Persecuted Christians In America!

[bleeding heart]

When gays were just starting to force their way in the definition of marriage.....didn't they realize that it will forever be a bone of contention?

Certainly. When they demanded the extremist radical position of being recognized as equal citizens--a point that gets some religious conservatives in a tizzy--they knew full well it would be contentious.

And they're winning--they're winning legally, bit by bit, and they're winning rhetorically, very quickly. Hearts and minds, and all that.

Hence the backlash by the reactionaries...who, a generation from now, will understand they were mistaken, and for the most part won't even admit to their current stance.

In Canada and several other countries, it is already practically a non-issue. And the United States, being chock right to the brim with decent, fair-minded people, is pretty obviously heading in the same direction. (Culturally, America has been crucial in the battle for gay rights.)

They should've coined their own name for marriage. I don't think there would've been much of these if they called gay union anything other than "marriage."

Why? We don't own the word because we're heterosexual. No one "owns" words.

It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

Kimmy didn't say he had no right. But she too has every right to criticize the smarmy little knuckledragger. (And she's done a fine job of it, just as a sort of bonus!)

Edited August 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

I agree. It's a well-known fact that if you don't get married before God, it is not a real marriage. Those who feel that their "marriages" performed by a marriage commissioner or Justice of the Peace are real are persecuting me as a Christian.

I'm unaware of such a fact. But if that's how you feel, I'll certainly be tolerant of your opinion.

[betsy]

Certainly. When they demanded the extremist radical position of being recognized as equal citizens--a point that gets some religious conservatives in a tizzy--they knew full well it would be contentious.

And they're winning--they're winning legally, bit by bit, and they're winning rhetorically, very quickly. Hearts and minds, and all that.

Yeah, it looks like they're winning bit-by-bit. However, will it last?

Will the tide change if ever let's say, the leaders of various religions that share the same belief in the definition of marriage come together as a solid force that would strike fear into the heart of any power-hungry politician? I bet the very same leaders who strongly supports gay-marriage right now will unceremoniously dump that stance in a heartbeat. All it takes is one imaginative broker to get all the religious factions sitting together in one corner.

Well....it is a bone of contention, like I said. How many years has it been now since then....and the battle still feel very much the same.

Phooeey, equal citizens my foot! It is anti-religion - because they don't agree with some of the doctrines - pure and simple. That marriage issue was an attack on religion.

I'm sure when it comes to equal treatment, practically everyone - even I - will agree that they deserve equal treatment (benefits, etc..,) under society's laws. If they want to get unionized (labor unions might be up in arms for use of that word ), they should've come up with their own, after all....shouldn't they be prideful of something that's truly their own? Anyway, that's moot now....unless they decide to give way and retract. In the name of harmony. And of course, in the name of tolerance.

Hence the backlash by the reactionaries...who, a generation from now, will understand they were mistaken, and for the most part won't even admit to their current stance.

In Canada and several other countries, it is already practically a non-issue. And the United States, being chock right to the brim with decent, fair-minded people, is pretty obviously heading in the same direction. (Culturally, America has been crucial in the battle for gay rights.)[/

USA is pretty much divided. I don't know about Canada....but just because there's not much noise about it doesn't necessarily mean it's a non-issue.

We're having more and more people from other countries in Canada - a lot of them coming from places that have their own beliefs and ideas about marriage. That might change the whole dynamics 10 or 20 years from now.....who knows. I'm just speculating...but that's very possible, no?

Well that waits to be seen. From some other's perspective, they're saying the whole bloody thing is already causing a lot of headaches! Polygamists are demanding the same rights!

As if it's not bad enough that this generation's children are confused to what exactly is family....and dealing with extended families that arised from divorces and re-marriages....but more so when you start considering everything else that entails dealing with multiple wives and so on. I don't think our current laws will be able to address everything fairly and accurately. They'll end up patching holes or adding ammendments, just to accomodate the demands of various groups and factions and the changes that arise.....without enough time to study and analyze the repercussions down the road.

Why? We don't own the word because we're heterosexual. No one "owns" words.

But it's not just a "word." It's like a brand. Except that it's much more than that.

Can you name your business with just about anything and not be taken to court if that name's already been taken?

Kimmy didn't say he had no right. But she too has every right to criticize the smarmy little knuckledragger. (And she's done a fine job of it, just as a sort of bonus!)

I didn't say she doesn't have the right to criticize. She asked a question...shouldn't Cathy's money been spent elsewhere?

And I gave my answer: it's his money. He can do anything with it. He can even burn it!

I hope you're not suggesting I couldn't freely give my opinion?

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, it looks like they're winning bit-by-bit. However, will it last?

Will the tide change if ever let's say, the leaders of various religions that share the same belief in the definition of marriage come together as a solid force that would strike fear into the heart of any power-hungry politician? I bet the very same leaders who strongly supports gay-marriage right now will unceremoniously dump that stance in a heartbeat. All it takes is one imaginative broker to get all the religious factions sitting together in one corner.

That seems pretty unlikely. Never mind some meeting of the minds of different religions...even within the same religions, people don't see eye to eye on many issues.

For the example we're now speaking about, plenty of Christians do in fact support same-sex marriage.

Well....it is a bone of contention, like I said. How many years has it been now since then....and the battle still feel very much the same.

Maybe among the shrinking opposition, it does. For ordinary Canadians, the matter seems pretty much settled. Most people either outright support the idea...or else they don't much care about it.

Phooeey, equal citizens my foot! It is anti-religion - because they don't agree with some of the doctrines - pure and simple. That marriage issue was an attack on religion.

It's fitting that you'd make this preposterous claim in the "persecuted Christians" thread.

tha marriage issue wasn't an attack on religion; it wasn't even about religion, until religious opponents made it such.

If you really think that the reason homosexuals demanded marriage rights was because they wished to attack religion...then you're paranoid, I'm afraid.

I'm sure when it comes to equal treatment, practically everyone - even I - will agree that they deserve equal treatment (benefits, etc..,) under society's laws.

Except the right to marry, because....ummm.......

after all....shouldn't they be prideful of something that's truly their own?

But it's not truly their own. that's the whole point. they wish to normalize homosexuality in society, and so demand the right to the conservative tradition of marriage.

Anyway, that's moot now....unless they decide to give way and retract. In the name of harmony. And of course, in the name of tolerance.

Better yet, their religious opponents could decide to give way and retract, in the name of harmony.

That makes more sense.

We're having more and more people from other countries in Canada - a lot of them coming from places that have their own beliefs and ideas about marriage. That might change the whole dynamics 10 or 20 years from now.....who knows. I'm just speculating...but that's very possible, no?

It is. But once something becomes legally and (more improtantly, perhaps) culturally enshrined, it is no easy matter to retract it.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The young are far more tlerant and supportive of the idea than are the older generations.

From some other's perspective, they're saying the whole bloody thing is already causing a lot of headaches! Polygamists are demanding the same rights!

Yes. And that's a seaprate issue. Polygamist marriage should be looked at and debated an discussed on its own merits and/or demerits.

But it's not just a "word." It's like a brand.

In exacty zero way. In fact, I shoudl think people are getting tired of talking abotu every damn thing as if it's a "brand."

Can you name your business with just about anything and not be taken to court if that name's already been taken?

That's not even a faintly good analogy. It's terrible.

Edited August 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[msj]

This here link is for kimmy:

Jon Stewart show August 2, 2012 Chick Fil A

In particular, Jon points out the mayors' of Chicago, Boston, and SF for giving the right wing a legitimate gripe about government "persecuting" them.

I love it when Jon states: You go Christians. And don't you stop until there is a church in every town in America...."

[betsy]

I'm unaware of such a fact. But if that's how you feel, I'll certainly be tolerant of your opinion.

BubberMiley, on 03 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

I agree. It's a well-known fact that if you don't get married before God, it is not a real marriage. Those who feel that their "marriages" performed by a marriage commissioner or Justice of the Peace are real are persecuting me as a Christian.

Shady, I don't know where Bub is getting his facts. I was just reading about civil governments in the New Testament (Acts), how we're supposed to follow the law unless they run contrary to the explicit Commandment of God, so how can marriage sanctioned by the government not be real?

Some want to have the traditional marriage ceremony in church for various reasons....

[bleeding heart]

I love it when Jon states: You go Christians. And don't you stop until there is a church in every town in America...."

Ha!

One can only dream this, so that the persecution of Christians could finally end.

[cybercoma]

The only way persecution of Christians will end is if we round up all the gays and heathens and put them to death. Only then can the Christians finally be free.

[Shady]

You know who gays and heathens bother more? Muslims.

[bleeding heart]

You know who gays and heathens bother more? Muslims.

And when they come on this forum and start getting all Allah-preachy, we will continue apace with the same discussion.

I think I'd start with pointing out that a religion founded by a successful Businessman is going to have some gaping flaws.....

Edited August 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

And when they come on this forum and start getting all Allah-preachy, we will continue apace with the same discussion.

I think I'd start with pointing out that a religion founded by a successful Businessman is going to have some gaping flaws.....

If anyone's been Allah-preachy it's been kimmy.

[bleeding heart]

If anyone's been Allah-preachy it's been kimmy.

I suspect Kimmy would verbally-surgically remove the nonsense from any arrogant Muslim believer's posts, if she thought it warranted.

[Shady]

I suspect Kimmy would verbally-surgically remove the nonsense from any arrogant Muslim believer's posts, if she thought it warranted.

Bigots only focus on one particular group.

[bleeding heart]

Bigots only focus on one particular group.

Her "bigot" self-appellation wasn't meant in the usual sense of that word, obviously.

And "religious people with a persecution complex" is a particular group. Which exact brand of Abrahamic offshoot is under discussion is not of the utmost importance for that specific topic.

Besides, I have read posts of hers which deride the Islamic use of ancient religious texts to inform contemporary behaviour. She doesn't give any of the Faithful clowns a pass, unless they properly keep their silliness to themselves.

Now, my Kimmy-is-Awesome posts are starting to feel a little weirdly obsequious to me, so.....moving on.....

Edited August 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Bigots only focus on one particular group.

You just make that up off the top of your head?

I'm starting to think that you're not actually intentionally going around spreading lies, but that you're actually ignorant enough to believe the crap that you say.

From dictionary.com:

big·ot   [big-uht]

noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Nowhere in any definition of bigotry does it say that they only focus on one particular group.

[BubberMiley]

Some want to have the traditional marriage ceremony in church for various reasons....

OMG! You’re right. I was going by Christ’s Word when he indicated to the woman at the well in John 4 that those who did not enter a covenant before God weren’t really married. But, lo and behold, He also indicated that what the government says goes: “"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-20)

So since the Canadian government has recognized same-sex marriage, and they did so under the authority of God, it is blasphemy to oppose this ruling.

[Shady]

You just make that up off the top of your head?

I'm starting to think that you're not actually intentionally going around spreading lies, but that you're actually ignorant enough to believe the crap that you say.

From dictionary.com:

big·ot   [big-uht]

noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Nowhere in any definition of bigotry does it say that they only focus on one particular group.

Complete nonsense. Bigotry can be based on many different things. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Also, coming to the defense of a bigot is very unbecoming

[Canuckistani]

You just make that up off the top of your head?

I'm starting to think that you're not actually intentionally going around spreading lies, but that you're actually ignorant enough to believe the crap that you say.

From dictionary.com:

big·ot   [big-uht]

noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Nowhere in any definition of bigotry does it say that they only focus on one particular group.

First the genocide debacle, now this?

[Shady]

First the genocide debacle, now this?

Now what?

[cybercoma]

Complete nonsense. Bigotry can be based on many different things. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Also, coming to the defense of a bigot is very unbecoming

I'm not supporting a bigot. I'm pointing out that you don't know how to read a dictionary. Your claim that bigots only focus on one group is wrong. Instead of retracting that statement, you're going to keep running with it. You better put a rubber helmet on, Timmy, before you hurt yourself.

[Shady]

I'm kinda suprised this slipped by everyone's radar. Especially with all the persecution police occupying this forum. Perhaps persecution sheriff kimmy was busy that day. Cause we all know what would have been posted had say, a Jewish or Muslim restaurant been told by mayors of major U.S. cities that they weren't "welcomed" to conduct business in their towns. All because of a legitimate religious belief.

We've seen the persecution police get pretty upset when a religious group tries to boycott individuals, or businesses like in the case of Ellen Degeneres. These persecution police get mighty peeved at the excercising of free speech rights in those cases. However, apparently when the reverse takes place, they're conveniently silent.

Anyways, enjoy the persecution, and just imagine if this was taking place to one of the persecution police's favourite groups. You can just imagine the outrage.

Chicago blocks a business from expanding because its president opposes same-sex marriage

Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power:

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

Salon

And then we go to Boston, where 'no Irish need apply' has definitely changed to something different as of late...

Boston mayor’s letter to Chick-fil-A: Stay out of Boston!

On the heels of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's controversial public comments against same-sex marriage, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino fired off a letter to Cathy, urging him to abandon plans to expand the fast food chain to his city.

AP

Which takes us to some of these supporter's zealots, visiting said restaurants, and harassing the employees that work there, as if they set company policy.

Nothing says tolerance like this guy, does it?

Come'on persecution police, you really dropped the ball on this one. I expect more out of you. Perhaps your part-time work in the hypocrisy brigade is hindering your job preformance.

[msj]

I'm kinda suprised this slipped by everyone's radar. Especially with all the persecution police occupying this forum. Perhaps persecution sheriff kimmy was busy that day.

I already brought this up yesterday. I linked to the Jon Stewart clip related to this.

It was my link for Kimmy. I guess you took that literally and didn't bother to read the post or watch the clip.

Which takes us to some of these supporter's zealots, visiting said restaurants, and harassing the employees that work there, as if they set company policy.

Nothing says tolerance like this guy, does it?

Come'on persecution police, you really dropped the ball on this one. I expect more out of you. Perhaps your part-time work in the hypocrisy brigade is hindering your job preformance.

Jon Stewart looked at this last night and the clip is here (Canadian link).

Yeah, there are douche bags on every point of the political spectrum.

When the day comes where some pro-homosexual, anti-Christian man stocks up on hand guns and assault rifles and heads on down to the Westboro Baptist Church in Florida, opening fire and killing the Phelps clan, and then, AND THEN, some atheist, lets call her Patricia Robertson, goes on her TV program viewed by millions of people every week, and says that this is what Christians deserve as a logical end result of the old phrase "and eye for an eye" found in the Old Testament, well, then I will feel like we have reached true equality.

[sharkman]

OMG! You’re right. I was going by Christ’s Word when he indicated to the woman at the well in John 4 that those who did not enter a covenant before God weren’t really married. But, lo and behold, He also indicated that what the government says goes: “"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-20)

So since the Canadian government has recognized same-sex marriage, and they did so under the authority of God, it is blasphemy to oppose this ruling.

Uh, I was just wondering in John 4 where specifically did Jesus say that those who didn't enter into a covenant before God weren't married, because I read the whole chapter and am not sure what you are referring to.

And since I'm here, you wrongly attribute Romans 13 to Jesus. It was written by Paul. Not that Paul got it wrong or anything, but Romans 13? it only has 14 verses, not 20. Have you got the right chapter of Romans?

Nice to see you reading the Bible though.

[jefferiah]

Uh, I was just wondering in John 4 where specifically did Jesus say that those who didn't enter into a covenant before God weren't married, because I read the whole chapter and am not sure what you are referring to.

And since I'm here, you wrongly attribute Romans 13 to Jesus. It was written by Paul. Not that Paul got it wrong or anything, but Romans 13? it only has 14 verses, not 20. Have you got the right chapter of Romans?

Nice to see you reading the Bible though.

I would say Bubber makes a fair point in this regard. Whether it is literally "Christ's word" or not, it is fair to use that term because Christians consider the entire Bible to be the Word of the Lord.

In any case, the Bible does urge people to accept law of the land, though I would say that is within reason. If the law expects us to reject Christ or restricts our freedom to be Christian and heed our own moral law, it would be wrong not to break it. Daniel did not follow the order to not pray to God.

The Bible is clearly opposed to homosexual sex, but Jesus commands us to follow those morals, not legislate them. It is also a sin to take the Lord's name in vain. And likewise to have other Gods. Which is worse, as far as Christianity is concerned, homosexuality or worshiping another God? Can you legislate that? Was it morally right to beat the Son of God and nail him to a cross? What was His reaction? Gay marriage, in and of itself, does not restrict our right to practice Christianity, nor does it mean Christians cannot define marriage on their own terms. However, it would be a much different matter if the state tried to compel Churches which oppose gay marriage to perform the rite.

Paul went to countries like Rome and Greece, where homosexuality was not uncommon. He preached his beliefs, he did not start a political party to bring morality reform.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Complete nonsense. Bigotry can be based on many different things. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Also, coming to the defense of a bigot is very unbecoming

Words like "bigot" get thrown around far too much these days, IMO, and they lose meaning. That's supposed to be the Left's game, not ours.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah