see where I'm in the wrong when I'm engaged on a topic by an individual, that individual adopts a plainly ridiculous position or argument, and then I ridicule that position as a means to highlight how preposterous it is.

If you don't want to hear my view, don't ask, and if you don't like being ridiculed, don't be ridiculous.

Yes, agreed, but what else can you do when that person insists on being completely and utterly ridiculous?

Change the subject?

Yes, agreed, but what else can you do when that person insists on being completely and utterly ridiculous?

What is it about religiosity that makes you believe believers should not be objects of scorn, or that religion should be exempt from mockery?

Because it is basic manners not to pour scorn or ridicule someone?

If someone persists in discussing something you are not interested in then fair enough- you might need to be quite firm in rebutting their attempts.

What is it about religiosity that makes you believe believers should not be objects of scorn, or that religion should be exempt from mockery?

Obviously it's preferable to have civilised, respectful debate, but this is partly the problem. You can not have an honest, respectful debate with people who demand that you throw logic out of the window and are selective about which empirical facts they choose to acknowledge. Religious adherents are fond of ignoring commonly held principles of sensible debate and "argument", so where can you go beyond mockery and satire.

Sometimes it's the mockery that emphasises and highlights the contradictions and the hypocrisy, so to that end it clearly serves a purpose and is perfectly legitimate.

Just to clarify- I can cope with playground mocking expressions towards religion ( sky fairy etc) but when I hear that type of language it reduces any chance of a meaningful conversation. I’m not really interested in an exchange of insults.
I accept that my beliefs might seem ridiculous to many people but civilised people should be able to refrain from mocking others publicly ( unless they’re responding to an offensive comment)

This is reasonable, but I'd ask you for a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who does not believe in the existence of deities, yet is offered a "meaningful conversation" about the matter by someone who does. Also, take into account this is unlikely to be the very first time such a "conversation" has been on offer, and it may well have happened countless times previously.

I can not discuss the nature of something I fundamentally deny exists. It simply isn't a conversational topic. Where can you go with "this doesn't exist" beyond reiterating that it does not exist? You can not debate the nature of something which does not exist.

Now imagine this is the umpteenth time someone has tried to prompt this conversation with you. You will understandably be sick fed up of hearing it, so I think by that point it's perfectly reasonable to adopt a dismissive, condescending demeanour simply through sheer frustration. It is a literal impossibility to have a "meaningful conversation" about something you do not believe exists, especially with someone who does, because it is impossible to lend any credence to their position without totally suspending common sense and your basic powers of logic.

This is why, atheistic people act with complete incredulity and start chucking around terms like "sky fairy". It's sheer exasperation, which leads to contempt and ridicule.

“don't see why religions or religious belief themselves should be protected from criticism or satire any more than any other opinion (e.g. political affiliation) should.”
Criticism is fine . Mockery is different- it reduces individuals who are believers into objects of scorn. Mockery of religious belief is not the same as legitimate criticism.

Fair enough. I agree with your first paragraph completely. I tend to avoid discussing religion with people who I don’t know very well or who I think would not be interested in the discussion.
I agree with you about mockery and satire playing an important role in puncturing pomposity etc . However cliched, childish insults don’t have much to offer.
Just to clarify- I can cope with playground mocking expressions towards religion ( sky fairy etc) but when I hear that type of language it reduces any chance of a meaningful conversation. I’m not really interested in an exchange of insults.
I accept that my beliefs might seem ridiculous to many people but civilised people should be able to refrain from mocking others publicly ( unless they’re responding to an offensive comment)

My personal view on this matter is that I would not start or provoke a conversation with anyone about religion. I am an atheist, leaning toward anti-theism, but the fact I am an atheist means I have no particular interest in religion and have no inclination to prompt a conversation about it with other individuals.

For that reason, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of "respect", and not "foisting" my atheism on other people, regardless of whether or not they share my views, and also regardless of which particular religion they might align themselves with. I do, however, reject the idea that if I'm asked, or someone prompts me to engage on the topic, that I somehow have to moderate or water down my response for fear of offending.

The same rights that mean you are free to worship anything you choose also grant freedom of expression, and that means the right to criticise, and even offend, provided you stay within the bounds of legality. As I said, I am content to show "respect" by simply never bringing the matter up, but this only works on a reciprocal basis, and if religious people actively seek to bring the matter up, I will oblige and engage. I also believe that as Christianity is a pervasive, insidious presence in UK public service and politics, I am perfectly entitled to express my view on that matter, since it does directly effect me, and I'm subject to the whims of institutions and people trying to foist their belief system upon me irrespective of the fact I do not share their beliefs, and quite possibly do not share their "values" either.

On the point about Christianity being "singled out" and Christians feeling "bullied". I can understand that perception, but then I think that is just a natural consequence of Christianity being the overwhelmingly predominant religion in the UK, so it follows that as a matter of course most of the discourse revolves around Christianity, so you are going to end up with more upset Christians than any other religion!. They are certainly not persecuted in the UK, so I have a hard time feeling any sympathy when they claim victimhood. The allegation that nobody would dare respond to Muslims, Jews, etc in the same way is a nonsense. I hold all organised religion in contempt, but again, I'm happy to keep those views to myself unless prompted. Who, precisely, prompts the response is neither here nor there, and I would not dilute my response or be shy in speaking honestly depending on the particular beliefs of who I am responding to.

I'm puzzled as to why people who claim faith would be offended by playground insults like "sky fairy" and "delusional" in any case. You, by definition, believe in something that is entirely without provenance and can not be proved or disproved other than philosophically, and even then only after you have defined what it is that you actually believe. Surely, if your "faith" is strong enough to actually believe, then mere criticism is nothing more than water off a duck's back. This is why I always say to overbearing religious people "if you want to stop being ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous". Engage in good faith, and stop expecting those of us who don't believe to "respect" something we regard as palpably ridiculous. If you ask, then don't take the huff when you get an honest response.

Russell's Teapot. Nobody would have the slightest concern in "offending" anyone who espoused this nonsense, so why should other, equally implausible belief systems expect a special stats that grants them freedom from criticism, mockery, or ridicule?

Mockery and satire has always played a fundamental role in exposing the ridiculousness, pomposity, hypocrisy, and illogical nature of organised religion. It's a big part of the reason why fewer and fewer people oblige it with the special status it constantly demands. I utterly reject any idea that it, or people who follow it, should be given special protection from other people simply expressing a view they are perfectly entitled to both hold and voice.

perhaps you are thinking that because that is how you feel?

certainly not how I feel. I enjoy hearing about other people's beliefs, especially when they are different from my own. they help me learn and grow and develop my own beliefs. I have had many enjoyable discussions re faith with atheists.

I don't know many religous people who would say "I will pray for you" to atheists, it is certainly rude.

ps I was not always religous, I came to it through a long process of questioning and scientific reasoning so I absolutely understand the atheist perspective.

Well, it’s perfectly valid and rational to say that someone who believes in non existent being is delusional. Because they are. But it’s also a little unkind, as it’s akin to telling a small child that Father Christmas doesn’t exist when they think he does.

However, if a 20something year old person told you that Father Christmas did exist, I think we’d all agree that telling them they were delusional was probably fair enough…

So, whats the difference between believing in Father Christmas and believing in religion? Any religion??

This was a rebuttal of the claim that the "Church of England" is somehow the official State church of the UK. The fact you, as an individual, chose to align yourself with the Anglican church is neither here nor there. There are plenty of Scottish Muslims, that doesn't mean Islam is the State religion of the UK, and it's simply another example of how the UK tolerates freedom of expression.

I think there is a different attitude, it seems to me that anyone can make anti christian comments and make jokes, draw cartoons and be openly hostile to christians and their views calling them loons or whatever. However, once this is applied to other religions - probably with the exception of the jewish faith it is viewed as some form of phobia. Either we protect all religions or none.

I agree. Non-bigoted people are generally less inclined to criticise the religions which are largely followed by people of ethnic groups different from their own, for obvious reasons. As for protection... imo people should be protected from discrimination based on their religious beliefs,but I don't see why religions or religious belief themselves should be protected from criticism or satire any more than any other opinion (e.g. political affiliation) should. Unless some god finally decides to show him/herself of course, in which case we'd better all start praying (especially those people who had been praying to the wrong one/ones)!

@leeverarch "Oh I think you'll find that some believers frequently do insist that theirs is the truth, and non-believers & believers of other faiths are heretics (or worse). Perhaps not necessarily on MN, but in the wider world, yes."

Yes they do. But they don't have a third more choice of state funded schools for example. I don't mind being called a heretic.

Oh I think you'll find that some believers frequently do insist that theirs is the truth, and non-believers & believers of other faiths are heretics (or worse). Perhaps not necessarily on MN, but in the wider world, yes.