War on Christians

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those. They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Apparantly, they either haven't read or disagree with the establishment clause of the first amendment US constitution. They also make the claim that our country was founded on christian ideals. As a history buff this makes me nuts: freedom of speech, no taxation without representation, free elections, and separation of church and state aren't christian values, they derive from the enlightenment thinkers. Our founding fathers were schooled in enlightenment philosphy and religiously many were deists, Jefferson for one had a profound mistrust of organized religion.

The reason christians can say that they are being persecuted is that they have been the persecuters for so long that they don't know how it feels to be on the other end. Religious persecution is not being forbidden to put religious icons in government buildings It's being refused a job because you are a muslim, it's being forced by law to live in a section of town (called ghettos, yes this is where the term comes from) as Jews were in many areas historically, and it's being forced to convert under threat of torture or death as many indigenous cultures were. Christians in the USA encounter none of these and are 90% of the population, so they have no reason to complain.

[Roadtoad]

It's hard to explain, but when your life revolves around a book that declares in the end times that you will be persecuted, it becomes easy to believe you're being persecuted when you're held to the same standards as the rest of the world.

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?Most concerns about religion have nothing to do with religion. They have to do with "different". Same as me is good. Different from me is bad. Race. Religion. Gender. Sexual preference. Monetary worth. Cigarette smoker. Weight. Clothing. Anything.

It goes like this:
Same = good. Different = bad. If you want to force me to accept your difference, then you are persecuting me because you are forcing me to accept bad (your difference) as good (same as me). I will not accept you bad as good. Stop persecuting me for not accpeting your badness.

Note: This works on different levels. You can have legitmiate reasons for not liking and even persecuting a class of people. For example: murders.

You can turn it around to. A minority class can still persecute a majority class. :)

[clarsct]

It's even deeper than that.

In order to have a leader, there must be a 'them'. When left to their own devices, those who are power hungry will create a 'them'.

There is something tribal in our makeup. Have you ever been in a crowd of strangers and suddenly(one way or another) met someone who was from 'your neck of the woods'. Cool, isn't it? A strange thing happens. Someone whom, under normal circumstances, you wouldn't have given the time of day to is a sudden ally. It's no longer you, it's US.

Have you ever been the only person of your ethnic heritage in a room? Like the only hispanic in a room of black people? Would you consider yourself racist? Would you be uncomfortable, especially if the other folks were acting differently from you?

Real leaders know how to exploit this. Wherever you find a 'great leader of men', look for the crisis he solved, look for the enemy he fought, either verbally or physically.

(Most of this 'exploitation' happens unconsciously. I am not implying otherwise. And keep in mind, most folks WANT to be manipulated..they want to believe in their leaders.)

[swstephe]

i have observed that there seems to be some genetic factor that gives humans a feeling of satisfaction at being persecuted by someone. it seems that every social group has some "others" to defend against. i think people with an overdeveloped genetic trait tend to turn into conspiracy nuts and paranoid schizophrenic. unfortunately, there hasn't been much medical research into this field -- but i notice that many people who subscribe to a religion, simultaneously take on a feeling of righteous indignation at anything that would normally be just an annoyance or limitation of life. they feel superior to others for choosing the "right" way, and some emotional triggers reenforce their convictions by saying anyone who denies the "right" way must have vindictive or twisted morals. actually, i know a lot of skeptics and athiests (from their writings) who seem to fall into this same "trap" feeling victimized by people who don't share the same point-of-view.

of course, it is debatable, i suppose, whether there really is only one "right" way or not, and whether it is acceptable to not follow a supposed better way. there are certainly a lot of things we do in our daily lives that is not the best rational path.

[writerdd]

The Christians who are whining about being persecuted should be embarassed. Jesus said, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

So if they are actually being persecuted, they should be rejoicing instead of complaining.

I'm so sick of these so-called Christians ignoring everything that Jesus said.

Personally, I think this is a way for right-wing politicians to rally the masses. If they pick a real issue, they might win. And then they can't use that issue any more. By picking an imaginary issue, they can have pep rallies forever.

[Roadtoad]

The Christians who are whining about being persecuted should be embarassed. Jesus said, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

So if they are actually being persecuted, they should be rejoicing instead of complaining.

I'm so sick of these so-called Christians ignoring everything that Jesus said.

Personally, I think this is a way for right-wing politicians to rally the masses. If they pick a real issue, they might win. And then they can't use that issue any more. By picking an imaginary issue, they can have pep rallies forever.

An accurate description. And, sadly, far too common. Welcome to America in the 21st Century.

[ceo_esq]

As a history buff this makes me nuts: freedom of speech, no taxation without representation, free elections, and separation of church and state aren't christian values, they derive from the enlightenment thinkers.

What do you suppose furnished the foundation of much Enlightenment political thought?

If you're a buff of the intellectual history of the Enlightenment, I highly recommend Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke, and Equality (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521890578) (Cambridge UP, 2002), if you haven't already read it.

[Giz]

What do you suppose furnished the foundation of much Enlightenment political thought?

If you're a buff of the intellectual history of the Enlightenment, I highly recommend Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke, and Equality (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521890578) (Cambridge UP, 2002), if you haven't already read it.

And at the same time many Christians used their religion as an excuse for the Divine Right of Kings, Slavery, etc. If you have an organisation as ubiquitous as Christianity pre-20th century then it will have connections to most things... how have you determined that it was a net force for positive change and not part of the status quo?

[ceo_esq]

...how have you determined that it was a net force for positive change and not part of the status quo?

Could you clarify the part of my post to which you're referring here?

[Giz]

Could you clarify the part of my post to which you're referring here?

This bit:

"What do you suppose furnished the foundation of much Enlightenment political thought?"

Point being, you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses... heck, fascism made the trains run on time but I don't look back on it as a lost golden age.

[JayT]

It's hard to explain, but when your life revolves around a book that declares in the end times that you will be persecuted, it becomes easy to believe you're being persecuted when you're held to the same standards as the rest of the world.

Repent ye sinners - the end of the world is at hand - give or take 100,000 years.

One observation often overlooked is that these 'end times' conditions have existed continually for thousands of years and were also invoked thousands of years ago to predict the same things even then!

Even the earliest Christians believed that the conditions for the 'end times' were ripe and it could come at any instant.

The final existing religion to make that prediction just before the end will have the dubious distinction of being the ONLY true religion and finally have the prophesy to prove it.

If you predict the end of the world endlessly, every hour on the hour, eventually you will be right one day.

[Euromutt]

i have observed that there seems to be some genetic factor that gives humans a feeling of satisfaction at being persecuted by someone.I dunno about "genetic," but there's certainly a widespread tendency (to paraphrase Kanan Makiya) to view victimhood as a quality rather than as simply a condition. The truth is that, all too often, victims are simply chafing until they can deliver some payback and become victimizers themselves, but this realization does not come readily to cultures which traditionally revere martyrs. And martyrdom is, of course, a big thing in Christianity (though it is by no means limited to that particular belief system, of course). For this reason, many Christians need to feel persecuted, because how can you show off how devout you are if you aren't suffering? So, absent genuine persecution and suffering, it has to be invented.

[brodski]

heck, fascism made the trains run on time
No, it didn't.
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm

anyway, back to the topic.

[JayT]

No, it didn't.
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm

anyway, back to the topic.



Brodski, I'm convinced you read my mind! I was about to post the same link.

Have you applied for the JREF prize? I'll vouch for you!

LOL

I've seen that 'train' argument in defense of fascism (which has no worthy defense) before.

Old myths never die, they just keep on going and going and going ..., like the Energizer Bunny on steroids.

[JayT]

And at the same time many Christians used their religion as an excuse for the Divine Right of Kings, Slavery, etc. If you have an organisation as ubiquitous as Christianity pre-20th century then it will have connections to most things... how have you determined that it was a net force for positive change and not part of the status quo?


It was also the Christians at the forefront of the 1960s resistance to civil rights for Black Americans - often invoking the Bible against it.

Christians love to fight against others having equal rights that they disapprove of, as if they have the exclusive right to decide for everyone on moral issues at the exclusion of all other viewpoints but their own.

The Ku Klux Klan, among other not too nice groups, love to quote scriptures in defense of their activities and views.

The Puritans came to America for religious freedom - so goes the myth taught in schools. The real freedom they sought was the freedom to persecute the dissenters within their ranks without the government interfering with them.

In those days, a person could be imprisoned, deprived of food and other cruelties, just because a church official ordered it. The government took issue with any other authority inflicting such punishments upon any citizens as retaliation for 'errant' religious beliefs or behaviours. It was the official domain of the government to decide who was guilty of a crime, not the job of a church official based upon his religious beliefs.

The government didn't like them using the same punishments on their followers, without due legal process, that the government mandated for legally tried criminals. The Puritans considered this as being 'persecuted' by the government for their religious beliefs. So, they went to America to get away from government influence and continue their own persecution of people without restraint or oversight.

Historically, just about anything that denies a religion the unrestrained authority to do as it damned well pleases to its victims, is considered persecution.

With their shameful record, they have nothing to be proud of and no right to preach to anyone about religious persecution - the pillars of the church-state.

[CapelDodger]

i have observed that there seems to be some genetic factor that gives humans a feeling of satisfaction at being persecuted by someone ...
This might be explained, in part, by resentment at not getting what they feel they deserve. The idea that they're being cheated by some other group is more attractive than questioning their own feelings of entitlement. Leaders will encourage the idea, often choosing or inventing the enemy, to direct attention away from their own failings.

[CapelDodger]

It was also the Christians at the forefront of the 1960s resistance to civil rights for Black Americans - often invoking the Bible against it.
And the Dutch Reformed Church was a bastion of apartheid.

[triadboy]

What do you suppose furnished the foundation of much Enlightenment political thought?


France

[brodski]

Brodski, I'm convinced you read my mind! I was about to post the same link.

It could be that you read my mind, it wouldn't take you too long. ;)
But please, if that is the case, don't spoil it for me by telling me what happens at the end, I'm hoping for some really cool plot twists.

[TragicMonkey]

There seems little point in playing the "who furnished much thought" game, since everyone's borrowed from everyone else. That's how philosophy works. The Enlightenment thinkers borrowed from Christianity. Christianity borrowed from the Greeks (anyone who thinks otherwise has never read Aquinas or Aristotle. You cannot have the former without the latter.). And the Greeks borrowed from everybody they met, whether it was Babylonian astronomers, Egyptian priests, or poets making up stories to entertain people. Thoughts outlive the people that came up with them, merge with other thoughts, get distorted, forgotten, revived, written down, mistranslated, misunderstood, rediscovered, repudiated, championed, restored, and transformed all the time. They evolve. There is no point in history where you can produce a cutoff line and say "this is where the good thinking started" because that good thinking was always based on what came before. The highest scientific rationality owes a debt to the insane religious beliefs of primitive cave people, just as the most brilliant scientist ever started out as a drooling, poopy baby.

So even if you don't agree with or respect previous beliefs, there's not much justification for putting on airs about it.

[elliotfc]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

I dunno, ever heard of apartheid?

I'm not drawing a perfect analogy. I'm just debunking the concept.

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those.

If they are *effectively* the same, that's beside the point.

They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Here I agree with you. I blame believers for these things, more than unbelievers.

The reason christians can say that they are being persecuted is that they have been the persecuters for so long that they don't know how it feels to be on the other end. Religious persecution is not being forbidden to put religious icons in government buildings It's being refused a job because you are a muslim, it's being forced by law to live in a section of town (called ghettos, yes this is where the term comes from) as Jews were in many areas historically, and it's being forced to convert under threat of torture or death as many indigenous cultures were. Christians in the USA encounter none of these and are 90% of the population, so they have no reason to complain.

No, they do have reasons to complain. Saying otherwise is fine, but ignores objective reality. They've already listed reasons for complaining. Are they legitimate reasons? I dunno. Call them illegitimate reasons, and then supply your morality which makes that classifcation valid.

-Elliot

[gnome]

No, they do have reasons to complain. Saying otherwise is fine, but ignores objective reality. They've already listed reasons for complaining. Are they legitimate reasons? I dunno. Call them illegitimate reasons, and then supply your morality which makes that classifcation valid.

-Elliot
Top of the list: The "War on Christmas".

Some Christian leaders (and political leaders and pundits that wear their Christianity like a badge) have explicitly stated that somehow the popularity of "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas" is an attack on them. That is not a legitimate reason. The morality which makes that classification valid is that another's refusal to use an exclusive term cannot in any way be described as an attack.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Top of the list: The "War on Christmas".

Some Christian leaders (and political leaders and pundits that wear their Christianity like a badge) have explicitly stated that somehow the popularity of "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas" is an attack on them. That is not a legitimate reason. The morality which makes that classification valid is that another's refusal to use an exclusive term cannot in any way be described as an attack.

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic. I wonder how many of them know the following:

"Christmas wasn't always celebrated the way it is today. In fact, the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Connecticut had a law forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the baking of mincemeat pies! A few of the earliest settlers did celebrate Christmas, but it was far from a common holiday in the colonial era."

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristmas/

Freakin' hypocrites! lol

[FredFlash]

The Presbyterian's Argument That The National Religion is Atheism (1834)

We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality against the Constitution of the United States.

1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference, to the existence or providence of the Supreme Being. The nation, as such, has no God. This is an essential evil in the constitution, which involves the hideous charge of national atheism! "The general government is erected for the general good of the United States, and especially for the management of their foreign concerns: but no association of men for moral purposes can be justified in an entire neglect of the Sovereign of the World. No consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his anointed from the grand charter of the nation."[6]

2. The United States Constitution, does not recognise the revealed will of God. All moral government flows from God the Sovereign the Universe, and must be regulated by his will, otherwise it cannot bind the conscience. In the original state of man, the moral law, which we written on his heart, included in it the will of God relative to this as we as all other moral duties. To meet the exigency of man’s fallen condition, God has given a new revelation of his will, in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. All who enjoy this new, and now more perfect revelation of the will of God, are bound to regulate their civil and political relations by it, as well as those that immediately relate to the worship of God. To proceed on the ground that man may dispense with the instruction of scripture in the constitution and management civil government, is unquestionably to set aside the authority of God when He speaks to us in the holy scriptures. The universal depravity of human nature unfits men for performing either the personal or social duties of life, in a manner agreeable to the will of God. The scriptures contain instructions how all these duties are to be performed. "To the law and to the testimony" we are commanded to look. And no moral principle whatever can it be admitted, that men may form their constitutions of civil government according to the mere light nature, when the author of nature has given another and a more perfect rule by which they may be flamed. The authority which binds men to the light of nature, as far as it is applicable, binds them also to the scriptures, as the subsequent and more complete revelation of the will of God. "Revelation contains the true standard of civil government. It prescribes the supreme criterion according to which those states which have ordained this superior light should act in forming their constitutions, choosing their officers, and determining their leading objects."[7] In the Constitution of the United States, however, there is not the most distant allusion to the revealed will of God. The Bible, as containing the fundamental principles of political morality, is not even indirectly acknowledged. Here then is an evident violation of a moral duty.—Men are bound, as has been proved by the preceding observations, to make the Bible the basis of their political constitutions; but the United States of America have entirely excluded it from the charter which binds them together as a nation.

3. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges no subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ. A moral right to exercise universal dominion bas been given to Him as the Mediator, by God the Father, "He hath put all things under his feet, and set him far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."[8] In the whole universe of created existence there is not a solitary exception to the mediatorial rule of Christ. He has moral authority given to him over all things for the sake of the Church, which is his body. Every intelligent being is bound to obey the Redeemer, and submit to his authority. Civil society, and all communities, are in their congregated character equally bound with individuals to honor Him. On their part it is not a matter of choice—"nations and their rulers are placed in a state of subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth, and are bound to acknowledge his mediatorial authority, and submit to his law; framing their laws, appointing their officers, and regulating their obedience in subserviency to the interests of his kingdom."[9] The revealed commands of God bind them to give obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ in all their social relations. "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little."[10] The claim which the Mediator has to the homage of nations is held forth by his mediatorial exaltation and dignity. "He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords."[11] The constitution and government which have no respect to the Mediator and his authority, as "Prince of the kings of the earth," are in a state of rebellion and opposition against "the Lord and his Anointed." They are destitute of an important moral feature, that justly exposes them to the charge of impiety. The Constitution of the United States is chargeable with this impiety. It makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor his right of rule, over the nations. It contemns the commands of God that enjoin obedience to his authority, and as far as moral principle is concerned, the language of the Constitution respecting "the Lord and his Anointed" is, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."[12]

There are principles essential to the moral character of a civil constitution and government, destitute of which, no government can be the ordinance of God. Of three of these essential and radical principles of the ordinance of God, the Constitution of the United States is destitute. That a government may furnish an exemplification of magistracy agreeable to the will of God, from whom this ordinance flows, the constitution of government must explicitly avow and acknowledge the existence, providence and authority of God. It must be framed according to the revealed will of God: and it must include a professed subjection of the government to the Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Constitution of the United States is destitute of all these three essential characteristics of God’s moral ordinance of government. It has no regard to the mediatorial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ; and is therefore chargeable with rebellion against Him. It rejects the revealed will of God; and is therefore infidel. It does not acknowledge the existence of the Supreme Being; and is thus godless.

End Notes

[6] Scriptural View, &c. by Alexander McLeod. D. D. [back]
[7] Application of Scriptural Principles to Political Government, by the Rev. Peter Macindoe, A. M. [back]
[8] Eph. 1:22, 20, 21. [back]
[9] Summary of the Principles and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, p. 55. [back]
[10] Ps, 2:10, 11, 12. [back]
[11] Rev. 19:16. [back]
[12] Ps. 2:3. [back]

[brodski]

No, they do have reasons to complain. Saying otherwise is fine, but ignores objective reality. They've already listed reasons for complaining. Are they legitimate reasons? I dunno. Call them illegitimate reasons, and then supply your morality which makes that classifcation valid.

-Elliot
The reasons their complains are not valid is that the outcome they wish to achieve are that people who do not believe in their particular brand of religion still observe some aspects of their religion, or that non believers be forced (through taxation) for them to further their religion.
There is no "war on Christianity" because Christianity receives no worse treatment than any other religion, and in fact receives preferable treatment in some areas.
If they feel that Christianity should have special treatment because the vast majority of Americans are Christian, well then they have a democratic option open to them, amend the constitution to allow Christianity to get special treatment.
The only way in which Christians can argue that their religion is being discriminated against, is to call a lack of publicly professed religious belief a religion in itself, which is a nonsense.

[gnome]

Fred--some context? Is this an official Presbyterian publication? What is their current stance on the matter?

[elliotfc]

Top of the list: The "War on Christmas".

Some Christian leaders (and political leaders and pundits that wear their Christianity like a badge) have explicitly stated that somehow the popularity of "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas" is an attack on them. That is not a legitimate reason. The morality which makes that classification valid is that another's refusal to use an exclusive term cannot in any way be described as an attack.

Popularity? Rather, it's an enforcement of the decision of a few over the many. If a school decides that only Happy Holidays may be uttered by teachers or on any school documents, and not Merry Christmas, what does that have to do with popularity?

If it was a matter of popularity, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Anybody can refuse to say anything. When they enforce that refusal on others, that's a different matter.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic. I wonder how many of them know the following:

"Christmas wasn't always celebrated the way it is today. In fact, the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Connecticut had a law forbidding the celebration of Christmas and the baking of mincemeat pies! A few of the earliest settlers did celebrate Christmas, but it was far from a common holiday in the colonial era."

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristmas/

Freakin' hypocrites! lol

First of all, Puritanism is the most famous branch of predeterminism. Puritans were rejected by the VAST majority of Christians of their day (which is why they came to America) and they'd be rejected by 99.9999999% of all Christians today. They don't exist anymore. Their lifespan was quite short, generously 100 years. They changed their name, you know, to the Congregationalists. They rejected themselves in the end.

Using Puritans to defend a Christian perspective is, to me, laughable, whether you are defending from a secularist or religious perspective.

Just my 18 cents. Hypocrisy is irrelevant viz a viz Puritanism.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The reasons their complains are not valid is that the outcome they wish to achieve are that people who do not believe in their particular brand of religion still observe some aspects of their religion, or that non believers be forced (through taxation) for them to further their religion.
There is no "war on Christianity" because Christianity receives no worse treatment than any other religion, and in fact receives preferable treatment in some areas.

I think war on Christianity is a bit hyperbolic, I agree.

I will say that Christianity does get an unfair shake, secularly speaking. In college campuses you are celebrated for dissing Christianity but don't you dare mock Native American religion or Islam. Kids who want to sing Christmas songs are not allowed to, or, forced to sing them with rewritten lyrics. These are relatively minor deals, probably non-commensurate with martial warfare.

Having said that, I think that Christians do have things that they can complain about, and as for the way they propagandize that...well, that's just survival of the fittest. Public interest and lobbies and competing points of views and how you use language and euphemism and shaking the fear stick. Even Christians aren't immune to such things. Personally, I wouldn't refer to it to a war on Christians.

If they feel that Christianity should have special treatment because the vast majority of Americans are Christian, well then they have a democratic option open to them, amend the constitution to allow Christianity to get special treatment.

Agreed. Not just this, they can amend it to get school prayer, or whatever their desire is.

The only way in which Christians can argue that their religion is being discriminated against, is to call a lack of publicly professed religious belief a religion in itself, which is a nonsense.

Well, if you were the Target store worker who got fired for wearing a cross, you might feel as though you were being discriminated against. Such examples are rare.

If they grab headlines by saying "war on Christianity", good for them. War on science, war on SUVs, war on whatever.

-Elliot

[gnome]

Popularity? Rather, it's an enforcement of the decision of a few over the many. If a school decides that only Happy Holidays may be uttered by teachers or on any school documents, and not Merry Christmas, what does that have to do with popularity?

If it was a matter of popularity, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Anybody can refuse to say anything. When they enforce that refusal on others, that's a different matter.

-Elliot

Well, a public school is another matter. I don't think it's a war on Christianity to ask that any official publications by the school remain free of a religious greeting suitable for only one religion. As far as teachers saying Merry Christmas--can you come up with examples where that was forbidden?

The matter I'm thinking of is where Mr. Bill O'Reilly blasted a MALL for saying "happy Holidays" as if either A) Someone MADE them do it, or B) they were somehow runing anyone else's ability to say "Merry Christmas" all they liked.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If they grab headlines by saying "war on Christianity", good for them. War on science, war on SUVs, war on whatever.

Interestingly there actually is a war on science and it is being waged by christians. The attempts to insert intelligent design into schools and stem cell research blocks.

[gnome]

I will say that Christianity does get an unfair shake, secularly speaking. In college campuses you are celebrated for dissing Christianity but don't you dare mock Native American religion or Islam.

Celebrated by the school, or by the other students? University is where many things in the mainstream are rebelled against and ridiculed. To be on that list is almost proof that you've got the upper hand in society.

Kids who want to sing Christmas songs are not allowed to, or, forced to sing them with rewritten lyrics. These are relatively minor deals, probably non-commensurate with martial warfare.

Can you give examples here as well? The devil is in the details, as it were.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Ten Commandments can stay on Ohio courthouse lawn

By The Associated Press
04.20.06
TOLEDO, Ohio — A Ten Commandments monument that has stood on the courthouse lawn for almost 50 years does not promote religion and can remain in place, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge James Carr ruled on April 18 that the monument could stay because the motives for placing it outside the Lucas County courthouse were secular and not an endorsement of a specific belief.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sued Lucas County in 2002 to have the display removed, saying it was unconstitutional and promoted religion.

Carr's decision followed a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry that addressed displays of the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court in June allowed a 6-foot granite monument to remain at the Texas Capitol. Justices said Ten Commandments exhibits would be upheld if their main purpose was to honor the nation's legal, rather than religious, traditions, and if they didn't promote one religious sect over another.

The Lucas County marker was given to the county by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles as part of an effort to combat juvenile delinquency.

Jeffrey Gamso, a legal director for the ACLU in Ohio, said the group had not decided whether to appeal.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What part of the ten commandments isn't an endorsement of religion?
1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Right there in the first two is an obvious endorsment of religion and is not at all secular.

[Roadtoad]

You know something? Yes, it's religious, but for crying out loud, trying to stamp out EVERY official reference to God is ultimately a waste of time. Pick the battles a little more carefully, and you can do greater good in the long run.

If Newdow hadn't been such a jackass, perhaps we might have seen the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its intended wording. That might have been a better battle, and a smarter one.

[TragicMonkey]

What part of the ten commandments isn't an endorsement of religion?
1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Right there in the first two is an obvious endorsment of religion and is not at all secular.

Those are the Protestant version. The Catholic version is worded differently for the first two, and the order is different, and naturally that crazy stuff about graven images isn't there.

One headache about Christianity is that there isn't one Christianity. There are dozens.

[brodski]

I think war on Christianity is a bit hyperbolic, I agree.

I will say that Christianity does get an unfair shake, secularly speaking. In college campuses you are celebrated for dissing Christianity but don't you dare mock Native American religion or Islam.
so Islam is never mocked in US society? ohhkayyy, perhaps you should visit our politics forum (sorry, that was nasty, I vowed never to send anyone to the politics forum here). The fact that non Christians mock Christianity? Big deal, Christians mock non Christians, does that mean that there is a "war on non-Christians"? For this situation to change, you would require that those who don't follow a particular creed, respect that creed, is that more important that freedom of expression? Should ti work both ways? Should no one be allowed to hold an opinion contrary to anyone else's deeply cherished beliefs?


Kids who want to sing Christmas songs are not allowed to, or, forced to sing them with rewritten lyrics. These are relatively minor deals, probably non-commensurate with martial warfare. So people are not allowed to use publicly funded resourced to further their religion? You can only claim that this is a "war on Christianity" if other religions are allowed to use public resources to further their religion. If not, the n it is equal treatment for all religions.


Having said that, I think that Christians do have things that they can complain about, please give specific examples.


Well, if you were the Target store worker who got fired for wearing a cross, you might feel as though you were being discriminated against. Such examples are rare.
are you saying that private companies should not be allowed to enforce uniform standards in their employees?
Again, Christians are the majority, if they think this piece of employment law is wrong, they should change the laws. Would they also support a worker who was sacked fro wearing a "Darwin fish" to work? Do these people want equal treatment for Christians, or do they want special treatment?

[elliotfc]

Interestingly there actually is a war on science and it is being waged by christians. The attempts to insert intelligent design into schools and stem cell research blocks.

Right. There is a war on science by the Christians, but, there is no war on Christianity by anyone else, science/secular/government.

Right.

-Elliot

[a_unique_person]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those. They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Apparantly, they either haven't read or disagree with the establishment clause of the first amendment US constitution. They also make the claim that our country was founded on christian ideals. As a history buff this makes me nuts: freedom of speech, no taxation without representation, free elections, and separation of church and state aren't christian values, they derive from the enlightenment thinkers. Our founding fathers were schooled in enlightenment philosphy and religiously many were deists, Jefferson for one had a profound mistrust of organized religion.

The reason christians can say that they are being persecuted is that they have been the persecuters for so long that they don't know how it feels to be on the other end. Religious persecution is not being forbidden to put religious icons in government buildings It's being refused a job because you are a muslim, it's being forced by law to live in a section of town (called ghettos, yes this is where the term comes from) as Jews were in many areas historically, and it's being forced to convert under threat of torture or death as many indigenous cultures were. Christians in the USA encounter none of these and are 90% of the population, so they have no reason to complain.

I hung around with/was/Catholic/xian/whatever. I think their greatest problem is one of their favourite topics. Backsliding/faith/doubt. Many of them know it is all a crock of s**t. They find it easier to blame others than their own internal sense of logic.

[elliotfc]

Celebrated by the school, or by the other students? University is where many things in the mainstream are rebelled against and ridiculed. To be on that list is almost proof that you've got the upper hand in society.

Can you give examples here as well? The devil is in the details, as it were.

I'm not going to defend the sentiment that there is a war against Christians/Christmas, since I don't share that sentiment.

Is there an organized effort in some quarters to limit the influence of Christians/Christmas? Of course. Here are a few links.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/war_against_christmas_2001.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article2.html
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824

In all the anecdotes, the common thread I see is a few people in a position of some power and authority deciding for others how something will be celebrated or discussed or proclaimed. Again, that's not warfare to me, that's more like secular conditioning.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If Newdow hadn't been such a jackass, perhaps we might have seen the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its intended wording. That might have been a better battle, and a smarter one.

True dat. -Elliot

[elliotfc]

are you saying that private companies should not be allowed to enforce uniform standards in their employees?

No, I'm just saying that there are reasons for people to be of the opinion that there is some sort of organized agenda against Christians is all.

Again, Christians are the majority, if they think this piece of employment law is wrong, they should change the laws. Would they also support a worker who was sacked fro wearing a "Darwin fish" to work? Do these people want equal treatment for Christians, or do they want special treatment?

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of complainers meself.

-Elliot

[brodski]

No, I'm just saying that there are reasons for people to be of the opinion that there is some sort of organized agenda against Christians is all.

and there is reason to believe that homeopathy works, as some people who use it get better, however once you look at the evidence in an objective manner, you can see that in the USA there is no organized "war on Christianity" and that Homeopathy doesn't help people to get better.

[gnome]

I'm not going to defend the sentiment that there is a war against Christians/Christmas, since I don't share that sentiment.

Is there an organized effort in some quarters to limit the influence of Christians/Christmas? Of course. Here are a few links.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/war_against_christmas_2001.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article2.html
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824

In all the anecdotes, the common thread I see is a few people in a position of some power and authority deciding for others how something will be celebrated or discussed or proclaimed. Again, that's not warfare to me, that's more like secular conditioning.

-Elliot

First I'd point out that it seems most of these links disagree with you about whether there's a war on christmas. But that's beside the point.

The anecdotes I read didn't seem to have much to do with deciding how someone else will celebrate, as they did ensuring (sometimes overzealously, perhaps) that public resources not be used to promote religion.

There is an excellent standard in law that has been mentioned before. It is quite possible to walk the line between separation and free exercise.

[writerdd]

The fundies are just mad that Santa gets more publicity than the baby Jesus.

[elliotfc]

and there is reason to believe that homeopathy works, as some people who use it get better, however once you look at the evidence in an objective manner, you can see that in the USA there is no organized "war on Christianity" and that Homeopathy doesn't help people to get better.

Homeopathy could work as a placebo though. -Elliot

[brodski]

Homeopathy could work as a placebo though. -Elliot
"Working as a placebo" is a contradiction in terms.
placebo is about how a paitent is subjectively observed, (either by themselves or by someone else measuring their progress) it also covers coincidental heeling.
So whilst a patient may feel that a placebo made them better, and Christan's in the US may feel persecuted, neither position is based in reality.

[Oolon Colluphid]

First of all, Puritanism is the most famous branch of predeterminism. Puritans were rejected by the VAST majority of Christians of their day (which is why they came to America) and they'd be rejected by 99.9999999% of all Christians today. They don't exist anymore. Their lifespan was quite short, generously 100 years. They changed their name, you know, to the Congregationalists. They rejected themselves in the end.

Using Puritans to defend a Christian perspective is, to me, laughable, whether you are defending from a secularist or religious perspective.

Just my 18 cents. Hypocrisy is irrelevant viz a viz Puritanism.

-Elliot

Not just puritans:

"Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians
Although Christmas wasn't outlawed outside of New England, several denominations, mostly found in the middle colonies, were opposed to the celebration. In 1749, a visitor among the Quakers in Philadelphia noted that: "Christmas Day... The Quakers did not regard this day any more remarkable than other days. Stores were open...There was no more baking of bread for the Christmas festival than for other days; and no Christmas porridge on Christmas Eve!" He went on to observe "...first the Presbyterians did not care much for celebrating Christmas, but when they saw most of their members going to the English Church on that day, they also started to have services." Philip Fithian, a Presbyterian missionary working among the Virginia Scotch-Irish in 1775, remarked that: "Christmas Morning - Not a Gun is heard - Not a Shout - No company or Cabal assembled - To Day is like other Days every Way calme & temperate."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/colonial_america_retired/55832


IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

[Scott Haley]

Not just puritans:

IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

In midsummer, Middle Eastern shepherds let the sheep sleep outside instead of in their stable. In the New Testament story, shepherds allowed Joseph and Mary to stay in the manger, and she gave birth there. This leads some people to think that Jesus was born in August.

--Scott

[ChristineR]

If said human was born at all, he probably wasn't born in a stable or in Bethlehem. The story appears to have been cobbled together from old testament prophecy that originally applied to Israel itself and latter applied to the Messiah.

[Tony]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those. They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Apparantly, they either haven't read or disagree with the establishment clause of the first amendment US constitution. They also make the claim that our country was founded on christian ideals. As a history buff this makes me nuts: freedom of speech, no taxation without representation, free elections, and separation of church and state aren't christian values, they derive from the enlightenment thinkers. Our founding fathers were schooled in enlightenment philosphy and religiously many were deists, Jefferson for one had a profound mistrust of organized religion.

The reason christians can say that they are being persecuted is that they have been the persecuters for so long that they don't know how it feels to be on the other end. Religious persecution is not being forbidden to put religious icons in government buildings It's being refused a job because you are a muslim, it's being forced by law to live in a section of town (called ghettos, yes this is where the term comes from) as Jews were in many areas historically, and it's being forced to convert under threat of torture or death as many indigenous cultures were. Christians in the USA encounter none of these and are 90% of the population, so they have no reason to complain.

It's because they've been playing the victim for 2000 years.

[elliotfc]

"Working as a placebo" is a contradiction in terms.
placebo is about how a paitent is subjectively observed, (either by themselves or by someone else measuring their progress) it also covers coincidental heeling.
So whilst a patient may feel that a placebo made them better, and Christan's in the US may feel persecuted, neither position is based in reality.

No. People exist. People's feelings ARE based on reality. If people didn't exist, then I'd agree with you.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

Be assured that most Christians are aware of this. Christmas is an annual celebration, if it was on a different date it would still be an annual celebration called Christmas.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It's because they've been playing the victim for 2000 years.

And like Christ we'll triumph in the end! Take that! Biff bam pow! -Elliot

[brodski]

No. People exist. People's feelings ARE based on reality. If people didn't exist, then I'd agree with you.

-Elliot
I'm not sure if I understand you here, are you saying that because Christians feel persecuted they are persecuted?
Or are you saying that because a painted is subjectively reported to be feeling better they objectively are better?
Both? Neither?

[elliotfc]

I'm not sure if I understand you here, are you saying that because Christians feel persecuted they are persecuted?

You are misunderstanding me. Christians feel persecuted because real-world events, interpreted by said Christians, make them feel as though they were being persecutred.

It's a matter of interpretation. If it is not, then you have to supply an objective standard, which I will subsequently deconstruct and prove to be subejective.

Or are you saying that because a painted is subjectively reported to be feeling better they objectively are better?
Both? Neither?

It depends how you define better. Physically? Psychologically?

-Elliot

[brodski]

You are misunderstanding me. Christians feel persecuted because real-world events, interpreted by said Christians, make them feel as though they were being persecutred.

It's a matter of interpretation. If it is not, then you have to supply an objective standard, which I will subsequently deconstruct and prove to be subejective.
In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.


It depends how you define better. Physically? Psychologically?

-Elliot
Physically better.

[pgwenthold]

In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.



Of course they aren't _actually_ persecuted, but they apparently "feel" persecuted.

The origin being that they aren't getting special treatment, like they used to get, and that is making them mad. Basically, they are feeling persecuted because they are less and less being allowed to use the government to promote their religious beliefs.

If you are historically allowed to do this and suddenly that priviledge is taken away, it may feel like persecution, despite the fact that from an objective basis, it is not even close.

[elliotfc]

In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.

I get your point. As an addendum, if blacks were being treated equally bad by the US government/society as latinos and asians and jews, they could still claim they were being persecuted. That's a stretch of an analogy of course.

Physically better.

Can psychological health translate into physical health or is there a disconnect? -Elliot

[brodski]

I get your point. As an addendum, if blacks were being treated equally bad by the US government/society as latinos and asians and jews, they could still claim they were being persecuted. That's a stretch of an analogy of course.
yes because there would be other ethnic groups which would be treated better. Which religious groups in the US are given preferential treatment over Christians?

[clarsct]

I see this as the same psychology that happens when the youngest of the family suddenly becomes the middle child. All the sudden, their not special anymore. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Christians have been getting special treatment since the Romans converted. Yeah, there have been bumpy roads, but they HAVE had thing their own way in Western society for a LONG time. Now, with new, secular forces at work such as the Internet, people, especially young people, are finding out about MANY religions and many customs. They are starting to realize that all Buddhists are NOT evil, and some true-blue Communists can be nice fellahs, if a little wacky.

All this is reactionary crap from the boomers. Xianity is simply one belief amongst many. They've lost their 'specialness'. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

It isn't persecution. It's the new Zietgiest knocking down your door.


Oh, and elliot:

FEELING better is not necessarily GETTING better. Your mind can fool you into feeling great, even when the sickness is spreading. And what's worse, relying on a placebo can be deadly. You could ignore REAL medical treatments that could help you GET better.

[elliotfc]

yes because there would be other ethnic groups which would be treated better. Which religious groups in the US are given preferential treatment over Christians?

Ah, I see your point. I think secular Christians have it better than more traditional Christians, on the whole. There are lots of different kinds of Christians.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Christians have been getting special treatment since the Romans converted. Yeah, there have been bumpy roads, but they HAVE had thing their own way in Western society for a LONG time. Now, with new, secular forces at work such as the Internet, people, especially young people, are finding out about MANY religions and many customs. They are starting to realize that all Buddhists are NOT evil, and some true-blue Communists can be nice fellahs, if a little wacky.

All this is reactionary crap from the boomers. Xianity is simply one belief amongst many. They've lost their 'specialness'. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

FEELING better is not necessarily GETTING better. Your mind can fool you into feeling great, even when the sickness is spreading. And what's worse, relying on a placebo can be deadly. You could ignore REAL medical treatments that could help you GET better.

It depends what the desired result is. You can be getting better, but feel miserable, or, you can be getting worse, but feel great. I'm not advocating placebos. If someone is seeing a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist prescribes a sugar pill, and psychological health improves, that's worth something.

I'm not advocating homeopathy. Is it essentially evil, or, does homeopathy do no good? I dunno, it can't be the scourge of the earth, and if some people get good out of it good for them. Should we be skeptical of homeopathy? Of course. I'm skeptical of it myself and would never see a homeopathic doctor, nor would I recommend that to anyone. I don't begrude those who do. -Elliot

[brodski]

Ah, I see your point. I think secular Christians have it better than more traditional Christians, on the whole. There are lots of different kinds of Christians.

-Elliot
I'm not familiar with your term "secular Christan's", unlike in Judaism, there is no ethnic element to Christianity, so I don't really see how one can be both "secular" and Christan, but I would be very interested in learning.

yes there are many different kinds of Christan, but no Christian body, and no other religious body in the US is either able to compel non believers to worship, or to use public funds to spread their faith. They have exactly the same legal rights and responsibilities as every other faith group, and as Christan's make up the majority of the population, in the absence of a government sponsored "war on Christians" I fail to see how such a war could be carried out (unless you want to hypothesize about a "false class consciousness" ;) )

[gfunkusarelius]

seems the "war on christianity" is something the leadership is using to rally the "troops." i am sure they do feel threatened because their comfort zone is being challenged, but they seem to be getting more airtime since 9/11 because i guess alot of people in america who thought muslim extremists were much fewer and further between were scared and the christian leadership saw a point of traction and have be milking it for all its worth.

[arthwollipot]

I'm not familiar with your term "secular Christan's", unlike in Judaism, there is no ethnic element to Christianity, so I don't really see how one can be both "secular" and Christan, but I would be very interested in learning.

There are many secular Christians in Australia. Most of us really don't give a damn, but when pressed will acknowledge the existence of the God of the Bible, and Christ and all that. They don't go to chuirch regularly, don't pray except for their favourite spoorts team, but are still effectively Christian in their belief structure.

[ImaginalDisc]

You know something? Yes, it's religious, but for crying out loud, trying to stamp out EVERY official reference to God is ultimately a waste of time. Pick the battles a little more carefully, and you can do greater good in the long run.

If Newdow hadn't been such a jackass, perhaps we might have seen the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its intended wording. That might have been a better battle, and a smarter one.

Roadtoad, our money didn't used to be vandalized with god-wuz-here. It used to just read a tasteful, inspiring latin motto. It's not that activists are trying to remove references to religion from government, its that activists are trying to oppose religious fanatics who have been slyly adding their propaganda to our government for the past two hundred years. There's a little difference there.

[Roadtoad]

Roadtoad, our money didn't used to be vandalized with god-wuz-here. It used to just read a tasteful, inspiring latin motto. It's not that activists are trying to remove references to religion from government, its that activists are trying to oppose religious fanatics who have been slyly adding their propaganda to our government for the past two hundred years. There's a little difference there.

"In God We Trust" was no more than a tasteful motto at one point. Now, ID, you're right; it's become part of the day's jingoism. It never should have happened, but that's what happens when the Church decides to get into this business, instead of doing what it was supposed to do in the first place, which is handle the social needs of the community, such as shelter for the poor, (and I mean LIVEABLE shelter), food for the hungry, (EDIBLE food), and clothing for the needy, (SERVICEABLE clothing).

[ImaginalDisc]

"In God We Trust" was no more than a tasteful motto at one point. Now, ID, you're right; it's become part of the day's jingoism. It never should have happened, but that's what happens when the Church decides to get into this business, instead of doing what it was supposed to do in the first place, which is handle the social needs of the community, such as shelter for the poor, (and I mean LIVEABLE shelter), food for the hungry, (EDIBLE food), and clothing for the needy, (SERVICEABLE clothing).

Chruches do that stuff? Eh, I'm biased.

[Huntster]

...Point being, you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses... heck, fascism made the trains run on time but I don't look back on it as a lost golden age.

Perhaps not a golden age, but not long afterwards (when the population allowed the fascist extremists to go overboard), times sure were "booming" in their cities, weren't they?

Extremism, whether it's christian, secular, islamic, fascist, communist, skeptic, etc. is a good way to bring on disaster.

[Roadtoad]

Chruches do that stuff? Eh, I'm biased.

They're supposed to. If you read through the New Testament, that was not only what Jesus commanded, it's what the early Church did. (The whole business with Ananias and Sapphira was centered around this sort of thing: They claimed they gave all the money they earned from some property they sold so the Church could support those in need in the community, when, in fact, they'd only given part of the proceeds.)

I'll say it again: Read it through! The whole point was that a Christian wasn't supposed to just sit in the pews and sing praises to Jesus. A Christian was supposed to be giving of himself to make a better world.

Missionaries didn't just go into the jungles to preach the Gospel; some were doctors, others were teachers. If all they did was preach, they were judged failures. But, if they could help cure disease in the communities where they were supposed to be serving, if they could teach people to read, they were truly making a real difference.

That's not what the Church is about anymore. It's more laughingstock than liberator anymore. And the Chruches which are growing, which are filling the pews these days, are nearly as much entertainment venues than places where people get their hands dirty and serve others. And if you ask if you can do that, what you get are dirty looks, or a patronizing attitude, "Aw, how sweet. He must have read the Book of James."

"In God We Trust" has become a political slogan. It is not now what it was ever meant to mean when it was first placed on our currency. People ought to be ashamed to call themselves "Christian" if the only thing they do is park their posteriors in pews on Sundays and Wednesdays. You're not considered a Christian in America if you vote Democrat, if you watch the evening news, or if you know anyone who's gay.

And, sadly, this is the attitude we're getting from folks like Kurious Kathy. She's yet to show us otherwise. She helps other folks out in her community once in a while? That's fine. I tried to make it a life, and either faced resistance from everyone I knew in the Church, or was ridiculed until I conformed.

Now, I'm gone.

Eventually, we're going to see that slogan removed from our money. We'll see "under God" removed from the pledge. We DON'T trust in God. Certainly not now. If we trusted in God, when people hurt, we would work to heal instead of finding the front row so we could watch Job's friends spew their oral diarrhea when someone's in trouble. Around here, people work to heal the hurting. I'll ask you, ID, when was the last time YOU saw that happening in a Church? (Oral Roberts doesn't count.)

The Church, such as it once was meant to be, is no more. We have lost a great thing, and it was the Church itself which did the deed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Roadtoad,

In general, I agree, but there some relatively non-judgemental and charitable churches. The Society of Friends (Quakers) are pretty respectable. That doesn't automatically make one a good person though. Nixon was raised Quaker.

As for the early churches being very charitable, that's true for some branches, but others taught that suffering was super fantastic! Some folks, like Paul, just ran around and prosyletized. There were as many uncharitable Christians then as now, I'd wager.

[Zbu]

Plus this war of Christians have to come from some pathetic sort of dualism. Most of the people who scream the loudest about the Jesus are usually the same people who have some really screwed up life that now they feel the need to help people.

You ever think Christianity in America is just the refuge for those who never had any self-esteem or self-worth? It's odd that we have a greater part of this country beating on bibles but never really get the point of what Jesus was. If I didn't know better, I would think that the point of Christianity in America was merely a choice of lack of having a real choice or alternative. Those who seem to be rabid about it are the ones who read the Cliff Notes version of it or assume they know what it's about or simply are so unaware of reality that they assume they know is right because they don't have anything else to back it up on.

I can't help but think of my conservative friends when reading this thread. A few days ago I told them about a project I was doing about making a Planned Parenthood documentary to showcase how they were helping the community via cheap birth control methods and, if possible, abortion information. They flew off the handle and told me that PP was 'nothing but a bunch of killers.' After several minutes of conservative talking points without merit being thrown in my face, I tried to reason with them. My point: if PP hands out birth control that prevents abortions, then why would an anti-choice person be against it?

Their response? Alternating tones of more talking points ("PP are killers"), pathetic attempts at emotional manipulation ("Would you like your daughter to go to one of those, huh??"), and more talk of them being put down ("I bet you'll only show their side of the discussion, none of their BABY MURDERING!"). This is when I came to two conclusions: Christians are easily lead without proof, and this in fact makes them very loud and possibly logical retards. There's no easy way to put it. They're so close-minded and stupid that I fail to see how any of them could really function as an adult. It seems the main prerequisite for being a Christian in America (outside of not knowing what prerequisite means) is being extremely gullible and not wanting the stress of having to make up your own damn mind.

It's hard not to conclude that all Christians are missing a few lego blocks in the old noggin.

[FredFlash]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those. They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Apparantly, they either haven't read or disagree with the establishment clause of the first amendment US constitution. They also make the claim that our country was founded on christian ideals.

Our system of government was established on Christian principles in the sense that it was founded upon the fact that Christ said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and gave a lecture not to "Render unto Caesar what belongs to God."

FVF

[Piggy]

There are many Xians who don't believe all the persecution hype.

The ones who do, live in a relatively closed world (even if they travel widely, which a few of them do) replete with self-reinforcing feedback.

How do I know this? Because I grew up within that culture, and I live in it now. These people are my co-workers, my neighbors, my childhood friends, and in some cases my family.

To understand the mindset, you have to be able to picture it from within its assumptions and social structures.

For this sort of Xian, the world is (entirely) a battle between the Truth of God and Jesus, and the deception of the Devil.

That which opposes the Truth of God and Jesus is, by definition, the work of the Enemy, the Deceiver. And "the Devil's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

This is a world of prophecy. Fulfillment of prophecy is more important than any mundane concern of daily life. And because Jesus could return at any moment -- and likely will, since we're seeing all the signs of the End Times -- it is of utmost importance that you and everyone you love have the correct belief RIGHT NOW or AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, because it is correct belief that will grant you eternal life in paradise, and wrong belief will condemn you to eternal torture in hell.

There are probably some reading this post who think I'm overstating the case. I assure you, I am not.

God raises up nations and peoples to do His work. America has a vital role in the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Final Days and the return of the Lord. The Jews have returned to Zion. Everywhere is famine, pestilence, war and rumors of war, and natural disaster. The vision of Revelation is being fulfilled in ways never before possible, through modern technology.

Yes, there is a Xian majority in America. But numbers are not an indication of strength. The force of the unXian government is a boot on the neck of the Xian people, just as it was in the days of Paul and the martyrs.

God will not bless a nation that denies Him. God will not bless a nation that banishes prayer from schools and God's commandments from its halls of justice. God will not bless a nation whose laws are an abomination, permitting abortion and condoning the sin of homosexuality.

The secular humanists have power far beyond their numbers, and they could only gain this power with the support of the Enemy. They are in control of the banks, the schools, and much of the government. It is up to Xian people to end this, and to take back America for Christ.

In our colleges and universities, the liberal professors teach our children that all religions are equal. Well, God doesn't think so! In our public schools, they teach value-free education, moral relativism, and religious neutrality. This is contrary to the teachings of the Almighty God as revealed in His holy Word!

Who has given this handful of people so much power over our children, over our nation? How have they managed to rewrite history, to deny the Xian foundations of our country?....

When planning his political strategy, Jack Abramoff reassured his co-conspirators that the "wackos" (evangelical fundamentalists) could be manipulated because they get their news from Xian radio and TV, word of mouth, mail, and telephone.

The world view of this group is highly warped. They believe the atheists, New Agers, secular humanists, and members of other religions to be much more numerous than they are. I remember being in the audience at a debate between William Buckley and Nadine Strossen, and watching the stern head-shakes when Ms. Strossen made the obviously false (but actually true) statement that the US is arguably the most religious nation in the world.

From this point of view, Xians are indeed rebels, speaking Truth to power. They are indeed persecuted for their beliefs. And they are commanded by God to fight until the battle is won.