Well Kylie I would say I complained about conservative and someone else complained that you didn’t assume their country correctly. To this point your generalization seems a tad faulty so people can complain about the poor assumption made.
When I said the US, right -- there I was assuming that the OP situation
happened in the US, actually. So if you think that was aimed at Beorning, you misunderstood.
Again it's immaterial to me at this point whether it's an American conservative per se saying 'no jokes about religion.' Point remains it seems that there are a fair number of people out there who are averse to jokes about such things, to the point that they attack the very notion of any sarcasm on various issues. Show me that the same trend is negligible in other countries and I'll say okay, never mind, toss that. But I hardly expect that you would find no touchy, anti-sarcasm figures in swaths of Europe for example. Why, Italy is a place where Amanda Knox was tried with all sorts of references to the devil and witchcraft.
Now honestly, I think you're drawing out "Oh what did Kylie assume?" a great deal, but in ways that don't really make much difference to the thread and to what I was actually doing with that.
There is obviously a double standard here where religion is allowed to be ridiculed but other social issues are discouraged from being treated the same.
I believe this has been discussed. First of all, we have more evidence at hand what the social issues are about. Many of us feel that people are more likely to for example, die or suffer economic loss for their gender or sex object preferences than for their lack of knowledge in who knows how many churches' particular platforms? So if you make light of that in a way that's going to get someone losing a job or killed, yeah, we might have something serious to talk about.
But I wouldn't
try to tell you that nothing at all could be funny about LGBT or that there is nothing ironic and laughable to find there. On the contrary, I find lots of things about LGBT (organizations and political groups especially!) really laughable and worthy of being picked on. But here you are telling me, I gather, that it should be some moral minefield to make any jokes at the expense of people with a religion. In particular, you're telling me not to do it in a situation where they reasonably appear to be set upon converting someone. (You could perhaps reduce these trigger situations, and any real misunderstandings, somewhat by finding more interesting and varied ways of speaking to someone besides starting conversations out on Ye Old Goode News.)
Also, there seems to be a demand for religions to actually be treated more
kindly than other people showing with a pitch at some random time in my life. If I laugh about the New Labor Party showing up at my door at 10 pm, or Toys R Us or Avon for that matter, I'm not allowed to do it for a religion? Huh? That's already practically a demand that I treat religion more seriously than others, and I'm not even religious! Totally unrealistic. You might as well demand to have no one to want to convert, to begin with. Or demand that I treat UFO fanatics all completely seriously. More or less the same to me.
Why it would just be a show trial. The Inquisition at the door: "Is this one taking us seriously? Noooo?" Or once you get this rule implemented: "See you recognized me as important because oh I have FAITH. Well, I can see eventually I'm going to get your attention because see, you already have. It's the rule of my lovely theocracy. You HAVE to take everyone completely seriously. Especially me, because this is about religion and it's not only a social group, why it's personal and moral. Don't you agree? Be careful answering that, now. Don't smirk." Thank Goddess and all the spirits and the Sphaghetti Monster and Cthulu and the Altar to Ultimate Agnosticism and My Little Pony and the Tooth Fairy and Lex Luthor the Wannabe Little Satan and all the Lovely Flying Pandas of the Abyss I invented in my 22nd life in -(that's negative mind you) 270,000 BC, no I do not have to do any such thing. Rubbish.
Also there is a simple notion of simple respect being offered to another person.
Been there, done that. Iniq appears to me, to be defining respect as hosting a "witness" meeting at some length in her home. I don't agree with her standard. Beorning seems to require that no one pick on anyone who might have a rough day or a hard job, ever. I'm afraid that would only make many of our days much harder and rougher, if not outright destructive. Can't promise that either. "Simple" respect used this way, starts to have all those problems of "common" sense. That, I am willing to grant you!
Then there is the issue of coming online to brag about the exploits.
I'm a little more open to this one... Sure, you'd expect less argument in G&C. Still, I don't think it merits anywhere near the level of outrage and venom I sensed from Iniq. Reads as complete overkill/ risking hyperbole to me, and possibly showing a desire to have no space for the OP either. Can't expect much appreciation there.