Why do some Christians persist with a disingenuous persecution complex?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Here's a headline from http://www.aclj.org/
NEWS RELEASE - AUGUST 31, 2000

ACLJ OFFERS TO DEFEND SCHOOL DISTRICTS SUED FOR PERMITTING

SPONTANEOUS PRAYER AT HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAMES

Sounds like some school districts have been sued for allowing purely private prayer at high school football games, doesn't it? Obviously, this would be a gross violation of the First Amendment. But wait, don't get outraged yet - this article is simply a pledge to defend any school districs that might in the future be sued.

This to me is exemplary of an attitude I've encountered from many fundamentalist Christians. They claim that this country is "Anti-Christian" and moan about how persecuted they are for their faith. I think this attitude is contrary to all evidence, and frankly it seems more like a political ploy than anything else.

It's easier to get your congregation to make those contributions when you whip them into a frenzy over Madalyn Murray O'Hair's supposed petition to take "Touched by an Angel" and any other show mentioning God off the air, or over non-existent lawsuits against schools that allow private prayer on their grounds.

[Satan]

There are a few passages in the Bible which claim that people "will" persecute you and that you should not waver in your faith. This manifests itself into actually feeling you ARE being persecuted, even if it's not the case. After all, the Bible SAYS you'll be persecuted... *sigh*

I got into HUGE arguments at LBMB about this. I offered links showing REAL persecution - such as Christians arrested in Islamic counties for praying together - but it didn't matter. Some of them STILL felt as if the liberal media, the ACLU and the Supreme Court were all persecuting them somehow.

One of them is here now, actually... I wonder what this witness will say to this thread...
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 18 hours, 16 minutes and 31 seconds.
5830 cigarettes not smoked, saving $728.81.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 50 minutes.

[Jello]

Why do some Christians persist with a disingenuous persecution complex?

Another problem is the persecuting complex. Just look on this board for that...

I say, persecute not, lest ye be persecuted!

[wring]

maybe this a simplistic way of thinking, but....

you see, IMHO, the sort of thing that fundies MIGHT be complaining about is embodied in the title of the thread. "why do some Christians ......" I know that you're attempting to single out only the ones like the Assemblies of God folks who seem to get into a tither anytime some one wants to allow elementary school kids trick or treat at the school, but, again, IMHO, many people of many different groups act in this manner, percieving any challenge as persecution.

For example exchange the words in your title to: Why do SOME gun rights supporters persist with their disingenious persecution complex" regarding gun laws? or "why do Some gun control supporters persist with their disingenious persecution comlex" regarding the NRA?

So, while I may be able to think up more examples of certain Christian religious groups acting in this manner (because it bugs the hell out of me, too), it just may be that I'm more prone to noticing their offenses because of my beliefs, and not because they actually do it more often than other groups.

in short, it seems to me that the Christians, fundementalists or not, do NOT seem to hold the margin on perceiving dissention to their position as persecution.

[Kyberneticist]

What is more disturbing isn't that they consider dissension to be persecution, but that they consider being forbidden to force their religion on a public school to be persecution.

[iampunha]

Some Christians (to say nothing of religions about which I know nothing) feel that by suffering, enduring, bearing and allowing this sort of thing (all from patior, a verb some Christians, in my mind, use and follow entirely too much), they will grow in their faith with God. What they don't do is fight it.

Some say "I am enduring this for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." They don't say "and I'm trying to do something to make it stop." They don't try to make it better for themselves because they see it as making them holier . . . that their suffering will bring them closer to Christ.

And wring, FWIW, I didn't think the title of the thread or the OP was trying to single out any one Christian. There are Christians of all denominations who do this, IMHO. No one denomination does this. It takes all kinds, and we've got 'em, by golly!

This is, FWIW, my opinion as a Christian who has seen "persecuted" behavior. Sometimes they seem (to me) to want to be persecuted. Others they think it is because they are of X religion. In my experience. YMMV.

[wring]

I wasn't trying to say that demonination or some other one. Sorry if the intent was unclear.

My point was that it may be that the OP'er percieves more Christians doing that, because of their own personal stance. Example - I tend to see Republican tendancies to saying one thing and doing another (ex Newt talking about family values :rolleyes: ), than I do when the Democrats do the same thing. Because I tend to tend more towards the viewpoint displayed publically by the Dems. So, perhaps teh OP'er sees the Christians doing this more because of the OP'er's own view point aligns more closely to those the Christians are claiming to be persecuted by (please grammarians, give me a break....) Ok? see? to quote myself "it just may be that I'm more prone to noticing their offenses because of my beliefs, and not because they actually do it more often than other groups "

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by Satan

I got into HUGE arguments at LBMB about this.

No kidding. When he says HUGE he ain't kidding they were HUMONGUS!

I offered links showing REAL persecution - such as Christians arrested in Islamic counties for praying together - but it didn't matter. Some of them STILL felt as if the liberal media, the ACLU and the Supreme Court were all persecuting them somehow.

You did and I know the persecution is not nothing like what happens in Islamic countries but I(we)(them) still feel like it could be the start of persecution that could come about from it which as your first paragraph explained very well I might ad.

One of them is here now, actually... I wonder what this witness will say to this thread...

Man, did you spill "witness" instead of "witless" right when it came to me. This new you is kinda of freaking me out. Not that I mind it. It is just different.

As far as getting real deep into the topic at hand I am too tired. It is Friday. And I have had to do alot digging around today with trying to work to support a thread that people wanted cites for. I'll give it to you straight dopers y'all take y'alls debating pretty serious around here.

BTW, Satan are you married yet?

__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 18 hours, 16 minutes and 31 seconds.
5830 cigarettes not smoked, saving $728.81.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 50 minutes. [/B][/QUOTE]

[wring]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
You did and I know the persecution is not nothing like what happens in Islamic countries but I(we)(them) still feel like it could be the start of persecution that could come about from it which as your first paragraph explained very well I might ad.



oh. I see.

sincerely yours, Emily Latille.....

[Wildest Bill]

wring,

I know this is going to probable going to make me look ignorant again but who is Emilly Latille

[wring]

a character from Saturday Night Live, played by Gilda Ranier. She would go off on a rant (for example about "violins on tv"), getting all upset over something that she'd misunderstood, then some one would correct her, she'd pause and say "oh, that's very different. Nevermind."

It struck me as the thing to say when I saw you putting forth the same sort of issue that the OP was claiming. (percieving and calling relatively slight issues as persecution, much like folks saying "it feels like I've been raped" when they really mean "I wasn't treated well").

[Satan]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill

You did and I know the persecution is not nothing like what happens in Islamic countries but I(we)(them) still feel like it could be the start of persecution that could come about from it which as your first paragraph explained very well I might ad. Slippery Slope. The Bible says to stay faithful in the face of persecution (something I agree with, by the way). Not to invent it out of whole cloth. If you are correct about end times, you WANT this to happen because "it is written," according to how you feel. You WANT this to happen so you invent things to fit into your own "prophesy."
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 20 hours, 0 minutes and 31 seconds.
5833 cigarettes not smoked, saving $729.17.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes.

[andros]

What Satan said. And a little more:

I(we)(them) still feel like it could be the start of persecution that could come about

And I(we)(they) are afraid that the mandating of school prayer, the dilution of fact in the science classroom, and the posting of religious text in secular settings could be the start of persecution against non-Christians.

Makes you think, doesn't it? I mean, you know you're not persecuting those who do not agree with your beliefs, right? . . .

[Chewie]

This persecution complex seems to be a symptom of what I call lifeboat christianity. People are told to rush into the arms of the church and be saved from the hell-fire-and-brimstones reserved for those who aren't part of the elect. These people then cluster together in some kind of mutual admiration society to pat each other on the backs for being smart enough to avoid having to think for themselves ever again, and pitying the unsaved for their blindness. I'm sorry to say it, but the phenomenom would seem to be more prevalent in the U.S. than most other places. In light of which, it doesn't really surprise me to see that a good number of intelligent Yanks are atheists. I really don't understand why God gave me a brain if He didn't want me to use it.

[Guinastasia]

I myself am a Christian, and have never felt "persecuted."
I have maybe felt a little annoyed when people say, "Oh, those Catholics are all nuts/bigoted/pro-life," etc...
But I think that's just natural. It wasn't anyone telling me I had to give up being Catholic, just people using a stereotype.
However, I dont' think anyone should compare themselves to the TRULY persecuted (for example, Holocaust survivors...)

[Wildest Bill]

First andros I did not say we are being persecuted now did I? Yes people fun of us and try to make us feel uncomfortable but that is no biggy compared to real Christian persecutions in other countries.

Now on to you brian. This thead is going to take us back to the good ole days huh?How is what I said slippery soap? I will use an example for you. How about assault weapons. At one time you could own an AK-47 without a permit or any govt regulation couldn't you? Now you have to pass all kinds of criteria and obtain all kinds of permits to own one. So inotherwords it is harder to get automatic weapon now than in the past. Did they(big brother) do that all at once no they did it a little at a time. See?

[Satan]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill

How is what I said slippery soap?

That would be a slippery slope, Billy.

A slippery slope is when you claim that if you do something, it will enevitably lead to something else even though there is no proof of this.

Any time you say "feel like it could be the start of..." as you did, you are not debating the issue, but possible outcomes, which is an unfair way to debate since you avoid discussing the issue itself. (You can use that as a layman's definition of a fallacy - a fallacy is anything you use to avoid discussing the actual issue itself.)

You are not debating the issue of, say, organized prayer in public schools, by saying "if you ban it, it will lead to us being persecuted." You debate the issue at hand: organized prayer in public schools. On its own merits. Anythign else is unfair - to the person you are debating with and the issue itself.

It seems, however, that there is no debate on this particular issue. You claim that maybe in other countries, Christians are persecuted, but not here in America. And I agree with you about that.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, two days, 22 hours, 25 minutes and 22 seconds.
5837 cigarettes not smoked, saving $729.67.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 25 minutes.

[astorian]

Well, let's face it: here in the USA, NOBODY is in danger of life and limb for ANYTHING they say or believe.

Obviously, ANY American who complains about persecution is talking through his hat. St. Peter was crucified upside-down, and St. Stephen was stoned to death. Find me ANYBODY in the USA suffering that way for his beliefs, and I'll take the word "persecution" seriously.

Problem is, when you live in such a safe country, you don't feel grateful for the realtive safety and comfort you experience. On the contrary, we Americans (of every and NO religion) have it so good, we become like the Princess in that Hans Christian Andersen story- even the TINIEST inconvenience seems like an unbearable agony.

Ancient Roman Christians would have been DELIGHTED to live in a country where the only restriction was "Say your prayers in your own homes, but not in public.

Then again, Jews in Dachau would have been DELIGHTED to live in a place where the worst torture they'd have to experience was listening to Christian prayers at high school football games.

I don't think ANYBODY appreciates just how good we have it in America. Instead, we retain memories of REAL oppression in other places, and assume that it's likely to happen again here!

Whether you're a Christian or a non (anti?) Christian, lighten up! This is America. We have it made!

[Polycarp]

Well, Astorian, in St. Lawrence County, New York (named after the river), there is a small Catholic seminary and, among other things, a large university, also named after the river.

St. Lawrence U. is a largely academic school, with a small sports program. Some years ago they did get involved with intercollegiate football.

The sportswriter for the local paper had attended the seminary but dropped out. When SLU lost one football game abominably, he headlined the story:

St. Lawrence Martyred on Gridiron


::: ducking and running ::::

[Lauralee]

I'm just curious about this...

Doesn't anybody have anything against the new Pagan with the persecution complex? (Not that I do... I just think it's funny.) I mean, someone actually posts here, saying "Look how persecuted I am!" and you're talking about Christians. I find that odd.

Not that I have a complex or anything...

[astorian]

Actually, I think that's a very clever headline!

According to (dubious) legend, St. Laurence had the right approach to martyrdom. WHile being roasted over a fire, he supposedly said, "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."

If Lawrence could laugh at his own torture, he could certainly laugh at a football game.

[andros]

First andros I did not say we are being persecuted now did I?

Nope. I realize that, and certainly didn't mean to imply that you did. But I also didn't say that non-christians are persecuted either. Simply that there is as much potential for persecution of non-Christians in the US as Christians.

Yes people make fun of us and try to make us feel uncomfortable

Some people, perhaps.

And an awful lot of people tell me that I'm going to burn in all eternity for not thinking like them. And an awful lot of people tell gays that they shouldn't have jobs and are damned for all time. And tell pagans that they are silly comic book satanists who will die eternally. And tell Catholics that they worship a whore.

I'm not sure if that's making fun of people. But it sure as hell does more than "make [people] feel uncomfortable."

[Polycarp]

Y'know, Lauralee, you have a point. Seems like 'most everybody thinks they're being persecuted for one reason or another.

But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned
--Bob Dylan

I think I'll start up a "Pity the Poor Persecuted Liberal Christian" thread. Just think: some of the atheists condemn me for "believing in a god that just plain doesn't exist"; some of the Neopagans can't stand that I belong to the majority religion -- and one with a history of persecuting witches; some of the gays don't like that I belong to a religion that historically condemned gays and will stick up for those who believe gay sex is immoral, even though I don't (hope he isn't lissening); and Joe Cool, on the now-missing Friend-of-God's swan song thread, took me to task for "calling myself a Christian but thinking the bible is bunk" (his lowercase letter on Bible; I respect it enough to use the capital -- but that's part of Billy's "grammer" thread). Woe is me! :D

[Satan]

Lauralee:

I know I mentioned this to you privately, but I may as well say it for the rest of the class.

I personally chose to take on the greater afront to me personally when I took on the "magick and faeries" commentary. However, there are more than a few posts there which say, "who says you're persecuted?" to an extent.

To play devil's advocate, they burned "witches" only a couple hundred years ago in this country. And who did the burning?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, three days, 1 minute and 12 seconds.
5840 cigarettes not smoked, saving $730.00.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes.

[Crazy Boob]

Christianity, in many peoples view is a faith built upon weakness and dependence on God. In that established and accepted state of weakness is the acceptance of persecution. Christianity grew in times of persecution, and even if it doesn’t happen much in America, it does happen in other countries and Christains use that to attempt to foster growth and support.

Whether or not anyone things this practice is wrong is irrelevant.

The fact is, almost every major social group that has ever grown and firmly established itself in our society has done so through persecution: Jews, Christains, blacks, gays...heck even Marylin Manson fans. Manson makes big bucks by selling himself as being despised by people (especially Christians, which is the case because he played his cards right). Anyway, so what is the big deal? It's common. Blacks don't deal with a major amount of persecution except in certain areas. Gays don't really deal with a whole lot of persecution except in a few isolated incidences which they capitalize on. The whole general population of the country is paranoid that they might in some way step on the toes of a black or gay person. Likewise, Christians don’t really suffer much persecution, except in certain areas. But because it is such an old institution, there isn’t much sympathy for them. Oh well.

[Demise]

Originally posted by astorian
Well, let's face it: here in the USA, NOBODY is in danger of life and limb for ANYTHING they say or believe.

Obviously, ANY American who complains about persecution is talking through his hat.

It must be a great comfort for the families of assassinated abortion clinic doctors to hear you say that.

[Czarcasm]

As far as the OP is concerned, I've always considered this "Look at me! I'm a M*A*R*T*Y*R!" routine as a sort of religious Munchusen(sp?) Syndrome. It's usually used by those who couldn't convince anyone of their point of view, but don't want to give up the spotlight. Any opposition is identified as persecution, and anyone with an opposing point of view is identified as a persecutor.

[lawoot]

Originally posted by astorian
Well, let's face it: here in the USA, NOBODY is in danger of life and limb for ANYTHING they say or believe.

Yet, oddly enough, we ARE in danger of life and limb for what OTHERS believe. Look at Oklahoma City. (and NO, i am NOT blaming Xians for that... don't even think of trying to pin THAT one on me)

One of the things that stuck in my head from when I was growing up in the south: Person A complains about what an awful day they were having/spouse troubles/car problems, etc. Person B responds woth 'You're a Christian martyr for putting up with that. Can't you picture St Lawrence rolling his eyes, laughing, milk spurting out of his nose at THAT one?

:)

[Liberal]

Well, let's face it: here in the USA, NOBODY is in danger of life and limb for ANYTHING they say or believe.

Twenty-two Children (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/tanks.html)

From PBS:

What caused the death of more than 80 Branch Davidians inside the compound on April 19?

Medical examiners, Dr. Nizam Peerwani and Dr. Rodney Crow, have told FRONTLINE that many of them died from asphyxiation when the intense fire raced through the compound. Others, particularly women and children who huddled under wet blankets in a concrete chamber, were fatally injured when debris collapsed on them during the fire, the officials said. Still others were shot to death, suicide or homicide victims in apparent mercy killings, they said. Both the coroners and some FBI sources have told FRONTLINE that the pattern of most of the bodies was not consistent with a theory of mass suicide.

[David B]

Early in the thread, Kyberneticist said:
What is more disturbing isn't that they consider dissension to be persecution, but that they consider being forbidden to force their religion on a public school to be persecution.I think this is really key (and I've been considering writing an article about it, though I don't know where it might be printed).

Think about it. If they were in a mostly-Muslim area and the Muslims all decided to force their prayers on them during a football game, the Christians would be in an uproar. "How dare they?! They are persecuting us!"

But go to Texas and you see the Christians doing exactly this -- and complaining about it when the courts say they can't do it with official sponsorship!

Then they go further and decide to do it "spontaneously" without the school. While I do think this is legal, I don't think it is moral. They are still using their majority status to try to force their religion on others. However, they don't seem to have any empathy whatsoever for being on the other side (as some of you know, empathy is one thing non-believers have cited around here as a key reason for morality without belief in God).

To them, persecution is around every corner. They are being persecuted for not being allowed to use government control to force prayer. They are being persecuted in countries where they are not in the majority. It's just ridiculous already.

On a related topic, for those of you who watched Survivor, you may know that Dirk was voted off for being just plain lazy. However, he has been going around to various interviews and speeches (such as on the 700 Club) claiming he was voted off because he was a Christian. Give me a break! It only adds to the whole persecution complex thing.

[lawoot]

Originally posted by David B
[B

Think about it. If they were in a mostly-Muslim area and the Muslims all decided to force their prayers on them during a football game, the Christians would be in an uproar. "How dare they?! They are persecuting us!"

But go to Texas and you see the Christians doing exactly this -- and complaining about it when the courts say they can't do it with official sponsorship![/B]

I remember hearing an item (I think it was on NPR) when the latest TExas attempt at football game prayer went before the Supreme Court. The interviewer asked some students how they would feel if a buddhist, or Muslim, or Jew was to do the pre-game prayer.The response was:

'That would be OK, as long as they mentioned Jesus'

:rolleyes:

[Lauralee]

Woe is me! Nobody likes him, everybody hates him! Think he'll go eat worms!

And that wouldn't be quite as funny coming from anybody that wasn't quite as well respected around here as Polycarp!!
I personally chose to take on the greater afront to me personally when I took on the "magick and faeries" commentary. However, there are more than a few posts there which say, "who says you're persecuted?" to an extent. Of course. But I like to point out, when I can, that these aren't just Christian failings. Yeah, we make more noise than most. But we're hardly the only ones out there.

[Alessan]

I think that this is all a case of the best offence being a good defence.

And for the record, the attitude you're describing is not unique to Christianity. Or the United States.

[Shodan]

The Federal District Court (I believe in Connecticut) has just upheld a lower court's decision banning Bible stories chosen by students.

A teacher told her class they could choose any story they wanted to read to the class. One child chose the creation story from Genesis as presented in her child's version of the Bible. The teacher told her she couldn't use that one. It wound up in the courts, and the court found that the teacher could ban Bible stories.

Please note that neither the school nor the teacher was involved in choosing this story, therefore no coercion was involved, nor any establishment of religion.

The child could have chosen Harry Potter books about sorcery, Native American myths, or what have you. It is just the Bible that is outlawed.

This is why some Christians feel persecuted.

[Gaudere]

Do you have a cite for that? I can't find it on Yahoo News. I'd like to read the case; I suspect there's more to it than there seems on the surface. I kind of doubt that the student was disallowed from doing a book report on the Bible but doing a book report on the Koran, Torah, Bhavad-Gita, etc. was A-OK. Perhaps the child was supposed to do a book report on a piece of non-fiction, and the school does not really have the right to implicitly declare that, say, the Bible is non-fiction but Native American myths *are* fiction, or vice versa for that matter.

[Liberal]

Actually, it was the Jacob and Esau story, Gaudere. The kid's name was Zachary Hood, and his case was taken over by the Becket Fund (http://www.becketfund.org).

Here's one story on it from the (Philadelphia) Inquirer (http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/08/29/city/PBIBLE29.htm).

[Gaudere]

http://www.freedomforum.org/religion/1998/10/9biblestory.asp
The judge ruled that had the teacher allowed Zachary "to read the 'Beginner's Bible' to the rest of his first grade classmates, the possibility exists that they could have construed the presentation to be an endorsement of the Bible by the teacher," therefore violating the separation of church and state.
[...]
According to Rodriguez, Oliva had "properly exercised her editorial control over the students' reading selections to ensure the material was appropriate for their educational level."
"There are two establishment-clause problems," Treene said. "First, the teacher sent a message to Zachary that his religious choice made him a second-class citizen. All the other kids could read their favorite stories, but because he chose an Old Testament story, he could not participate on an equal basis with the other students.
This, I don't know about; the other children weren't reading "there is no Christian God" stories or "The life of the one prophet Muhammed", they were apparently reading "Ben the Bunny Goes to School." I don't think "there is no Christian God" stories or "The life of the one prophet Muhammed" would have been deemed appropriate either.

"Secondly, this is a classic case of government entanglement with religion," he said. "For the teacher to take it upon herself to decide what is religious and what is not is a dangerous game for the government to get involved in. It is far better to leave those questions to the individual."
Um, I believe the government already does this, unless you want every yahoo claiming tax-exemptions because they just formed the Church of Give Money to Me. Now, of course, if religions want to give up their tax-exemptions, et al, maybe we can talk... ;) The government does decide to recognize whether a set of beliefs is religious or not--if you let your child die because you believe it's more important to preserve her soul by not taking her to a doctor, that's accepted in some states, but if you let her die because you think it's more important to watch baseball than to take her to a doctor you're toast--it simply cannot officially sanction one religion.

So, the child was not allowed to read the Bible story to the whole class, and instead read it to the teacher alone. Again, I think that *any* story read from that religions holy book would have been disallowed; stories about Moses or Muhammed or Satan as well as Esau. I think they were ruling against any religious story being read in school to a class of first-graders, not Christianity per se, so I don't think it shows that Christianity is persecuted more than, say, Islam or Paganism or ostentatious atheism; I don't believe any of those should have official support by a public school.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about the court's decision; I hate to tell a kid he can't read his favorite story to the class and Esau and Jacob might be a an OK story, but what if the kid wanted to read a sysopsis of the Crucifixion that mentioned the Jews killing Our Savior, or a kids-version of Russell's "Why I am not a Christian"? The teacher does have an obligation to monitor what the child decides to read to his classmates as part of an official class project; I can certainly think of some things that no first-grader should be allowed to read to the class. Does it violate a first-grader's right to free speech if he is not allowed to read racist or graphic anti-abortion literature to his class? I am rather leery of anything that seems like official sanction or censure of any particular religion; ostentatously religious or anti-religious stories don't really seem to have a place in a public school's first-grade classroom. Which infringes more on religious freedom, not allowing a child to read from his religion's holy book to his fellow first graders, or to force a class of first-graders to listen to said holy book that may completely contradict the faith their parents wish to raise them in? It's a sticky wicket, and I'm not entirely sure what is best right now. Neither are the courts, apparently. ;) I am willing to listen to arguments from either side, if anyone wants to make one.

[David B]

One additional point: The kid was definitely not the target of anti-Christian bias, since the story was, as described, from the Old Testament.

[Liberal]

I am willing to listen to arguments from either side, if anyone wants to make one.

It's heads! No, it's tails! Wait, it landed on its side!

Why not eliminate public schools, and let parents decide for themselves through the free-market what their children may read in school?

[Czarcasm]

Great idea!
That way, when the school board is hiring a new biology teacher, it will have to spend thousands more to check on the background of the teacher to find out exactly what kind of "science" the teacher has learned. I mean, it doesn't matter what a biologist, chemist or historian knows, as long as their(now next to worthless) diploma says the right hing, right?
Lib, one of the purposes of school is to broaden the horizons of a child. This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting. I always thought that we brought up our chldren to become better than us, to live better than us. To do this, they will have to learn from those whose knowledge surpasses our own.

[Liberal]

"Do not assume contradictions where non exist." — the Borg Queen

Forget for the moment that a phone call to the school listed on a job application does not cost "thousands" of dollars. But if it did, why would it cost any less for a school with a sign that says "PS 181" than for a school with a sign that says "Mr. Smith's Private School"?

Regarding this weird logic train:

Lib, one of the purposes of school is to broaden the horizons of a child. This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting. I always thought that we brought up our [children] to become better than us, to live better than us. To do this, they will have to learn from those whose knowledge surpasses our own.

Huh? And a bureaucrat allowing your child to read what he finds familiar and comforting is better because...?

[MJH2]

Originally posted by slythe
I always thought that we brought up our chldren to become better than us, to live better than us.

Really? I mean, I agree with the sentiment -- certainly true within my own family -- but is this always so? And how are you/we going to define "better"?

One would think that persons of any religious persuasion would recognize how fortunate they are to live in a country where they are free to practice their religion, in private, as they see fit; and free to engage in this kind of public discourse so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same. Sometimes we (the people, the religious, the goverment) may disagree about the best way to balance all of these concerns, but at least we are free to discuss it, and to disagree if we like. Isn't this living better than those who have gone before? The framers of the Constitution certainly thought so.

My maternal ancestors came to this country from Ireland, during a time when the Irish were reviled. No, I am no equating this with religious persecution per se. I am simply making the point that I recognize and appreciate the fact that I live better than my great-grandparents did.
And for that I am very grateful.

Basically, I think the word "persecution" is bandied about entirely too much, without regard to whether its meaning is truly applicable to a given situation.

[sailor]

yes, if we accept that it is *some* christian groups but I think it is just human nature. Many groups are held together by a perceived persecution or outside threat, not only Christians but feminists, blacks, pro abortion, anti abortion, extreme conservatives, extreme liberals... they all share a feeling the other side is about to get them unless something is done about it. They find comfort in each other and reinforce their own beliefs.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by slythe
one of the purposes of school is to broaden the horizons of a child. This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting. I always thought that we brought up our chldren to become better than us, to live better than us. To do this, they will have to learn from those whose knowledge surpasses our own.Sounds like you are saying that the purpose of public school is to override the wishes, values and judgement of the parents, in favor of those that some other entity has deemed to be "better". I think this attitude goes a long way in answering the OP.

[Gr8Kat]

However, they don't seem to have any empathy whatsoever for being on the other side (as some of you know, empathy is one thing non-believers have cited around here as a key reason for morality without belief in God).

And isn't it ironic? I mean, isn't that the basic premise behind the supposedly Christian belief of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? The simplest of philosophies, and yet people just can't grasp it. If you don't want people to lie to you, steal from you, rape or murder you, then don't lie to, steal from, rape or murder them. If you want people to respect your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, then respect their thoughts, feelings and beliefs. If you don't want people to talk shit about your religion, don't talk shit about theirs.

That's one of the things that has bothered me about organized religion for a long time: they take simple instuctions and pile layer after layer of complicated qualifications and ritual on top of it. I'm glad Weird Earl's recently featured Atheists for Jesus (http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/), and I'm gladder still I found out about the World Union of Deists (http://www.deism.com). I take comfort in the fact that one can believe in God and the teachings of Jesus without having to swallow everything that's fed you.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Originally posted by slythe
one of the purposes of school is to broaden the horizons of a child. This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting. I always thought that we brought up our chldren to become better than us, to live better than us. To do this, they will have to learn from those whose knowledge surpasses our own.Sounds like you are saying that the purpose of public school is to override the wishes, values and judgement of the parents, in favor of those that some other entity has deemed to be "better". I think this attitude goes a long way in answering the OP.

Actually, it does. Although you are the only one bringing up the term "better." Although you might misread "those whose knowledge surpasses our own" as "those whose knowledge is better than our own," slythe is arguing for a broad education. In other words, "those whose knowledge surpasses our own" refers to scope, not quality. In the instance of fundamentalists who believe that Bible=Science, I would argue that both are true.

"Overriding the wishes, values, and judgement of parents" is not the function of the public school system, unless of course the parents wish to keep their children ignorant. Only someone with an overdeveloped persecution complex could truly believe that. Plainly put, the school properly rejects favoring any religion, or religion over nonreligion. That is all SOCA amounts to here. You are free to worship whomever you like, and free to hold beliefs from paganism to scientology and nobody cares as long as you keep it out of the schools.

I find the fact that some fundies feel persecuted simply because they can't force their religion on others to be not only sadly ironic, but pathetic.

[IzzyR]

Ptahlis,

You appear to be confusing two issues. One is what is to be taught in public schools. The other is what the purpose is in having schooling be a function of the government altogether, as opposed to the private responsibility of the parents. You addressed the first issue. Slythe was responding to Libertarian, who addressed the second.

[MJH2]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
I find the fact that some fundies feel persecuted simply because they can't force their religion on others to be not only sadly ironic, but pathetic. [/B]

Ah, but don't you see: for some fundamentalist groups, ostentatious evangelism (read: riding rough-shod over the values of other people) is required. Therefore if they are not permitted to do so, they can cry that they are being denied the free practice of their religion. It is a very convenient argument.

And not one I support, mind you. I'm with Gr8Kat on this. I was taught that it is un-Christian to be intolerant or disrespectful of the beliefs/thinking/feelings of other people. No one ever said that was the same thing as agreeing with them.

[Liberal]

Who are you? You are quickly approaching mentor status with me, though I have seen only a couple of posts. Forgive my nosy inquiries, but where are the other fifty or so, so that I may seek them out to read them?

[pldennison]

Much of modern education theory is based on the work of educator and theorist John Dewey.

Dewey was a consummate humanist. (NTTAWWT.)

Humanism is a system whose premises put it at odds with Christianity.

Ergo, Christians in the public schools are fed to a greater or lesser extent a mental diet based in humanist thought, which contravenes their values and wishes.

It may not be the best argument, but it's an argument. ;)

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by slythe

This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting. I always thought that we brought up our chldren to become better than us, to live better than us. To do this, they will have to learn from those whose knowledge surpasses our own. [/B]

I couldn't pass this one up either. Like the gov't can raise our kids better than we can. Great they can all grow to be like our illustrious leader Slick Willie. And they can learn how to dodge bullets and how to disarm a pipe bomb before it goes. Come on slythe what the heck are you on? Your whole concept is bull.

I personally think public schools should be done away too. Private schools will be better than public anyday. That way a parent can send his children to a school that shares the belief of the family be it Jewish, Athiest, Muslim, Christian or whatever the parents see fit. Not the gov't the gov't doesn't know how to run itself much less teach our kids.

At least bring back the vouchers. Oh I forgot Gore doesn't like them he thinks he and his stupid cronies can do a better job of raising and teaching your kids than you can.

[Gaudere]

Just click on the little search icon at the bottom of the post, Lib, if you want to see all of someone's posts.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
You appear to be confusing two issues. One is what is to be taught in public schools. The other is what the purpose is in having schooling be a function of the government altogether, as opposed to the private responsibility of the parents.

But Izzy, all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish. The government's role in providing schools is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive a minimum (depressingly minimum in some instances) education regardless of personal circumstances.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
You appear to be confusing two issues. One is what is to be taught in public schools. The other is what the purpose is in having schooling be a function of the government altogether, as opposed to the private responsibility of the parents.

But Izzy, all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish. The government's role in providing schools is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive a minimum (depressingly minimum in some instances) education regardless of personal circumstances.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Ptahlis But Izzy, all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish. The government's role in providing schools is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive a minimum (depressingly minimum in some instances) education regardless of personal circumstances.[/B]Your final sentence suggests that you do not agree with slythe, and would respond to Libertarian differently. That's fine. I was responding to Slythe.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill

I couldn't pass this one up either. Like the gov't can raise our kids better than we can. Great they can all grow to be like our illustrious leader Slick Willie. And they can learn how to dodge bullets and how to disarm a pipe bomb before it goes.


Well, nothing like a little hyperbole to spice things up, eh Bill? As said before, you have every right to take your kid out of public schools and home school them if you wish. You can send them to private schools if you like. So long as they can read, write, and do basic math you are pretty much covered. If you want to feed them a steady diet of the teachings of Xorkon the Space Poodle, you may do so. The government has no interest in raising your kids. They will educate them to some degree if you like, but then again, it's your choice.

Pipe bombs and bullet dodging may very well be a factor in some of the worst schools out there, but of course you are characterizing the whole system by the bottom of the barrel example. I could just as validly note that children receive far more formalized instruction regarding explosives and weaponry from those little militia group campouts that gun nuts and the religious right are so fond of. Neither statement is particularly fair.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Your final sentence suggests that you do not agree with slythe, and would respond to Libertarian differently. That's fine. I was responding to Slythe.

Ok. Although I do not disagree with slythe at all. When I say "minimum" I mean that there is a bare minimum that must be provided, not that minimum is the aim.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
I could just as validly note that children receive far more formalized instruction regarding explosives and weaponry from those little militia group campouts that gun nuts and the religious right are so fond of. Neither statement is particularly fair. [/B]Your statement is slanderous and categorically false. What religious right groups have demonstrated any fondness for militia groups? Unless you mean Branch Davidians and the like. I think not.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Originally posted by Ptahlis
I could just as validly note that children receive far more formalized instruction regarding explosives and weaponry from those little militia group campouts that gun nuts and the religious right are so fond of. Neither statement is particularly fair. Your statement is slanderous and categorically false. What religious right groups have demonstrated any fondness for militia groups? Unless you mean Branch Davidians and the like. I think not. [/B]

Exactly my point Izzy. I was replying to Wildest Bill, who said: "Great they can all grow to be like our illustrious leader Slick Willie. And they can learn how to dodge bullets and how to disarm a pipe bomb before it goes." That's how he categorized public schools, and I said that it was as valid and fair as my statement above. Wildest Bill hardly demonstrated any schools that instruct students in the fine arts of spin doctoring, guerilla tactics, or bomb disposal either.

[Czarcasm]

I guess it's not enough anymore to just disagree with how public schools are run. They must be demonized, condemned and abandoned. They are not teaching that different sexual orientations exist, they are "promoting homosexuality!" They are not teaching that there are different cultures out there with different religious beliefs, they are "teaching humanism or satanism!" They are not teaching kids how their bodies work and how to avoid certain situations and even diseases, they are "telling kids to go out and have all sorts of deviant sex!"

I am sick and tired of people who are incapable of having simple disagreements. We now demonize government, politicians of the wrong party, public schools, people of the wrong sexual orientation, etc. ad infinitum.
While I realize that blind hatred is much easier to handle than trying to learn about a situation, I always expect the best from the SDMBers. If people like Wildest Bill would other to go to school board meetings, instead of taking the easy way out, the schools might improve.

IMHO, of course.

[Wildest Bill]

Fair enough slythe,

I should go more.

But I don't think privatizing schools is taking the easy way out. I think it would be the way to improve education of our children. Tell me one thing the gov't does better than the private sector? Hmmm?

I don't know if you gave an answer but I bet you can't think of one. So couldn't the private sector do a better job than the gov't in teaching kids? If I remember right, home school kids were kicking tail in the national spelling contest were they not?

[Czarcasm]

Oh great ghod. That old argument.
Me first!

Head Start.

Who's next to finally bury this hoary "fact"?

[IzzyR]

Ptahlis:all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish.Strangely, this very same argument could also be applied to the issue of teaching religion in public schools. Would you apply it in this context?I was replying to Wildest Bill, who said: "Great they can all grow to be like our illustrious leader Slick Willie. And they can learn how to dodge bullets and how to disarm a pipe bomb before it goes." That's how he categorized public schools, and I said that it was as valid and fair as my statement aboveBig difference. Wildest Bill represented all schools by their worst element, engaging on hyperbole. As you said earlier "Pipe bombs and bullet dodging may very well be a factor in some of the worst schools out there, but of course you are characterizing the whole system by the bottom of the barrel example." By contrast, there is no connection at all betwen the religious right and the militia movement, and your statement that the religious right "are so fond of" them is patently false. The only connection between these two groups is that left wingers are opposed to both.Although I do not disagree with slythe at all. When I say "minimum" I mean that there is a bare minimum that must be provided, not that minimum is the aim.Well then the same point that applies to slythe applies to you. Whether you agree with it (i.e. the aims of the school system) or not, a person living in a country whose education system is designed, in large part, to make sure that his children do not share his worldview, can feel persecuted without suffering from a "disingenuous persecution complex".

[redtail23]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I could just as validly note that children receive far more formalized instruction regarding explosives and weaponry from those little militia group campouts that gun nuts and the religious right are so fond of. Neither statement is particularly fair. Your statement is slanderous and categorically false. What religious right groups have demonstrated any fondness for militia groups? Unless you mean Branch Davidians and the like. I think not. [/QUOTE]
Big difference. Wildest Bill represented all schools by their worst element, engaging on hyperbole. As you said earlier "Pipe bombs and bullet dodging may very well be a factor in some of the worst schools out there, but of course you are characterizing the whole system by the bottom of the barrel example." By contrast, there is no connection at all betwen the religious right and the militia movement, and your statement that the religious right "are so fond of" them is patently false. The only connection between these two groups is that left wingers are opposed to both.[/quote]
Erm, excuse. Ever heard of the Identity Christians?

They are right-wing politically, they are fundamentalist Christian religiously, and some of them are very involved with militia groups & such. In other words, there is definitely a link between some members of the religious right and some members of the militia movement. That does not mean that the religious right, in general, approves or supports militias.

Please note that I am agreeing with Ptahlis' *original* intent, which was to point out that these sorts of inflammatory statements are neither appropriate nor accurate. Ptahlis and Wildest Bill did EXACTLY the same thing, i.e., use an extreme example and falsely generalize to the whole.

However, his statement was, in fact, not slanderous and categorically false. Unless you consider any Christian group who has less than some minimum membership level that you've set or with whom you disagree to be "Branch Davidians and the like" and by implication to therefore not be a part of the religious right. That's a nifty opinion, but in no way invalidates Ptahlis' statement.

Many of these CI groups are small, but en masse they're pretty scary.

[lawoot]

It's simple. I don't want my kids learning about your religion in PUBLIC school. If I want to do that, I'll go to your church. And if your family's religious teaching is so weak that attending a public school is going to screw up your family, then I'd say that's your church's fault, not the school's. Your Kid can pray at home all he wants to BEFORE he goes to school. Your kid can pray IN SCHOOL all he wants to (as long as he isn't disrupting/disturbing others). Your kid can pray all he wants to when he gets HOME from school. So why isn't this enough?

And why is my believing this should be upheld 'persecution'?

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Ptahlis:all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish.Strangely, this very same argument could also be applied to the issue of teaching religion in public schools. Would you apply it in this context?


Under our constitution? No.


I was replying to Wildest Bill, who said: "Great they can all grow to be like our illustrious leader Slick Willie. And they can learn how to dodge bullets and how to disarm a pipe bomb before it goes." That's how he categorized public schools, and I said that it was as valid and fair as my statement aboveBig difference. Wildest Bill represented all schools by their worst element, engaging on hyperbole. As you said earlier "Pipe bombs and bullet dodging may very well be a factor in some of the worst schools out there, but of course you are characterizing the whole system by the bottom of the barrel example." By contrast, there is no connection at all betwen the religious right and the militia movement, and your statement that the religious right "are so fond of" them is patently false. The only connection between these two groups is that left wingers are opposed to both.


Some leftist elements have long noted that there seems to be quite a strong connection between the religious right and the militia movement. I would not define the religious right by the militia movement in the way that Izzy characterized public schools by the most violent ones. However, I did not reach into thin air to get the idea that there is a relationship between many members of these two ideological circles. Besides the Waco folks you already noted, there are the Freemen, who espouse the lovely philosophies embodied in the Christian Identity movement, as well as the Embassy of Heaven folks. Of course there was also the alliance between Bo Gritz, militia sympathizer and lecturer, and David Duke, that wonderful Christian man, whose public embrace of the KKK's principles garnered him enough popularity to run for president on the Populist party's ticket. Many of the militia groups have worked out specific theological platforms in addition to common-law and Constitutional doctrines for themselves, and The protocols of the Elders of Zion is a rallying call for militias worried about the New World Order as well as the various anti-semitic Christian groups out there. Indeed, the only book I have heard mentioned more among those two groups is the Bible itself. Christian separatists, millenialists, and patriots seem to differ in many cases only as to whether violence is approved of.

Some URL's that SurfWatch didn't have blocked:
http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9607/militia.html
http://www.isrp.org/articles4/militia.html
http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9610/militias.html
http://www.nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/spectrum/

In any case, the fanatical fringe of the religious right is not a fair representation of the group as a whole, in the same manner that the most violent inner city schools are not a fair representation of the public school system.


Whether you agree with it (i.e. the aims of the school system) or not, a person living in a country whose education system is designed, in large part, to make sure that his children do not share his worldview, can feel persecuted without suffering from a "disingenuous persecution complex". [/B]

I still fail to see how not advocating a religion is "designed, in large part, to make sure that his children do not share his worldview." Remaining neutral on an issue is not the same thing as denouncing it, and I do not believe the "either with us or against us" argument is valid. When the government says "your religion will not be promoted," and the practitioner equates that with persecution, then I have to disagree.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
Originally posted by IzzyR
Ptahlis:all the government requires is that the children be schooled. The only choice removed is that of willfully keeping children ignorant and uneducated. The parents are free to home school, or send the kids off to a private school if they wish.Strangely, this very same argument could also be applied to the issue of teaching religion in public schools. Would you apply it in this context?


Under our constitution? No.[/quote]I mean in the context of this thread. Many people who favor a strict interpretation of Church/State separation are fond of pointing to the coersive nature of prayer in schools or football games etc. The argument that you give here, if applied consistently, would also weaken the argument against school prayer and the like. Your latest statement implies that you would inherently agree with this, but are constrained by our constitution. I am inclined to think that this was not your intention.Some leftist elements have long noted that there seems to be quite a strong connection between the religious right and the militia movement............(This point was also made earlier by redtail23). Are all the people and movements that you list actually religious movements, or merely attempts to reconcile their agendas with their religion by modifying their religion? I must confess that I'm not familiar with most of the movements that you describe, but I do know that David Duke is not in any way a religious figure. In any event, I think there is no continuum between what is commonly referred to as the Christian Right (Falwell, Robertson etc.) and these groups, which are completely distinct. I don't think these groups are even "the fanatical fringe of the religious right" in a sense of being the same only much more so. This is not the case with public schools, which are distinguished only by the place that they occupy on the good-bad-worse scale. (This is an insignificant point - arguing about implications of words that you don't actually espouse, and only used to make a point. So I don't propose to continue with this after you respond, should you wish to do so.)I would not define the religious right by the militia movement in the way that Izzy characterized public schools by the most violent ones.I assume that should read Wildest Bill. Never confuse Wildest Bill with Izzy, who is actually a relatively calm guy.I still fail to see how not advocating a religion is "designed, in large part, to make sure that his children do not share his worldview." Remaining neutral on an issue is not the same thing as denouncing it, and I do not believe the "either with us or against us" argument is valid. When the government says "your religion will not be promoted," and the practitioner equates that with persecution, then I have to disagree.I initially responded to the point made by slythe, which you said you agree with. Your position is presently unclear. What is better about public schools than schools that the parents chose?

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I mean in the context of this thread. Many people who favor a strict interpretation of Church/State separation are fond of pointing to the coersive nature of prayer in schools or football games etc. The argument that you give here, if applied consistently, would also weaken the argument against school prayer and the like. Your latest statement implies that you would inherently agree with this, but are constrained by our constitution. I am inclined to think that this was not your intention.

If I read you right this time, and your point is about the nature of coersion inherent in banning prayer and proselytizing in schools, then we have been talking past one another. Plainly put, I think of it like this:

The state has decided, whether rightly or not, that there is a necessary bare minimum set of skills and knowledge needed to produce a useful citizen in most cases. The state requires that children receive instruction to meet these standards. (Wrangling over the particulars of the standards, as well as exceptional cases like mental retardation and the like are matters for another thread.) The state has also provided a public education system that attempts to provide the necessary education should the parents be unable or unwilling to do so. Parents are afforded the opportunity to educate the children themselves, or send them to privately run institutions if they like. This whole setup is indeed coercive to the extent that parents lose the right to have an uneducated child, as well as that taxes are levied on the populace to support it. I personally have no problems with this level of coersion. Unlike Libertarian and his political brethren, I dismiss the idea of a workable government that is free from coersion of some sort, and I agree with the implied social contract of taxation in a representative system. I also do not equate all forms of coersion, and agree with the assessment that it is in its own necessary self interest that the state acts to insure itself of a literate populace.

Regarding religion, however, the government's specific coersion is different. In this case, it has taken the position that no state body can favor any particular belief within the religious arena. That means that individuals, when acting in any capacity that can reasonably be deemed officially sanctioned by the school, must refrain from promoting or denigrating specific religious beliefs or belief in general. This prohibition against prayer and proselytizing can be viewed as coersion in that the state is forbidding the practice of religion in a specific situation. The converse is that allowing same would constitute coersion as well, in that a public institution, or representative of same, would be endorsing a particular religious view to a captive audience of impressionable children.

Either way, some coersion is unavoidable. I believe that when weighing the individual rights of all involved, the current SOCAS arrangement uses the least amount of coersion while safeguarding the most important rights. Parents and churches are still free to provide any religious instruction they see fit, doctrinal disputes between competing faiths are kept out of the classroom, and if there are prejudices or altercations between people of varying belief, they will arise from sources other than the curricula of the school systems. The abuses of a marriage between state and religion are not by any means universal, but there are enough examples to show that it can lead to extreme intolerance and persecution of those who dissent.

I am not trying to put forth the argument that state prohibition of religious practices is noncoercive in nature. Any prohibition of anything by an authority is coercive by definition. What I am saying is that the degree of coersion is both reasonable and acceptable, especially when compared to its opposite.


Are all the people and movements that you list actually religious movements, or merely attempts to reconcile their agendas with their religion by modifying their religion?... In any event, I think there is no continuum between what is commonly referred to as the Christian Right (Falwell, Robertson etc.) and these groups, which are completely distinct. I don't think these groups are even "the fanatical fringe of the religious right" in a sense of being the same only much more so.

Well, suffice it to say that I agree with you in most cases. I think there are a lot of folks within these organizations that attempt to use religion as a cloak of righteousness to clothe an ugly agenda, as is the case with the KKK. Nor do I think that there is an unbroken continuum between the bulk of these groups and what is traditionally known as the religious right. Whether or not they can be legitimately viewed as coming under the broad heading of the religious right largely depends on who is doing the defining. Certainly there are doctrinal similarities between some of these movements and some of the more fundamental factions of the religious right, but I should think that many mainstream Christians wouldn't even truly consider these groups Christian at all, let alone a subset of Christianity. There is enough overlap between the mainstream of the religious right and these groups in both political philosophy and religious philosophy that a leftist can conclude that these groups are merely splinters of the more moderate whole. On the other hand, the moderate mainstream within the religious right can justifiably point to the numerous differences between their thoughts, aims, and methods to say "Hey, these guys are not us!" It would be like a Muslim saying that Mormons are Christians, while a Baptist might say they certainly are not. It just depends on how inclusive or exclusive you want to make the term "Religious Right." The way I personally see it, these groups generally take Christian doctrine and rightist politics and twist them so far from their original forms that I no longer consider them to be either Christian or right. They are so far right of right that they are off the page.



Never confuse Wildest Bill with Izzy, who is actually a relatively calm guy.

Oops! Sorry about that. Regardless of the typo, I was and am aware that those were his points and not yours.


What is better about public schools than schools that the parents chose?

Well, while I could not weigh every private school against every public school, I would have to say that there is nothing at all better about public schools. I am not saying that public schools are in any way better than a private school selected by the parents.

After rereading the thread, I can see why you are asking me this question. slythe's comment about broadening our children's educations was one I agree with as a response against those elements in society that would fail to instruct their children in the basics of science regarding biology, geology, evolution, and other subjects that some fundamentalists think threaten their faith. Ignoring the evidence and scientific consensus is IMHO equivalent to forcibly burying a child's head in the sand. It is this type of willful ignorance that the state's minimum standards of education should address, and it is why I brought that argument into the thread.

Since upon rereading I see that slythe's comment is actually in response to Libertarian's free market suggestion, I would have to rephrase somewhat. I do indeed feel that the public school system is very likely a better option than a free market one, but for reasons other than slythe's. A free market school system that was nevertheless held up to a set of minimum standards (which Libertarian would doubtless object to) would not be one I would object to on the basis of content, whether religion were involved or not.

[Czarcasm]

Actually, only a small part of my response was to Lib's "free market" idea. I was, for the most part, responding to Wild Bill. But let's talk about the supposed "free market" idea for a bit.
The public school system as it is currently run has limitations that private schools do not. They have to take all students at the onset, provide for the needs of the many types of disabilities that are possible, answer to the whims of politicians and voters(some of whom might not even have children in the system at all!), and constantly take attacks from all sides. Taking what monies are available from the public schools to create vouchers for private schools, taking the best and most-behaved of the students, teaching what a small group has deemed to be sufficient without interference from the various local, regional, county, state and federal governments-how the bloody hell can you say that said "competition" can be called "fair", or even more ridiculous "helpful" to the public school system.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
If I read you right this time, and your point is about the nature of coersion inherent in banning prayer and proselytizing in schools, then we have been talking past one another.We still are. My point was not about the coersive nature of non-religion in public schools. It was about the idea implicit in the words of slythe that "one of the purposes of school is to broaden the horizons of a child. This cannot be done if the only reading the child is allowed is that material the parents find familiar and comforting". This implies that the purpose of the school is to expose the child to material that the parents find unfamiliar and discomforting. And that since the parents would obviously not chose to do this, we must establish public schools which will. I find this to be a coersive act similar to exposing the child to a religion that the parents find unfamiliar and discomforting. When you expressed the notion that its no big deal because the government is not forcing anyone to attend public school, I extended the analogy to religion. However, as it now seems that you are not endorsing the sentiment expressed by slythe, and meant something a bit different, this issue may be moot.slythe's comment about broadening our children's educations was one I agree with as a response against those elements in society that would fail to instruct their children in the basics of science regarding biology, geology, evolution, and other subjects that some fundamentalists think threaten their faith. Ignoring the evidence and scientific consensus is IMHO equivalent to forcibly burying a child's head in the sand.Okay. But you would agree that at least from the perspective of such a fundamentalist parent, they would have grounds to feel persecuted. You would of course feel that this persecution is justified - "need to give the child an opportunity" etc. But it is not fair to do this and then claim that such a parent has a "disingenuous persecution complex".

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Okay. But you would agree that at least from the perspective of such a fundamentalist parent, they would have grounds to feel persecuted. You would of course feel that this persecution is justified - "need to give the child an opportunity" etc. But it is not fair to do this and then claim that such a parent has a "disingenuous persecution complex".

A parent who holds young earth creationism as a tenet of religious faith may in fact genuinely feel persecuted if his child is taught evolution, geology, or cosmology. Whether he justifiably feels persecuted is open to debate. I would contend that his justification for feeling persecuted is nonexistant, in that science is a system built on evidence, and when properly done does not concern itself with other considerations.

As to parents who feel persecuted because the school system will not endorse their prayers, their feelings are even less justifiable IMO. They are merely being denied the opportunity to use the state to elevate their beliefs over other beliefs. Lack of favoritism is not persecution.

[redtail23]

OK, OK, I know I should probably let this go, but it's jut driving me nuts...

The difference between the mainstream Religious Right and the Christian Identity movement is quite often (please note that I did NOT say 'always') one of degree, not kind. That is NOT to say that the two are identical or that the RR in general holds the exact same beliefs as the CI, but rather that the Identity Christians are indeed the far fringe of the RR movement.


In the first place, y'all seem to be saying that since these people don't belong to mainstream churches, but rather are members of small, fringe congregations, they are not 'real Christians', especially since most mainstreamers probably would agree with that assessment. Got news for ya, boyos. Christians have been pointing fingers at each other and yelling "Us Christian, You Not" since the religion started. (Which religion, incidentally, began as a small wacko cult on the extremist fringes of Judaism.) Hell's bells, a large chunk of the Pauline writings in the New Testament are nothing more than half of one of these arguments. Yeah, many mainstream U.S. Christians would deny association with the CI groups, just as they deny association with the Latter Day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Copts, and (in many instances) any other sect besides their own.

These people consider themselves Christian, and (as far as I've been able to determine) they follow the basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity, albeit with their own bizarre quirks thrown in. IOW, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and calls itself a duck...who are you to say that it's not a duck, just because you don't like the way it quacks?


In the next place, y'all seem to be saying that they're not a 'real religious movement' because they have a socio-political agenda, or because they "merely [attempt] to reconcile their agendas with their religion by modifying their religion". Religions almost always change to meet the needs of those who belong. If you're going to deny 'real religion' status to everything that began with a socio-political agenda or that changed the religion to meet socio-political needs, you've got to toss out a bunch of those mainstream religions as well, y'know: Church of England (Anglicans) and all of their offshoots (remember Henry VIII and his wives?); the Puritans and their descendants; pretty much all of the Protestants, actually, since much of Martin Luther's motivation was socio-political as well as religious; and the Southern Baptists (the issue of slavery being a prime cause in that split), will do for a start. I won't even start into Falwell, Robertson, et.al, founders of the RR movement, who blatantly use their religion (or the bits & pieces they need, anyway) to promote their political careers.

The roots of the CI movement were in basic Christianity, with the added notion that Anglo-Saxons were the 'chosen people' and (IIRC) one of those ubiquitous lost tribes of Israel. According to their interpretation, they have Biblical justifications for those beliefs. Shall I start listing all of the Christian sects that consider their followers to be the 'chosen people', the 'only saved', etc etc etc? Oh wait, that would pretty much be all of them, wouldn't it? Shall I start listing all of the Christian sects that have used Biblical principles to justify their actions and/or socio-political agendas? Oh wait, that would again be most all of them, huh?


So on those grounds, I'm going to precede on the premise that these are, indeed, Real Christian Religions (TM), despite your snobbery. As I stated before, these guys are politically right-wing (way, way, right!) and religiously Christian. They share many of the motivations, purposes and goals of the RR - they decry the degeneration of our culture, call for a return to Biblical morality (of course, their definition of 'moral' is a bit different than standard), would like to make this nation a theocracy (of course they'd argue over *whose* version), so on and so forth. They just want to use more extreme methods to reach their more extreme ends - as I said, a difference in degree rather than kind. In fact, they even (please note clever segue back to the OP ;)) make the same claims of persecution. Of course, these poor folks are even more persecuted, because they & their kids aren't only subjected to unChristian, immoral atheism, but ALSO unChristian, immoral mongrelism, but hey.


As previously stated, I know that the mainstream RR doesn't share ALL of their goals and beliefs, but there is definitely some common ground there. On what grounds do YOU separate these folks out from the herd?

If you're gonna try to do that, please explain the following:

What is the difference between Identity Christians, who advocate the use of violence and terrorism to promote theocracy, and Operation Rescue, who advocate the use of violence and terrorism to promote theocracy? Operation Rescue is, at least tacitly, admitted as part of the RR movement.

What is the difference between David Duke, a politician who is Christian and who at one point advocated racism but has since rescinded those statements, and Jerry Falwell, a Christian politican who at one point advocated anti-semitism, but has since rescinded those statements?

What is the difference between a member of a CI church, who will tell you that Jews are the spawn of Satan, and my Southern Baptist neighbor, who will be glad to explain to you that Jews are evil, soulless, God-killers? (Not to mention my Church of Christ mother-in-law, who will tell you all about how the evil Jews are trying to take over the world. :rolleyes: ) Ask most any average fundamentalist Christian & they'll tell you the same sort of thing. Those church organizations will say that it's not part of the religion, but it's certainly what the churches are teaching.

What is the difference between a CI church that refuses to allow blacks as members and a Southern Baptist church that does the same? (The one my spouse went to with his family, if you're wondering.)


If you answer all those, I'll be glad to find some more. :)

Really, I think that y'all are seriously naive or something. I'll agree that some of it may be perspective, but I think some of that perspective may be geographical as much as religious or political. Y'all don't live in the Bible Belt, do you? I suspect that if you did, you'd see a lot more similarity between these groups than you'd like to believe.

Well, that, and I suspect that y'all just don't want to associate these groups with Christianity or with the right-wing conservatives, because y'all belong to or relate to those groups, and y'all don't want to be personally associated with these nuts. Tell ya what: I won't associate either of you with these whacks if you don't associate me with the Animal Farm feminists. Deal? :)