Persecuted Christians In America!

[cybercoma]

The point you were arguing stemmed out of August's comments. So if you're arguing something different, then I wasn't aware you were moving the conversation onto something different.

[Michael Hardner]

I was responding to the question he asked about Christian thought.

[kimmy]

Actually, the humor I was seeing was in the thread and the way it was presented.

Well, whatever your intent, the example you provided did illustrate how laughable Christian claims of victimhood are, so again thanks.

I'm not seeing this - a large-scale claim of persecution by Christians. Perhaps there are a few perceiving it that way, but what I'm seeing is an objection to a double standard - which is totally different from "persecution." What I'm seeing is others claiming that Christians are claiming to be persecuted.

Well, you said you're familiar with the issues I already mentioned. When people are claiming that the media and the law and the courts are out to get them, "persecution" sounds like a fair description to me.

Have we? Or is it the U.S. that everyone is picking up on? and going on and on about? not all coming "from the United States."

We really don't have much of that going on up here.

I'm aware of these issues, but not that Christians at large are claiming to be "persecuted" over them. They are allowed to speak their minds and note the selective tolerance; that doesn't mean they are claiming that Christians are "persecuted."

They're allowed to speak their minds, and when they do, they can be ridiculed accordingly (hence this thread). The ones on this forum who cry the loudest have declined to make their case here.

Not me, because I don't listen to it. Don't like it? I suggest you don't listen either.

Such things don't bother me in the least, because I'm selective as to what I will spend my time listening to. Since it apparently bothers you so much, why do you listen?

I'm not a Fox News viewer myself. Luckily I have Shady to keep me up to date on it.

A large, influential, powerful group in the United States is being provoked into a sense of outrage founded on, essentially, nonsense. To me, that's something that bears keeping an eye on.

Again, others seem to see it as a big theme in American politics, blowing it out of proportion. That Christians in Canada are feeling the same as Christians in the U.S., yet it's Christians in the U.S. who are getting the media attention and Canadians are focused on, just speaks of another issue, IMO.

Canada and the US are pretty different in terms of how much influence the religious right has. But that's a different thread.

This is rich. When atheists exhibit a persecution complex it's "often with justification."

When Christians do, it's because they are whiny; when atheists do, it's "often with justification."

As I've said, just the other side of the coin........

Not all complaints are created equal. The mayor claiming his rights are being violated because he's not allowed to open council meetings with prayer anymore is being whiny. The soldier complaining because the military's "Spiritual Fitness Test" will generate failing grades for non-religious soldiers who answer truthfully has a legitimate complaint.

Some of the atheist legal actions are unnecessary and inflammatory... the 9/11 cross lawsuit in particular. On the other hand, there are often legitimate justice issues to address.

Christians? "They're taking GOD out of schools!!!! What about OUR freedom of religion????" is a big thing right now. But it's actually not true. Like the Quebec mayor, when Christians cry that their rights are being oppressed, what it usually means is that somebody else has exerted their own religious freedom.

That's your opinion - and I disagree. As for everyone getting "roughed up a bit on the internet," that doesn't mean the selective tolerance of which I speak doesn't exist - and it doesn't dispel the fact that so many atheists (and that includes posters here) are just the opposite side of the coin, engaging in exactly the same behavior, exhibiting the same mindset, as the religious people of which they speak.

If having your beliefs mocked is oppression, then everybody is oppressed. And if having your beliefs mocked is the worst you have to deal with, you're pretty lucky. Non-Christians, including atheists, sometimes have to deal with more than hurt feelings when people find out about their beliefs; I doubt many Christians can say the same.

-k

[Bonam]

I'm just saying that we can't separate Christianity from the forces that brought us to where we are today, and in my view we wouldn't have arrived here without the structures that Christianity had in place within the framework of European nations.

That's fine, and you are correct. Christianity was an important historical factor in the development of western civilization. So was ancient Greece, with its worship of the Olympic gods. So was ancient Rome, with its worship of the Romanized Greek pantheon. The writings and philosophies that emerged from those times had no less deep a historical impact on the course of development of Western civilization and our modern democracies. Similarly, we would not have arrived here, today, where we are, without the barbarian invasions, the Hun and the Mongol hordes, the Black Death, etc.

In other words, your statement about Christianity says nothing more than that it was an important factor in Western history. But, that also applies just as well to countless other factors, including philosophies, religions, wars, diseases, natural disasters, cultures, ethnic groups, chance events, noteworthy individuals, supernovae many light years away, among other things.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Don't forget the Sumerians

[Bonam]

Don't forget the Sumerians

Yes. And the Minoans, Phoenicians, Egyptians. The Assyrians, the Babylonians. Don't forget the code of King Hammurabi.

[bush_cheney2004]

Our current democracy is directly traceable to religious conflicts within Christianity.

That is quite a different claim than Christianity being fundamental to the development of democracy. Religion and religious persecution were in many cases a negative influence that forced a better solution.

I'm just saying that we can't separate Christianity from the forces that brought us to where we are today, and in my view we wouldn't have arrived here without the structures that Christianity had in place within the framework of European nations.

I disagree....the roots of democracy predate Christianity in several cultures, notably in the city state of Athens, Greece but also in ancient Egypt. "We" are not beholden only to Europe's religious experience (good or bad) with respect to the development of democracy, Magna Carta, yada, yada, yada, as taught from a Euro-centric viewpoint.

[Michael Hardner]

That is quite a different claim than Christianity being fundamental to the development of democracy. Religion and religious persecution were in many cases a negative influence that forced a better solution.

I didn't mean to frame the influence as "good" or "bad" - so I agree with this assertion. Economics was a prime motivator, with the religious hierarchy providing one of the frameworks for conflict.

[Michael Hardner]

That's fine, and you are correct. Christianity was an important historical factor in the development of western civilization. So was ancient Greece, with its worship of the Olympic gods. So was ancient Rome, with its worship of the Romanized Greek pantheon. The writings and philosophies that emerged from those times had no less deep a historical impact on the course of development of Western civilization and our modern democracies. Similarly, we would not have arrived here, today, where we are, without the barbarian invasions, the Hun and the Mongol hordes, the Black Death, etc.

In other words, your statement about Christianity says nothing more than that it was an important factor in Western history. But, that also applies just as well to countless other factors, including philosophies, religions, wars, diseases, natural disasters, cultures, ethnic groups, chance events, noteworthy individuals, supernovae many light years away, among other things.

Philosophical writing around the "rights of man" emerged from a Europe whereby religious persecution and freedom of expression were at war. This is why I would put religion as a prime factor, though as BC has pointed out not a "positive" one.

[GostHacked]

What fear of Hell?

If you believe in God and the only way to be with God is to believe in Jesus what other way is acceptable to describe the fate of someone who doesn't believe in God?

If you don't believe in God you shouldn't fear Hell, so how is fear a factor in this?

Do *.* or you are going to hell. If you don't follow Jesus, you are going to hell.

Organized religion invented fear mongering in my view.

[kimmy]

"The degree to which the left is prepared to impose intolerance and to drive out of existence traditional religion is a mortal threat to our civilization and deserves to be taken head on and described as what it is, which is the use of government to repress the American people against their own values."

-Newt Gingrich, at the Thanksgiving Family Forum on Nov 19.

But we're not saying we're being oppressed, nope nope nope

-k

[cybercoma]

Do *.* or you are going to hell. If you don't follow Jesus, you are going to hell.

Organized religion invented fear mongering in my view.

That's pretty simplistic, no offense. Religious values provided the impetus for living particular ways of life that led to Western society to develop the way that it did. Although fear certainly is part of the motivation, religions also instill particular ethics among their adherents.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not a Fox News viewer myself. Luckily I have Shady to keep me up to date on it.

So when you made the following post, as well as all of your other posts about this issue and Fox News, it wasn't based on actual knowledge/fact, but simply on Shady's posts in this forum.

The real reason this is in the news is because it gave Fox News a chance to run the "Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs!" fiction they're peddling.

If somebody draws a Movember Moustache on Jesus in Sheboygan, you'll hear about it on Fox News.

That explains a lot of your comments.

[kimmy]

So when you made the following post, as well as all of your other posts about this issue and Fox News, it wasn't based on actual knowledge/fact, but simply on Shady's posts in this forum.

That was a good-natured jab at Shady's penchant for parroting the nonsense Fox News spews out, not a complete list of my sources. There are websites that are devoted entirely to scrutinizing the media. There are online communities where people discuss it. And when they get really over the top, even other media sources pick up on it, like the current absurdity about President Obama's Thanksgiving speech. One needn't be a Fox viewer to be aware of their Christians-under-attack stories.

-k

[kimmy]

And when they get really over the top, even other media sources pick up on it, like the current absurdity about President Obama's Thanksgiving speech.

...which was really illustrated by Jon Stewart's Nov 28 episode (viewable online at Comedy Central...) which showed 4 different Fox News panel discussion programs debating Obama's speech, including one where Fox News resident priest Father John Morris (why does a news network need an in-house priest?) criticized the president for doing something that the previous two presidents had done as well.

Not content with battling to Keep Christ In Christmas, Fox has embarked on a new mission to Get Christ Into Other Holidays Too.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

There are websites that are devoted entirely to scrutinizing the media. There are online communities where people discuss it. And when they get really over the top, even other media sources pick up on it, like the current absurdity about President Obama's Thanksgiving speech.

This example actually supports what I've been saying. "Other media" sources do tend to pick up on what's happening, and that includes media sources outside of the U.S., exaggerating the event and the importance of it in the lives of Americans. Foreigners pick up on what happens in the U.S. too, discussing it on blogs/web boards, adding to blowing it out of proportion.

I posted the example of Canadian Christians getting totally bent out of shape because Harper sang "Imagine." How could he sing such a song!? No support for Harper! Yet where was the media circus that would have been there had it been Obama under the same circumstances? Where was the hoopla? The conclusion that Canadians are over the top, wildly religious?

Too often conclusions are drawn about "Americans" based on the media and reaction to that media, outside the U.S. too, and 'media reaction' and 'world reaction' and actual 'Americans' reaction' are all very different things. The same goes for the reverse; just because the media didn't pick up on the Harper "Imagine" absurdity doesn't make it less absurd and less important to those who did react in Canada. As far as I can see, both situations were equally absurd - yet look at how different the coverage was; how different the reaction to the reaction was. So again, you prove my point.

One needn't be a Fox viewer to be aware of their Christians-under-attack stories.

Being aware of it and focusing on Fox the way you have been based on others' comments are two different things. First hand knowledge is quite different from getting 'knowledge' from others, who often have an agenda. I would think you would be aware of that, so I do find it odd, at best, that you are going on and on about Fox and what it does even as you don't watch it.

[msj]

I posted the example of Canadian Christians getting totally bent out of shape because Harper sang "Imagine." How could he sing such a song!? No support for Harper! Yet where was the media circus that would have been there had it been Obama under the same circumstances? Where was the hoopla? The conclusion that Canadians are over the top, wildly religious?

For a person who linked to a poll showing that some parts of the US believe religion is as important in their daily lives as people in Iran I find your attitude strange.

It's like you are incapable of understanding relativity or something.

Oh, and in my opinion.

Too often conclusions are drawn about "Americans" based on the media and reaction to that media, outside the U.S. too, and 'media reaction' and 'world reaction' and actual 'Americans' reaction' are all very different things. The same goes for the reverse; just because the media didn't pick up on the Harper "Imagine" absurdity doesn't make it less absurd and less important to those who did react in Canada. As far as I can see, both situations were equally absurd - yet look at how different the coverage was; how different the reaction to the reaction was. So again, you prove my point.

I think (which is to say, in my opinion) that you think that you can speak for "Americans" because you're American and us Canadians can't because we are Canadian.

In my opinion(!) I don't think you speak very well for anybody but yourself.

As for you trying to use the anecdata of Harper singing "Imagine:" it was a very brief story. One of very few that come up from time to time in our media.

Anyone could data mine Fox "news" and other mainstream American news outlets for absurd story after absurd story of religion in America.

The reason I don't bother is because you have linked to a poll clearly showing that the typical American believes religion is important to their daily life (as compared to the typical Canadian).

One would expect that religion would be more important in a country where it's people, statistically, think religion is more important to their daily lives.

So I don't need to rely on anecdata since you have already provided a link to statistical evidence.

Being aware of it and focusing on Fox the way you have been based on others' comments are two different things. First hand knowledge is quite different from getting 'knowledge' from others, who often have an agenda. I would think you would be aware of that, so I do find it odd, at best, that you are going on and on about Fox and what it does even as you don't watch it.

For a person who tried to use the media reaction about Harper's "Imagine" in another thread for anecdata purposes I think it's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Guest American Woman]

For a person who linked to a poll showing that some parts of the US believe religion is as important in their daily lives as people in Iran I find your attitude strange.

And I find it strange that you can't apparently distinguish between "some" and "Americans."

It's like you are incapable of understanding relativity or something.

It's like you are incapable of understanding what I'm actually saying.

As for the rest of your post ... Sorry, but you lost my interest about half way through.

[cybercoma]

Don't feel bad, msj. American Woman tends to lose interest in the arguments that show examples of how her views are flawed.

[msj]

And I find it strange that you can't apparently distinguish between "some" and "Americans."

I think I have distinguished well enough. Not perfect, but then who is?

It's like you are incapable of understanding what I'm actually saying.

Yes, I know! I'm just so stupid.... in my opinion....

As for the rest of your post ... Sorry, but you lost my interest about half way through.

Too bad. We could have had something together...

[BC_chick]

No, it's quite about Irans govt being loons.

Muslim/looney... they're pretty much synonymous to a great many.

[BC_chick]

I don't know about your world Kimmy but in my world, "Catholic" and Christian in general are taboo words. I know no one who admits to going to Mass.

Ummm, a lot of people don't admit using online dating services either.... what's your point?

Edited December 9, 2011 by BC_chick

[blueblood]

Muslim/looney... they're pretty much synonymous to a great many.

Your putting the cart before the horse, is it because i identify as a cowboy, that im supposed to hate people because of what they believe in? And I've been thru this with kimmy. It's the individual that's a loon, not the thing they believe in, especially when a big part of it is showing why treating others with respect is a good thing. Some people in this world have poor reading comprehension when it comes to that and it causes a lot of problems.

No, the founder of the Canadian Muslim congress is most definitely not a loon. He might be very left wing, but a loon he is not. Ahmadinejad on the other hand...

Our atheist friend Mao from communist china was a loon.

The pope who thought it would be a brilliant idea to make usury illegal and Condemn the western world to poverty in the dark ages was a loon.

Loons come in all shapes and sizes.

[kimmy]

Sure, there's loonies of all kinds. Right now, loonies of the Christian variety are among the top contenders to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Rick Perry embodies the "Persecuted Christians in America" theme in his new ad, where he strolls around in his Brokeback Mountain jacket and tells the viewer:

"I'm not ashamed to admit I'm Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can openly serve in the military but kids can't openly celebrate Christmas."

http://www.rickperry.org/

The donation page even has a check-box that says: "I stand with Governor Rick Perry against Obama's war on religion!"

"I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian"? Oh the bravery!

Christians are so oppressed that gays are allowed to serve in the military?

Kids can't celebrate Christmas?

"Obama's war on religion"?

There's only a few words to describe the man, and the all end with "...-bag". This rhetoric is designed to appeal to bigots and reactionary idiots.

Sure, when the Republican nomination is decided the religion stuff will retreat from the spotlight as they suddenly remember that to win the presidential election they need to appeal to voters who aren't religious kooks. In fact they will hit the "reset" button and pretend all this bible-thumping never even happened as they try to downplay the religious rhetoric they are currently using for audiences that are put off by it. But for the time being, being the biggest Jesus guy in the race is the most important issue in the Republican world, and at least until after the Iowa caucus, evangelicals are the only voters in America that matter.

-k

{I'm in the process of moving, and I won't have internet access at my new place for a couple of weeks, so I will be pretty scarce.}

[cybercoma]

I'm trying to imagine a Canadidan politician talking about their religion in that way and it's almost comical.