12:08:00 PM Apr 21st 2017
I made a large edit and several editions. In the Christianity page I removed the allusions to Judaism and Islam because 1) There are folders for that below, where people can bring that up, 2) It is very apologetic, in the theological sense (apologia means defense) i.e. defending Christianity by saying others do this or that, which in any case is redundant, the page is Acceptable Religious Targets and not Acceptable Christian Targets. 3) There are many faiths and beliefs that are not Abrahamic...there are Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism (which after all invented modern suicide boming with kamikaze pilots), pagan etcetera. 4) I should have thought that this goes without saying, but I think it's important to put this clearly...because religion, and ideology that enforces a certain doctrine, i.e. communist-state-atheism, has often played historically a political role, aspects of that faith and its belief are no longer the exclusive domain of criticism for people in that group. That's the main reason why Acceptable Targets exist. So long as the folder maintains and presents diversity and why those negative stereotypes exist, as well as pointing out where it's not entirely true, than its okay.
06:05:03 PM Nov 10th 2017
One of the reasons that I listed particular examples of discrimination by atheistic regimes is to give a reason as to why there is negative treatment of atheists; it's a fact that atheistic regimes have been responsible for the violent persecution of the religious, resulting in many deaths. I listed the example of North Korea's regime killing people for having Bibles because it's the most egregious example I knew of. I also listed them as moving away from the communist origins of their Juche ideology to make the point that not every atheistic regime is communist. Second, can we list Islam's anti-LBGT stance in the Islam folder. Islam is far harsher on homsexuality than Christianity; countries where Islam is the state religion make homosexuality a capital offence - at the risk of talking about someone-who-should-not-be-named on this site, even the Westbro Baptist Church at their worst hasn't been that bad. Finally, regarding Judaism, why can't the stereotype about Jewish people being greedy be mentioned. The one of Christians being hypocrites is mentioned, why not the Jewish one; it appears a lot in media (such as the moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice"). It looks like, despite the Warts and All disclaimer at the top, a few Double Standards are being practiced. What do you think? (P.S I sent you a message Julian, in case you didn't see or address it here).
09:02:12 PM Nov 10th 2017
LONG DISCLAIMER: TV Tropes is a website about media representations in general, and in so far as it deals with reality, it's often about what reality gets right/wrong/dated and so on and so forth. The Acceptable Religious Targets is about how religion is presented in the media it's not about religion in general, it's not about religion and theology in the main. It's about the stuff of religion that pervades media to the extent that those who are not believers end up imbibing some of the stuff about it via Pop-Cultural Osmosis. There are pages for Communism, North Korea, Cold War et al. It's a verifiable empirical fact that the religion most represented in media across history and in the Present, and certainly the media that most infects Pop-Cultural Osmosis across the world is Christianity. So the reason why Christianity gets the most focus is that it has the biggest influence, biggest power, biggest reach and of course is the world's leading religion. So that is the only reason why Christianity is focused on much here. The media that shows Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etcetera is smaller in number by comparison, same with atheism and other beliefs. I think this point should have gone without saying but clearly that's not the case. So the reason why there's more about Christianity is that it's a religion with all its different shades of white, black, and gray, in all its intricacies widely represented across art...And the page reflects that. For instance, Christianity has multiple sects as does Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam et al but the media showing the diversity and intricacy of other faiths doesn't compare to Christianity. So when I say that christianity is accused by hypocrisy I mention because a lot of media across history shows that. Moličre's Tartuffe, his corrupt preacher, is a byword. To pretend that the media influence of all religions is equal and can be dealt with equally is a Golden Mean Fallacy.
I listed the example of North Korea's regime killing people for having Bibles because it's the most egregious example I knew ofIn most pop culture, North Korea is shown as Laughably Evil and cartoonishly crazy tinpot dictatorship in films like Team America and The Interview. The idea that North Korea persecutes people of religious belief (and also people for all kinds of beliefs ideas, such as watching American TV according to one report) is not widely shown and reported. I mentioned Communist China, because it's persecution of Tibetan Buddhism is widely known and featured in Kundun and other films. And the example that exists currently demonstrates clearly that Communist regimes did persecute people of religious belief. Also North Korea is not a Communist dictatorship anymore. It's state ideology is Juche, it dropped mentions and references to communism in The '90s, and currently it worships its "Dear Leader" like a God-Emperor and proclaims Divine Right of Kings. So arguably it's some kind of religion-on-religion persecution rather than just atheistic persecution of religious. In any case, we don't know enough about North Korea on account of the media blackout there...and it's arguably not helpful to this trope other than simply attract more sympathy for one group over others.
Second, can we list Islam's anti-LBGT stance in the Islam folder.The page deals with media portrayals of religion, and across the media, the most persistent negative portrayal of Islam is them being terrorists or the Ayatollah sending fatwas, which is established there. Islam is rarely smeared for being anti-LGBT because until very recently, the Western World was also anti-LGBT, and a number of Christian churches still are, so Islam being Anti-LGBT is just not especially a target used by media as a negative stereotype for Islam widely enough to be needed here.
Islam is far harsher on homsexuality than ChristianityIrrelevant to this page and discussion. This is not comparative religion.
Finally, regarding Judaism, why can't the stereotype about Jewish people being greedy be mentioned. The one of Christians being hypocrites is mentioned, why not the Jewish one; it appears a lot in media (such as the moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice").Greedy Jew is a fundamentally anti-semitic stereotype, The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play...the fact that you are not able to appreciate that means that there's not a lot to say on this front. As I mentioned in the page of Judaism for most of history, the only portrayals of Judaism was negative...so when you are dealing with that kind of oppression and repression, there's no point in qualifying it and pretending that this is an equal situation. And the media that deals with Judaism proper is smaller than Christianity.
01:32:03 AM Nov 11th 2017
edited by SkidTroper
edited by SkidTroper
LONG TEXT WARNING: There are some things you said I agree with and some that I disagree with. I never said, or meant to say, that all religions have influence across the media. I see what you're saying that Islam's anti-homosexuality stance is not in the media often (which is a media double-standard, but a separate one from what this page is about). In light of that, you're right about how Islam's harsher stance on homosexuality is irrelevant to this page. By the way, I have given proof, even posted links, so I am not (as you claimed elsewhere) trying to shift the burden of proof (unless that's what you call it when someone merely disagrees with or challenges your biases and views). Then why does the article mention that those communist regimes relented from their persecution of religion? That's not relevant to how religion or atheism is presented in the media. At best it's irrelevant, to this page at worst it's pro-atheist agenda editing. Regarding North Korea, they're officially an atheist state. I know they're not communist; I was talking about their government as atheists, not communists (given they, like China, have an official policy of State Atheism - see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/north-korea-the-worlds-wo_b_12969994.html. I even mentioned them to avoid the risk of associating atheism with communism (and any accusations of such). North Korea's policy on religion can be summed up as; "Don't worship. If you have to worship, worship the Kim Dynasty and/or Kim Il-Sung. Woe betide anyone who worships anything or anyone else." Quick detour; Their system of worshiping the Kims is a Cult of Personality - similar to but separate from a religion. The dictionary definition of Cult of Personality is, and I quote from dictionary.com "a situation in which a public figure (such as a political leader) is deliberately presented to the people of a country as a great person who should be admired and loved." The definition of religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural". To use an analogy; religion is Superman, Cult of Personality is Iron Man - they can both fly, both wear distinctive costumes, are both super strong, both good at fighting but they aren't the same, are they? Depending on the North Korean in question; some are religion-on-religion, some are atheism-on-religion (especially since the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, introduced Marxism, which was the predecessor of Juche, so the anti-religious agenda was involved from the get-go of his regime). Back to the subject; I know that Greedy Jew is a fundamentally antisemitic stereotype, but that has been portrayed in alot of media (Merchant of Venice was the first one that came to mind). On that note, I resent your remark about me; I know it is an anti-semitic play - a negative portrayal of Jews in the media (Tv Tropes deals in literature and theater) hence the reference. The only comparison I was making was that Christians being stereotyped as hypocrites has come up often in media and is a well-known negative stereotype, just as Jewish people are stereotyped. I'm not playing oppression Olympics or pretending that Christians have been oppressed just as much as Jewish people; I am saying both Christianity and Judaism have a popular negative stereotype of character quality associated with each one. In closing, I would like to discuss some specific examples of how Judaism has been portrayed in the media and maybe why those negative portrayals have occurred rather than that generic "the positive portrayals of Judaism can be counted on one hand" and also add that point about North Korea next to the point about China in the atheism section; both still have the official policy of state atheism even if they're going against it in some ways). What say you?
01:32:03 AM Nov 11th 2017
LONG TEXT WARNING: There are some things you said I agree with and some that I disagree with. I never said, or meant to say, that all religions have influence across the media. I see what you're saying that Islam's anti-homosexuality stance is not in the media often (which is a media double-standard, but a separate one from what this page is about). In light of that, you're right about how Islam's harsher stance on homosexuality is irrelevant to this page. By the way, I have given proof, even posted links, so I am not (as you claimed elsewhere) trying to shift the burden of proof (unless that's what you call it when someone merely disagrees with or challenges your biases and views). Then why does the article mention that those communist regimes relented from their persecution of religion? That's not relevant to how religion or atheism is presented in the media. At best it's irrelevant, to this page at worst it's pro-atheist agenda editing. Regarding North Korea, their officially an atheist state. I know they're not communist; I was talking about them as atheists not communists. I even mentioned them to avoid the risk of associating atheism with communism (and any accusations of such). North Korea's policy on religion can be summed up as "Don't worship. If you have to worship, worship the Kims. Woe betide anyone who worships anything or anyone else." Quick detour; Their system of worshiping the Kims is a Cult of Personality - similar to but separate from a religion. The dictionary definition of Cult of Personality is, and I quote from dictionary.com "a situation in which a public figure (such as a political leader) is deliberately presented to the people of a country as a great person who should be admired and loved." The definition of religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural". To use an analogy; religion is Superman, Cult of Personality is Iron Man - they can both fly, both wear distinctive costumes, are both super strong, both good at fighting but they aren't the same, are they? Depending on the North Korean in question; some are religion-on-religion, some are atheism-on-religion (especially since the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, introduced Marxism, which was the predecessor of Juche, so the anti-religious agenda was involved from the get-go of his regime). I know that Greedy Jew is a fundamentally antisemitic stereotype, but that has been portrayed in alot of media (Merchant of Venice was the first one that came to mind). On that note, I resent your remark about me; I know it is an anti-semitic play - a negative portrayal of Jews in the media (Tv Tropes deals in literature and theater) hence the reference. The only comparison I was making was that Christians being stereotyped as hypocrites has come up often in media and is a well-known negative stereotype, just as Jewish people are stereotyped. I'm not playing oppression Olympics or pretending that Christians have been oppressed just as much as Jewish people; I am saying both Christianity and Judaism have a popular negative stereotype of character quality associated with each one. In closing, I would like to discuss some examples of how Judaism has been portrayed in the media rather than that generic "the positive portrayals of Judaism can be counted on one hand" and also add that point about North Korea next to the point about China in the atheism section; both still have the official policy of state atheism even if they're going against it in some ways). What say you?
02:19:45 AM Nov 11th 2017
I have given proof, even posted links, so I am not (as you claimed elsewhere)Since this discussion page is public and not a PM, try to stay to the matter at hand, and bring that up in the relevant context .
Then why does the article mention that those communist regimes relented from their persecution of religion? That's not relevant to how religion or atheism is presented in the media.The section in page reads: ''Much of the modern stigma can be traced historically to Cold War propaganda (on both sides)." it's dealing with the stereotype, the context in which it came into being. I said it was part of Cold War propaganda on both sides...the USSR were never entirely successful in enforcing state atheism, and they often backslided when it suited them, while the USA chose to overemphasize the atheism part and neglected the rest. Atheism was an actual real-world stigma. People were fired from jobs if they were rumored to be atheists (such as European refugee Luis Buņuel who was fired from his job at the Museum of Modern Art when his non-belief was revealed). The point is that atheism doesn't necessarily correlate to communism in the same way that Christianity doesn't correlate to all the anti-Christian stuff printed elsewhere. The Christianity folders are nuanced to emphasize that, and the same applies to atheism.
On that note, I resent your remark about me;Your original edits which got you suspended included lines like this: A few of the most prominent reasons include the involvement of Jews in the execution of Jesus Christ, denying Muhammad's prophethood and involvement in his death, and some blame Jews for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Cases such as these has led to all Jews getting smeared by association. These aren't media-biases and religious targets, they are out and out anti-semitic remarks. Jews had no role in the execution of Jesus, Muhammad and so on...the entire fulcrum is anti-semitic, part of "blood libel" and they are not valid reasons for making Jews a target. Hence I pointed out these are Once Acceptable Targets and that making such remarks is legally a hate crime in many nations. If you cannot accept that, then I cannot help you, and if you persist on defending this, then it's up to you to face the consequences.
I'm not playing oppression Olympics or pretending that Christians have been oppressed just as much as Jewish people; I am saying both Christianity and Judaism have a popular negative stereotype of character quality associated with each one.Firstly hypocrisy is not the main or only stereotype Christianity have about it...the entire Christianity sections deals with a variety of stereotypes. There's puritanism, fundamentalism, there's missionary activity and conversion, there's Darwin and Galileo, there's Witch Burning, all that is mentioned in the page and many sub-pages. You are ignoring the full meat of the article by cherry-picking one issue and pretending it's the same.
In closing, I would like to discuss some examples of how Judaism has been portrayed in the media rather than that generic "the positive portrayals of Judaism can be counted on one hand"You mean you don't want to mention the actual incontrovertible historical truth...well that's your problem. The page makes it clear that Jews were Once Acceptable Targets, they are also Acceptable Ethnic Targets, and about the only major Jewish religious stereotypes you find is the whole idea of the complexity of Talmudic and rabbinical discourse, that you get say in The Simpsons with Krusty's Dad and so on. The fact is most media don't actually deal with Jewish religion and Jewish theology too deeply, the same applies to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism. So you aren't going to get a lot compared to Christian examples. Pretending that this is equal is Golden Mean Fallacy.
" and also add that point about North Korea next to the point about China in the atheism section; both still have the official policy of state atheismIt's irrelevant. Atheism is stigmatized because of its association with Communist states, and the essential communist states in America is USSR, China, Cuba. North Korea in global media is not associated with atheism, it's associated with tinpot dictatorship and political insanity. When people think "godless communism" or Communists persecuting religion they think "religion is the opium of the masses" or the Chinese attacking poor Tibetans. Making this about state atheism and so on is irrelevant...I mean technically Great Britain is officially Anglican religion. As a constitutional monarchy, the King and Queen are head of Church and non-Anglicans are denied important ceremonial positions. Does that mean Great Britain is a theocracy, or that England being Anglican is essential to understanding Anglicanism or Britain? Likewise, in the case of North Korea, them calling themselves "state atheist" means nothing and doesn't inform anyone or anything about the stereotype which is what this page is concerned with. Mentioning that here in this context exists mainly to stigmatize atheists and insult people who are atheists and that's what your edits do.
01:14:52 AM Nov 12th 2017
edited by SkidTroper
edited by SkidTroper
I think you're only saying this because you're an atheist who has been personally insulted by what I said and are trying to excuse and justify a Double Standard against a group you dislike rather than present an even-handed case, correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like we are cherry-picking as I look back over what we've typed. While I have seized on some things you said more than other things, I try to address the general scope of what you say and will try harder to do so. Looking back at you, it looks likes you have been trying to comb through everything I say, pick the lines most useful to you, put the worst spin on them that you can (aside from the occasional poor choice of wording on my part), treat that as if it's the whole argument and avoid addressing the rest (looks like cherry-picking to me). Regarding the Judaism section; When I said "In closing, I would like to discuss some examples of how Judaism has been portrayed in the media rather than that generic "the positive portrayals of Judaism can be counted on one hand" I meant I wanted to list specific examples in that section, not deny the fact that the majority of media depictions of Judaism throughout history have been negative; you misunderstood my intentions (also, what you said you thought I was going for is not how the Golden Mean Fallacy works). My line about "the most prominent reasons... regarding Judaism" was only a poor choice of wording on my part. I was not saying that those reasons were justified, I am saying that those are some of the reasons given for the prejudice, I was NOT agreeing with them or trying to insinuate they were valid; it was no more an attempt to malign Jewish people any more than the grievances leveled at Christianity in the Christianity folder are an attempt to malign Christianity. If you did report me, at best it looks like it was a misunderstanding brought on by a poor choice of wording on my part, or at worst a slanderous accusation to try and get me silenced. I also disagree with your accusation of cherry-picking; the page says "...the defining criticism of Christianity is hypocrisy..." I was not cherry-picking, as I wasn't trying to ignore the other stereotypes, I was seeking to point out what looked like a shared element (a prominent negative criticism leveled at Judaism and Christianity, though the though the truth is more nuanced than that. Also, from your claim that "Jews had no role in the death of Jesus," I recommend you read the four Gospels and do some historical research. I also never said that Jews had anything to do with Muhammad's death, merely that it's speculated that a Jewish person killed the Islamic prophet Muhammad (since Muslims and Jews have had quite a bit of historical animosity). Saying that "some Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus" is not a hate crime, any more than it is to say that "some terrorists are Muslims" or "some Catholic priests have molested children". Regarding the atheism section, this article is about Acceptable Religious Targets. That means it's about atheism, not communism, which is why I tried to move it away from communism and towards state atheism (also to avoid slipping into the Association Fallacy, which is linked in the atheism section); thus do I assert that state atheism is relevant to this article. On that note, what I would like to add to the Jewish section is, after "...positive portrayals can be counted on one hand" I want to add the line "(one example of a negative portrayal is the Jewish moneylender Shylock in the Shakespeare play "The Merchant of Venice)." Also, I would like to mention the New Atheist movement in the atheism section; they have appeared in media and some deplorable statements on the part of its founders have played a role in the negative media portrayal (Richard Dawkins was spoofed in South Park - to use him as an example he's called Islam "the greatest force of evil in the world" even though he admitted in that same sentence that he's never read the Koran). What say you?
01:48:36 AM Nov 12th 2017
I don't appreciate Ad Hominem insinuations about my motives, beliefs, and alleged actions. I insist you stick to the topic. In any case ATT has mostly decided to take this to the Trope Repair Shop, so you should probably find a forum, or start one and make your pitches and suggestions there. About the only thing that I agree is that "...the defining criticism of Christianity is hypocrisy..." should be removed. The rest I disagree with totally for largely the same reasons.
I recommend you read the four Gospels and do some historical researchThe Second Vatican Council and American Lutheran Conferences has condemned and repudiated deicide. So obviously mainstream contemporary Christianity sees that as Unacceptable Targets. What more historical research I need to do?
I want to add the line "(one example of a negative portrayal is the Jewish moneylender Shylock in the Shakespeare play "The Merchant of Venice)."Why? The whole point of that sentence and paragraph is to highlight that this section needs to be shown with some sensitivity. And Merchant of Venice and Shylock is closer to Acceptable Ethnic Targets and Unacceptable Targets than it is to religious targets. The rest does not add any more to this section than already exists and only serves to stigmatize atheism. Remember that atheism is not a religion, and the folder page lists religious attacks on atheism and why atheism is stigmatized and stereotyped and there's no function beyond that. Stuff like state atheism and so on is meaningless, and most of that is listed in Illegal Religion anyway, since what you are describing is state persecution of religion and that falls out of the YMMV nature of this trope. Nobody compares Richard Dawkins to North Korea and so on, they compare him to Simon Cowell and other Mean Brit and the like.
08:20:57 PM Nov 12th 2017
edited by SkidTroper
edited by SkidTroper
I wasn't comparing Dawkins to North Korea, I mentioned him because the New Atheist movement has contributed to the current media portrayal of atheism; thus it is relevant to mention on the page. The existing text in the atheist section has a whiff of pro-atheist apologetics about it (since it merely states the origin of the New Atheist movement while omitting the controversies they have played a role in (or their selective, tarring, even myopic statements about religion and the religious). I cited Dawkins because he is one of the founders and has made many of said remarks (and he is still alive and a factor today while Madalyn is dead though her organization still exists). On a site note, the Dawkins-Cowell comparison is not apt; Dawkins is known for, and has made a career out of, promoting atheism and attacking religion. Cowell is known for, and has made a career out of, being an entertainer and a Caustic Critic. In addition, it mentions Madalyn o'hair as having an abrasive personality, and not banned on the grounds of criticizing a real person, so by that logic the issues with the the new atheist founders should also be mentioned). If the numerous grievances leveled at Christianity and Islam mentioned in the respective sections are acceptable to mention the same can be done for atheism (You claim it would only stigmatize atheists; don't you think the "Treatment of Galileo and Darwin" criticism leveled at Christianity stigmatizes Christians? Or the terrorist stereotype stigmatizes Muslims? Yet both are mentioned in their sections - and some of the complaints mentioned are historical but still leaving a mark today). To do otherwise and omit such facts would be a double standard. The fact that you tried to deflect when I shared my suspicion of your motives and didn't confirm or deny it is telling. So Christians and Muslims can be stigmatized but atheists can't be? (on that note, I was not launching an Ad hominem attack on you. Ad homimen is when someone attacks your argument based on your character rather than the argument itself. I have addressed the content of your argument and merely shared my suspicion of your motive, which again you did not deny... just as earlier it looked like you were insinuating I was antisemitic, but I answered that and explained that I am not). I'm not calling for the stigmatization of atheists, merely seeking to list WHY it's happened and present facts, even if it means exposing the figurative skeletons in a few closets. Speculation about a person's motives isn't Ad homimen - the fact that you won't add facts because of the possibility it could stigmatize atheism (and deflected when I asked about your motives) looks like you're trying to do pro-atheist agenda editing (also, insinuation means implied, where I was openly stating my suspicions). I merely wish to add a few facts about the New Atheist movement, mention Dawkins and tweak the section on Islam (since the Judaism section seems to be a pretty sensitive one and we can't reach consensus). On a site note: regarding the research about Jesus, there are non-Scripture historical sources that talk about Him (two examples include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ But I encourage you to do your own research if you're worried that I'm spoon-feeding you biased sources).
08:34:20 PM Nov 12th 2017
I have said all I have to say, you have not added or given account of any new reasons. This page will most likely go to TRS soon, and/or be locked out anyway. Let others add their own opinions. Or alternatively you can look at Ask the Tropers and the discussion you started there, to see what others who are not me think.
09:30:30 AM Mar 11th 2016
Do we really need this page? What does it really add, besides an opportunity for liberal and/or anti-religious tropers to bash on their Chew Toy of choice? Particularly in the section about Catholicism, which uncritically takes the point of view that the Church *should* support "leftist and revolutionary movements". The section on Christianity in general seems to be criticising Jesus for not supporting revolutionary change, which, again, is just a fatal misunderstanding of the Christian worldview. Nowhere is it mentioned *why* this is so. Basically, the section on Christianity is heavily prejudiced, because it doesn't give the object of its criticism a fair hearing, or a chance to defend itself. The comments made are often of the form "I think religion should be X, this religion isn't X, therefore it's worthy of criticism".
09:45:08 AM Mar 11th 2016
This website is about TV Tropes, aka how tropes are represented in fiction. Acceptable Religious Targets is about why various religions are attacked and criticized, and what is the basis for that in fiction. In general, when dealing with criticism of religion, one can expect a "liberal" bias. In European literature and fiction, the Church is seen as an opponent of progressive movements. That is actual books and movies, for instance the movies of Luis Buņuel. I also cited Graham Greene a Catholic writer who criticized the Church and other religious writers. So I don't think the comments are "I think religious should be X", I think it's fairly objective in representing the trope. This isn't the Useful Notes page for Christianity or the Catholic Church after all.
11:32:03 AM Apr 17th 2016
There are some unsubstantiated points and unnecessary finger pointing at the Catholic Church, though (which Pope was it who denied the Holocaust, exactly?), as well as dodgy interpretations of Christian belief in general. Jesus was not merely a Prophet but the living Son of God and part of the Trinity, and while Jesus did befriend prostitutes and thieves He also made it clear that He regarded them as sinners who needed saving. It's not a Useful Notes page, true, but there's still no need for spreading misinformation or unfair accusations against a religious group, which may cause offense. I recommend a review and edit to ensure a less accusatory tone and a more objective overview.
12:18:28 PM Apr 17th 2016
I was confused about the Holocaust Denier part myself, I forgot to remove that myself since I corrected the other stuff. As an editor I actually did make the Christianity and other religious sections more balanced, like I pointed out that a lot of people assume the Catholic Church is against evolution when that is a strictly Protestant phenomenon (there is a tendency to assume stuff that is true of Protestants, Witch Burning is common to the Church). The political criticism is justified since it's about why Christianity is an Acceptable Target in the eyes of certain artists. It's not about whether those statements are fair or correct, or theologically justified, it's about what are the criticisms that are commonly expressed against a belief. I mention the Jesus Was Way Cool trope specifically to explain how and why people critical of Christianity use it. And i mention that Christian artists themselves use it to criticize their own faith, now you might argue if they are "true" Christians or not, but they certainly do deploy arguments on those lines in works which criticize Christianity.
06:06:44 PM Nov 10th 2017
edited by SkidTroper
edited by SkidTroper
But then can we start doing the same to other religions and non-religious? Can we start pointing out the criticisms of Judaism and Scientology? There's a Double Standard at work here, methinks, and the way you talk Julian, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to justify such Double Standard discrimination.
02:59:44 AM Feb 27th 2016
In the Christianity section, I think claims being added about Jewish people running the media and that criticism of Christianity is down to them smacks of Unfortunate Implications
01:45:23 PM Sep 3rd 2014
This is a minor issue I have, but why is the entry for Muslims so low down on the page? Shouldn't it be with the rest of the 'major' religions (up there with Jews, Hindus etc)? I suggest it get moved so it's just above Atheists so then all the 'most common' religious groups are together.
09:42:33 AM Mar 8th 2014
Regarding the section replying to the example of "Averted in Firefly, where the most optimistic person to ever exist is an atheist." states that *he* thinks god exists but rejects him. Now, am I wrong in thinking that the "most optimistic person ever to exist" isn't Mal, but Kaylee? If this is so, that section (the reply) shouldn't be there.
10:00:39 PM Feb 25th 2013
Is there a point to the "real life" section in any of these? At best, all they do is point out the prejudices that some hold against certain groups, and calling someone else's religion an "acceptable target" IRL smacks of prejudice to me.
08:49:42 PM Nov 14th 2012
Dismissal and mockery of Mormons and Scientologists in their respective entries, comments about how they actually are wrong or ridiculous are ironic and I think inappropriate for this section. Shouldn't they be removed?
01:08:20 PM Aug 3rd 2012
Suggest the "Agnostic" section be seriously edited. Starting to go into thread mode there. Perhaps also a mention that there are two largely separate stereotypes involved: one that agnostics=atheists, with whatever stereotypes attach to atheists (mainly by religious believers); and the other that agnostics are too weakwilled or cowardly or something to admit to being atheists (mainly by atheists). For Unitarians: there's the stereotype that while Unitarians are insistant on resistance to religious dogma, they can allegedly be insistent on liberal politics. And not necessarily "laid-back" at all about it.
07:05:46 AM Jan 28th 2012
Can you make a non-flame bait justification for their counting?
09:58:31 PM Jun 11th 2012
I think the best justification is that I can't think of one that isn't flame bait. And even that is flame bait.
01:19:55 PM Aug 3rd 2012
Creationists are pretty much Acceptable Targets—except among creationists. It's an extremely despised opinion in the mainstream media; to the point where much of the coverage is fear they will take over the country—oe even regret or outrage or shock that they even exist. Made worse because there are places in America where they *are* able to influence (and in Kansas, actually take control of) the school curriculum; fear of a minority gets much worse when it is not completely groundless. An Internet flame war is likely to be of the "you don't hate the bad people as much as I do!" sort, unless: 1) some actual creationists show up; or 2) the flame war gets too far into implying (or outright stating) that all Christians, or all religious people, or all conservatives, or all Americans, are creationists. In short—yep, Acceptable Targets. Yep, Flame Bait. May be the opposite of a Sacred Cow—a subject so widely and deeply despised that it cannot be discussed neutrally.
08:41:24 PM Nov 14th 2012
edited by Crocoshark
edited by Crocoshark
I think creationists should definitely be added because there are many examples of them being perfectly acceptable to make fun of them without repercussion. Thus, "acceptable targets". We have entries for other widely ridiculed groups as well, from the immoral (nazis, criminals, drug dealers) to the just never taken seriously (moral guardians, mormons, scientologists).
10:59:23 AM Jan 4th 2012
In the Real Life section under Muslims, there's a bit of discussion of the burning of the Koran. It turns to talking about Muslims threatening to burn the Bible in revenge, and then there's this statement, which I can't be the only one to find very contentious: "This is partly because Christians have endured persecution for so long that burning a Bible as revenge comes off as pathetic. It's not like printing more Bibles is hard or expensive." A) Yeah, uh, Muslims have printing presses too. The destruction of the physical book isn't what pisses people off when books are burned, religious or not. B) While there are still Christians that are being persecuted, the vast majority are not, so using this as the reason threats to burn the Bible aren't met with violent reactions seems a bit... off. There are any number of reasons that this happens, but this one comes off as "My religion is better than your religion because my religion has suffered more, so we don't sweat the little things".
12:15:01 AM Jan 9th 2012
Perhaps it's better to change it to something along the lines of this: "This is partly because for the majority of Christians, a Bible is simply a book: While it is somewhat offensive purely as an insult to Christians in general, there isn't any religious significance associated with Bible-burning."
11:56:02 AM Jan 9th 2012
@Stoogebie Sure thing, sport. @Watercleave Just as the original, that really comes across as being speculation. I really think that while this wiki is supposed to be informal this is one of those things that still has a huge, bold [CITATION NEEDED] hanging over it. And honestly, this is supposed to be about religious (or non-religious) groups its acceptable to make fun of or denigrate in media. Having a Real Life section is outside of that scope and just attracts whining or "My religion is better than yours" statements like this one.
09:59:44 PM Mar 19th 2011
If you look at the examples in the Atheist section, the vast majority of examples seem to be Exceptions or Aversions. If this trope is so subverted and averted when it comes to Atheism, then why is Atheism even in the Acceptable Religious Targets article?
06:36:53 AM May 8th 2011
Because there are so many examples of athiests portrayed negatively that it was more expedient to list aversions.
12:44:12 AM Jan 10th 2011
Can someone explain what the following is supposed to mean? Amen is a good example of this phenomenon. The Reverend Gregory, who has devoted his life to the church, is treated with respect; Deacon Frye, who is devoutly religious but has not devoted his life to the church, fits the stereotypes listed earlier. There's also an exception: Gerstein, who is devotedly religious but takes action against the Holocaust because he thinks killing people will send Germany to Hell. This is listed under Catholics — Live Action TV. But this entry makes no sense, because the live action TV show with Rev. Gregory and Deacon Frye called "Amen" was not about Catholics, and the movie called "Amen" with Gerstein was not a TV show, and the two titles had nothing to do with each other.
05:28:03 AM Apr 5th 2010
Buddhists and Catholics really don't seem to belong here. Buddhism is hardly an acceptable target (even people who don't know anything about it respect it), and while Catholic priests may well have a rough time of it, Catholics in general are not remotely acceptable targets in Western media. The Mormons and Polygamists entries might also be combined in some way - Mormons are only acceptable targets because people assume they're all polygamists, and we already have an entry for that near the bottom of the page.
05:54:19 PM Jun 4th 2011
Catholics tend to be Acceptable targets in Real Life, usually by Protestants who will say that they are polytheistic, worship the Pope/Saints/Mary, have wacky beliefs (read: Sacraments), and just in general are weird people. Of course, Catholics and Protestants have been feuding for hundreds of years and are likely not to stop anytime soon.
06:01:15 PM Jun 4th 2011
Oh yes, expect a joke about Purgatory or Limbo in there somewhere.
04:03:04 PM Jan 8th 2012
"Catholics are hardly an acceptable target?" Actually, you're right; we're not "acceptable targets", the proper term is The Chew Toy of religion. FYI, we are targets who get picked on, and a lot of times, it's something like "knowing nothing about sex" or "secretly a bunch of whores*". And of course we're a bunch of Straw Hypocrites too. The list from there goes on. We're also bashed for being intolerant...etc. Thing is, you can't just count out Catholicism in this, or at the very least, don't be surprised with the usual result.
05:35:54 PM Mar 5th 2012
^Agreed. Catholicism is subject to bashing both from the conservative side (for not being "real" Christians) and the liberal side (for having some socially conservative stances) and this very rarely receives comment, since, despite countless instances of oppression throughout history continuing right up to the modern day, mockery of Catholicism is viewed as an act of defiance against the establishment.
06:04:58 PM Mar 23rd 2010
The section on Atheists should probably direct the reader straight to Hollywood Atheist, being a more in depth look at the same trope.