Blatant religious insults on Reddit

steelskipper5 said:It looks like we’ve got some hate speech laws being applied here. At the very least.
The suggestion that believers should organize a referendum if they want to amend the Constitution of the United States and put crosses on the walls of government buildings was hit with a 500-point penalty just because it used the word “bullshit.” And that is, to quote them, “grossly insulting to religious feelings.”
Meanwhile, unconstitutional, undemocratic, and slightly clerical-fascist ideas aren't penalized at all. Apparently, mocking atheists for being in the minority isn't considered an insult to atheistic feelings.

I really hate this kind of discrimination on the site, but as you can see, the admins—well, at least ZgSash—don't see anything wrong with it.

Shameful.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, man, what you just said isn't even true.

The ban happened because two different users twice referred to religious symbols and rituals as "bullsh*t"—it’s not about the word itself. I mean, that word doesn't mean anything until you put it in context, right? And in this specific case, the context was just straight-up insulting religious feelings.

If you feel like atheist sentiments are being offended, go ahead—you're free to report a post like that.

steelskipper5 said:Why are religious feelings treated like they're above everything else?
If someone called a Confederate flag, a hammer and sickle, or anything like that total garbage, would that post get 500 upvotes?
No, obviously. Not that I've seen happen yet.

I’m asking for a rational, well-argued explanation as to why religious sentiments get more protection than anything else.

This kind of double standard is even worse than seeing crosses in public institutions. And considering certain instances of religious hate speech that I've reported multiple times without any response from the mods (take Yivanmukt, for example, who still posts freely today), it feels like believers can violate both the Constitution and the law, while any word spoken against them—even harmless mockery like this—is punished more strictly than your average debate on a political sub.

Pathetic.

steelskipper5 said:I’d also mention that while I know I can flag offensive posts, my experience shows the mods' criteria are usually totally messed up and biased.

Daniel Ward87 said:Don't take this personally, but I don't think any explanation is ever going to be good enough for you. A hammer and sickle was basically a gold mine for points back in the Soviet Union days—if Reddit had even existed then. I'm pretty sure you know that too, so making that comparison just doesn't make sense. Insulting American national symbols and emblems will definitely get you punished. A hammer and sickle or some old extremist emblem isn't an official national symbol. They might have been once, and back then they were probably protected, so mocking them could have gotten you sanctioned. You really have to look at things contextually, though I suspect you’ve known that for ages.

Second off, calling the cross, the Bible, the Quran, and everything else tied to religious customs "other crap" isn't some harmless little jab—it's blatant disrespect, which the admins confirmed by not pulling the ban.

Daniel Ward87 said:Yeah, I’d probably go along with adding some community standards to the mix too. 👍

steelskipper5 said:Yeah, I’m not going to get a clear enough explanation because you aren't even trying to explain it. Period.
The crux of the matter is that political symbols—of all different kinds—are expressions of someone's core beliefs, just like religious symbols are. Just because there isn't a specific country out there using a five-pointed star or a hammer and sickle as its official emblem doesn't mean the people holding those convictions don't exist. The same logic applies to, I don't know, the swastika, just as much as it does to the cross or the crescent moon.
If I can label symbols central to one group's beliefs as "garbage"—and I'm certain if I called a swastika garbage, I wouldn't be handed a ban this heavy —but I can't do the same for other symbols, then we are looking at blatant discrimination.

Claiming that something is acceptable simply because the admins agree with it isn't actually an argument.

In today's society, religious beliefs are already granted far too much special protection—you see Muslims getting death threats or attacking embassies over caricatures of Muhammad, and it’s fascinating how few people actually see anything wrong with that. Here, for a word that wasn't even particularly offensive, a 500-point penalty was handed out—way beyond a typical insult, and even higher than what often (doesn't) get issued for actual hate speech. So, here is yet another instance of religious views being given special protection above and beyond everything else.
And meanwhile, believers go around insulting everyone else left and right without any consequences.

Have I mentioned how pathetic that is? Have I? Then I guess I should say it again: it's pure patheticism.

Scott Cruz4 said:Are you seriously comparing the Nazi swastika—which was literally a symbol of pure evil and mass suffering—to a crisis involving something that represents faith, peace, and love among people?
That’s just gross. 👎

And what exactly are these "atheist feelings" or symbols that we supposedly shouldn't be offending??
What does that even say about you guys as atheists?

steelskipper5 said:And then you start running into these unsanctioned comments—you know, the kind where people just lash out and say things like, "they're sick" or whatever—which is basically just a straight-up insult because... It’s basically a de facto situation—though I suppose calling it anything else would be a stretch, wouldn't it? It just... it exists. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that's the reality on the ground. It’s either that... or some people just want to say, “Throw them all onto Manhattan and let them breed there.”

Adam Collins4 said:The swastika also holds a completely different meaning within Indian culture...

It's a lot like how the cross used to carry a totally different weight and role throughout history...

The real distinction here is just the sheer "volume" of history that has piled up between our present day and those specific dark chapters in the past...

Scott Cruz4 said:We aren't talking about some foreign symbol or an Eastern culture here.
For Christians, the cross has one singular meaning—it simply cannot be linked to violence or evil.

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, we aren't talking about some Eastern symbol or their culture here.
For Christians, the cross has one specific meaning, and you just can't link it to violence or evil.

Gary Patel said:Lol, sure. I mean, functionally speaking, the cross was basically an electric chair.

Amanda Stewart11 said:Seriously? How can you even type something like that without feeling embarrassed?!

steeleagle70 said:If you actually bother to read the Bible, it’s spelled out right there. The cross was originally just a tool used for execution by crucifixion. That’s how Jesus was sentenced. It wasn't until after that event that the cross transitioned into the central religious symbol for Christians. But let's not get too sidetracked here...

steeleagle70 said:The thing is—historically speaking—more people have been killed under the banner of the Cross than under the Swastika in relative terms. For certain folks, seeing that Cross meant certain death at the hands of a Crusader or a Conquistador.

So, honestly, your whole "peace and love" argument doesn't really hold up when you look at history.

Look, I’m not trying to dictate how the mods should do their jobs—I'm not an authority there. But let's be real: if they applied these rules to everything, we'd see massive bans just for trolling.

Technically, he's right. But we all know that if this kind of strictness were applied to other threads, there wouldn't be anyone left active in the politics section.