I’m having trouble following what you’re saying. Some progressives are prejudiced against majority groups and are doing what about it? I thought that those who use the term “regressive” as a pajorative were describing people as being so favorable to muslims that they end up practically apologizing for some particularly regressive cultural norms that progressives would normally condemn. I haven’t heard of anyone who could be described that way as trying to pass discriminatory laws oppressive to any majority groups.

I don’t believe that it’s right to paint all individuals in a group with the same categorization brush either, as groups and demographics are arbitrary constructs we use to classify large masses of people out of convenience, overlooking the diversity of each individual within the group.
The problem comes when people judge and condemn others simply for belonging to a group that may have done some bad things in the past, employing guilt by association. Are all Christians guilty of persecuting gays? Are all whites guilty of persecuting blacks? Are all men guilty of persecuting women? Are all Muslims guilty of terrorism? I would think not, but there are an alarming number of people identifying as “progressives” that seem to be making more and more of these blanket judgments and rallying to pass discriminatory laws based on this prejudice. Many have taken to calling these radical progressives the “regressive left” based on these values. Being prejudiced towards dominant and majority groups is still prejudice.

As someone that would prefer to judge ideas rather than the individuals and groups that hold them, I would be very interested in seeing you compile an episode on these sorts of issues someday.

The main reason it’s easier to criticize the dominant culture (Christians in the US) is that there’s not a tendency to paint all Christians with the same brush. When statements are made about minorities by race, religion, etc. it is much more likely that people will interpret those statements as being universally applied to every individual in that group. Therefore, I think it’s perfectly OK to criticize dangerous beliefs, such as homophobia, regardless of who holds those beliefs but I think it’s necessary to go out of our way to clarify that those criticisms should not be applied with a broad brush when speaking of minority groups. It would be fine to make that same clarification when speaking of a dominant group, it’s just not usually necessary.

This episode did make reference to toxic religiosity and that goes for whichever religion plays a role in pushing hateful ideologies.

There seems to be a strange double standard at play that it’s okay to criticize Christians for their homophobic beliefs and doctrines, but criticizing Islam for the exact same thing gets you branded as an “Islamophobe”, perhaps simply because Muslims are a minority demographic in America, and inexplicably become a “protected race”, even though Islam is an ideology, and not a race. Omar Mateen claimed to have done what he did specifically because of his Islamic beliefs, and the Koran makes its prejudice against homosexuality very unambiguous in its writings. While I do not blame all Muslims for Mateen’s massacre and every terrorist attack, there is a number of fundamental problems at the heart of the Islamic doctrine itself that must be addressed if there is to be any peace in the Middle East or the rest of the world at all.