So what do you think the 1st Amendment means?
You are so far removed from reality that I can’t comprehend it. The people you describe are EXACTLY the same people who vote for White Shariah lunatics like Pence. The people you describe are EXACTLY the kind of people who think gays are evil, Muslims are Satanists, and Trump is the most honest man on Earth.
And guess what? CHRISTIANS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO TURNED ME AGAINST CHRIST.
I HAVE met them, and what they taught me is that Christians HATE anyone who isn’t EXACTLY like them. Half the time, Christians hate other Christians just as much as they hate the “fags” and the “Muslims.” Their hatred, manipulation, and CONTEMPTIBLE STUPIDITY are nothing short of breathtaking.
Christianity is a boot on humanity’s neck, and if you believe otherwise you are the disease, not the cure. And if you have any doubts whatsoever, all you have to do is take one look at the “evangelical-church-going Followers of Christ” and see how they line up to worship the most hateful, dishonest, perverted goddamned narcissist in America’s history, while COMPLETELY jettisoning their fake morality and their credibility along with it.
I’ve met plenty of Christians, and they are the most evil, manipulative, and dishonest people on God’s green Earth. The faster Christianity ceases to exist, the better of we all will be.
Ha! Hahaha! Oh, geez, wow… That’s a good one.
The Retard Party has rolled over for every other hateful, dishonest, irresponsible, destructive thing Trump has done so far. The man sucks Putin’s dick in front of the whole world and the losers STILL line up to defend him. Oh, and the orange fuckwit ALREADY violated the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution).
If you had said this at any time before 2016, I would have believed it. Now it just sounds like a sick joke, because the subhuman goddamned filth who voted for this joker will let him get away with ANYTHING.
The people I go to church with sure aren’t like that. However, I have encountered people like this and can definitely understand where you’re coming from. 
Perhaps an appropriate article for the discussion. It claims that religious conservatives aren’t wanting to take over government at all, but dial down the government interfering in cultural discussions. They want the Federal government to become less powerful, not more powerful. They seem to think that a powerful government is shifting culture away from them and a less powerful government would give them more of an opportunity to culturally retrench. Anyway, you can read the article for yourself.
And keeping in that tone, I do hear much more dehumanizing language about Christianity from non-Christians than vice versa. For instance, if a church-goer were to say what JB99 said only applied to atheists in most churches, they would be asked to have a serious discussion with the pastor about their issues and how they interact with the world. I think the fact that such discourse from the non-religious is becoming more common and even lauded in some circles has some Christians very scared about a powerful government in the hands of people who despise them.
The problem with your attempt at defense, (which mirrors the problem of those who want to lump all Christians into one megalithic organization), is that Christianity is so large, comprising so many groups of millions of people, that neither the efforts of those who would pretend that all Christians were the same nor your effort to use the word to apply only to a tiny subsection of Christians, (and, then, only the “good” ones), make any sense.
The clowns of Westboro are Christians, just bad ones.
Even your definition fails, from my perspective. Both Billy Graham and Franklin Graham would meet the definition you provided. Billy was a pretty good soul (with a mild touch of anti-semitism that he probably picked up from where he was raised and educated). He does not seem to have passed on any of his good qualities to his judgmental, xenophobic, hate spewing son. They were/are both a “born-again, Bible-reading, regularly-attending, evangelical-church-going Follower of (their idea of) Christ”.
The people who dismiss all Christianity, probably have “met” Christians–most likely those in the spirit and image of Franklin Graham.
Wow. What a joke. I am perpetually amazed that you people can control all of Western civilization for over a millennia, and still SOMEHOW believe that you are the victims.
YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIMS. YOU ARE THE OPPRESSORS.
But let’s look at this another way: “Christians are scared of a powerful government that despises them.” Yeah, just like white slaveowners were scared of black people in government… and for the exact same reasons.
WHEN YOU TREAT PEOPLE LIKE SUBHUMANS, DON’T ACT SURPRISED WHEN THEY REACT ACCORDINGLY.
I mean, wow, did that never click in their tiny little pea brains that maybe - just maybe - people would resent being treated like filth? Did it never enter your thick goddamned skulls that - maybe - people don’t like being forced into obedience?
And now the White Sharia majority is afraid of losing power because that would mean the people they mistreated might have the chance for revenge? WHOOPS! Guess you should have thought of that BEFORE you enslaved humanity.
senoy, there is an element among some Evangelical Christians that very much wants the government to do more. They want less power for the government when it bars them from imposing their will on society and more power for the government when it supports their desires.
Kasich is a fairly decent governor of Ohio, but a couple of years ago when the legislature created a program that would involve bringing in groups from outside the education system to assist in providing schools with mentoring assistance, Kasich unilaterally declared that the NGOs would have to be affiliated with a “faith based organization.”
Nothing in the legislation demanded that requirement, that was Kasich and a couple of his religious buddies imposing rules that were not required. (There was a fig leaf in the rules prohibiting any preaching or proselytizing, but there was no need to limit which groups could volunteer beyond a belief by Kasich that one has to be religious to do good.)
Meh.
If you note that a number of Christians you’ve met have been evil, I see no reason to doubt you.
When you jump from there to an absolute condemnation the way you that have, you simply indicate that your opinion is nothing more than an emotional reaction to some personal interactions, not worthy of serious consideration.
You’ve obviously never opened a history book, have you?
I think it might be easy to claim that the arc of Christendom has largely been a very positive thing for much of humanity. The pre-Christian world was hardly a beacon of freedom and civil rights. It’s easy to pan Christianity as the bringer of all ills simply because it’s the largest Western religion, but it’s disingenous to pan it for all of the West’s failings without lauding it for its successes. Christendom brought us the scientific revolution and human rights (Locke’s views were largely the result of his Socinian theology and the English Bill of Rights and later American Bill of Rights were largely derived from Locke’s treatises.) It globalized the world and created the circumstances for free-thought and laid a strong basis for western prosperity. I think that it’s fair to point out where it has fallen short of its own rhetoric and being vocal about places where it has much work to do, but craving its destruction without acknowledging its positive contributions is almost bordering on lunacy.
It’s easy to look at Christendom’s shortcomings (of which there were many) and see how far from the ideal it left us, but one would be remiss if they didn’t also acknowledge how far along it brought us.
I don’t despite Christians. I am annoyed by the ones who want to convert me, which seems to be most of them.
While common revisionist, there were a few examples in history including the pre-muslim middle east.
Locke spoke around the subject, because he lived in a world where the costs of being a heretic was anathema as it still mostly is in our society. The battle between Socinianism and Arianism in his beliefs were required by the place and time he lived, but his beliefs were not born out of a unique Christian view but rather in conflict with it.
One only has to look at the price Thomas Paine paid for his deism to see how this was still true during the foundation. If one considers evidence like Thomas Jefferson bible and the fact that by rejection of a King were counter to most common forms of Christianity at the time it is probably more accurate to say that a rebellion against the common tenants of the time was a larger influence.
Sir Coke, while a religious man, based his entire Calvinist argument based on natural law that pre-dated even the laws of Moses. The core concepts were external to religious canon.
Thus it become a problem claiming that it is ‘Christian’ when it is best described as ideas that were penned by people who happened to be Christian’.
While some forms of Christianity have now been built around these ideals, it is probably more objectively described as arising out of the effects of the canon and not directly due to those beliefs.
Exactly, most people do not object to the beliefs of others, they object to others trying to force their beliefs on others. I don’t even mind conversion attempts but I do have serious problems with using the government as a tool to legislate adherence to another groups religious ideals.
I actually rally when people try to restrict the right of Christians to practice their own faith within their personal lives as religious freedom is the goal.
rat avatar,
I think that your view of Locke is bordering dangerously close to a No True Scotsman. Firstly, you say that he wouldn’t dare be a heretic while at the same time giving a quote that is defending his heresy. I don’t think that you’re really comprehending the theological world of the late 17th century. The CoE was hardly a monolithic entity where everyone marched in lockstep. Various theological positions were taken by differing people and they were generally fought in public. Post-Glorious Revolution and the Toleration Act, non-mainline theologies were coming into their own. This was the era of the newsbook and the pamphlet and the public airing of previously private theological disagreements. Locke was no stranger to these arguments and we know that he studied and supported the Socinians. We also know that he wasn’t the first Socinian to advocate for something akin to human rights. They were known for their views of religious toleration and they had fought against the institution of serfdom in Eastern Europe. Przypkowski-a Polish Socinian-was arguing for religious tolerance as early as 1646 and couched his argument in the idea of equality of men and guarantor of freedom-words which echo later human rights authors and certainly Locke. So what we do know is that Locke publicly expressed his admiration of Socinianism, his work largely echoes Socinian ideas yet you somehow come to the conclusion that his work is ‘in spite of’ his Christian values rather than ‘because of.’ I think that’s not what the evidence would have us believe.
And I would argue it is confirmation bias on you part to say that the concepts arouse from Christianity. While not exactly the same, what makes Christianity so better suited for the task and how do you explain: The Sumerian councils of elders, Solon, Cleisthenes, The twelve tables of Rome, Althing in Iceland, Iroquois, Lycurgus
It seems to be a fairly normal progression, or at least non-unique in general to move this direction.
You made a claim that is arose due to Christianity which in my mind is a claim that has zero evidence to back it up.
These ideas only arose by ignoring the canon, with back stories to justify it within that framework.
Yes, I stand by the claim that they arose due to Christianity. I didn’t say they could not possibly have arisen under some other belief system whether real or fictional, merely that they didn’t. I think that most people would claim that the foundation of modern human rights traces itself directly to Locke and we can trace Locke’s thoughts directly to Christianity. They arose directly because of Christianity. This doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have arisen elsewhere, maybe they could have. Who knows? We don’t exist in that fictional universe where some other belief system brought about human rights. In the universe we do live in though, human rights arose ‘due to’ Christianity.
So provide a cite that demonstrates the unique conditions of the Christian faith that support your claim.
Because I am not seeing it outside of an assertion that it should be accepted as truth. Maybe start with explaing why the Calvinists had to justify going outside the bible to even do this in the first place if it was Christianity that allowed it to arise.
Funny how all recent history has that as more of an “in spite of”, then.
Underneath the Christianity, all Christians are humans. And a lot of humans have good morals that are utterly independent of Christianity. (Which is to say they have any morals - Christianity is quite consistent in saying that people should be obedient to commands and instruction rather than exercising independent moral judgement about what’s good and bad.)
It’s my observation that the more strongly a person hews to their Christianity, the less concerned they are with things like human rights. This does not mean that all christians are assholes; there are quite a few very nice people who are very nice while they’re not acting on christian principles.
The people who are nice while focusing on their christian principles are much, much rarer.
I consider it very, very likely that persons who established human rights under the framework of christianity were doing so by taking personal philosophy and bending the dogma to match it. Kind of like how racists take their personal philosophy and bend the dogma to match it - the dogma can be bent either way, and doesn’t force either outcome. (Though there is an observable trend towards go dictatorial and oppressive - unsurprising since God’s kingdom isn’t a democracy of equals.)
Again, I’m not claiming that human rights could ONLY be brought about by Christianity. I’m sure I could conjecture 100 fictional belief systems that could possibly bring them about. What I am claiming though is that those 100 fictional belief systems did NOT bring them about. Christianity DID. We know this is so because I just explained why it was so. Locke was foundational to human rights and Christianity was fundamental to Locke’s conception of human rights. This is true. Without Christianity, maybe there would have been some sort of non-Christian, non-Locke who espoused some sort of human rights that caught on in fictional non-Christendom, but there wasn’t. It was Christianity that provided the basis for modern human rights, not some fictional conjectural belief system.