Christianity has a long history of welcoming and recruiting from the poor and persecuted. A lot of that language has crept into the way Christians speak, even these days when they are rich and anything but persecuted.
It’s annoying sometimes but I forgive them.
:rolleyes: What, you mean, that “there can be no mention or recognition of religion by government at all”? What ITR Champion kvetched about a bit in post #5? That’s what you mean by “our problem”? And still you call that “persecution”? Defend that. :dubious: And since you speak there only of “religion,” please defend or explain also what makes Christianity in any way special in that regard. Is it a “problem” that U.S. government makes no recognition of Islam?! Does that alone make Muslims “persecuted” here? If not, why not?!
“Discrimination” would serve no better in this particular instance.
I say we stick with “persecution”, since many Christions don’t seem to mind using that word. Christian “Discrimination”, whether valid or not, isn’t another word-it’s another topic.
Do you have a single poster on this board using that word, or just the OP of the other thread stating that Christians say that? Now that I’ve backed down from that specific word, what’s the point of continuing to hammer away on it?
Maybe someone will come along, but otherwise it’s a party with no chicks. A war with no enemy. A bong with no weed.
There’s just no point, man.
How about “favored”? That seems to fit the actual situation a lot better than “persecuted”.
And where do they yell and talk about this persecution ? from their churches or from jail cells?
Well, you’ve backed away from the word, but not from the concept. As far as I can tell, you’re still arguing that there’s some form of injustice or harassment that is both unfair and directly harmful that Christians suffer from in the US.
Why don’t you tell us what you think the situation is, then we can all agree on what word best encapsulates it?
Your post there is looking quite unhinged.
No, in post #2 of this thread I wasn’t referring to post #5. I don’t know why you need me to clear that up, but there you go.
The “problem” that I clearly identified was the definition of the word “persecution”. Since different people have different versions of the word they are working from this “debate” will hinge on the definition of that word.
Just because you put it in bold doesn’t mean you can make me. I’ve agreed, not with your ravings but with some of the reasonable posters who have come into this thread, that the word “persecution” is probably a bit strong. A better reply to the OP of the other thread might have been for me to specifically avoid that word in my response.
If Muslims were the overwhelming majority of people in the US that would be a problem if the government tried to wipe Islam from the public square. Let’s try it in a majority Muslim country and see how they react. I bet it will be not pleasant!
It doesn’t matter-the fact is that many Christians use it, and ignoring that this reasoning drives them does no one any good.
well, it does matter - if they were unable to ‘talk about persecution’ from the very place they worship - that would make a pretty large statement about whether or not persecution was taking place.
They are not being prevented from worshipping in any way/shape or form - in fact, the laws allow for and protect some pretty ‘edgy’ worshiping practices - ones that end up causing death for children due to misguided ‘faith healing’ concepts as well as ‘snake handling’ and other similar ideas -
So, when the member of the group can show that their actual worshiping is being impacted negatively - then we might have a case for ‘persecution’.
How about “deprivilege”? Because that’s what really is happening. Christianity has had all kinds of special privileges, because it was the majority religion. Those privileges are now being challenged, or extended to others.
I don’t need to read the thread. The answer is no.
But for all the reasons that Ludovic, ITR Champion and Algher pointed out, they are wrong or at the very least they are defining a threshold of “persecution” or “discrimination” so low that it’s more like whining.
So the answer to the thread title question is “no”.
Great. We all agree that whatever it is isn’t persecution. So, do you retract your claim that religion cannot be mentioned by government? Because my kids public school history textbooks had big sections on religion, describing them all accurately and fairly, and no one objected.
Guess that may be because they don’t have a First Amendment. Actually, Christians did quite well in pre-War Iraq, and I believe that Turkey does well also. Bow, countries where government and religion are intertwined are a bit different.
But the crux of the matter is that many Christians believe they are being persecuted, causing them to interact with each other and with outsiders as if real persecution is taking place. Because of this a “war” mentality arises, cooperation is seen is capitulation, and groups rally rather than converse. Whether outsiders see it as persecution or not does nothing to solve the problem-outsiders saying to them “See? You aren’t really being persecuted” has zero effect when insiders are telling them they are.
I agree with that - but the OP question is if the ARE, in fact, being persecuted (to any degree) - not whether or not they ‘FEEL’ like they are.
Fact is, they want to be ‘persecuted’ as the bible tells them they will be ‘in christ’s name’ - so they look for anything they can to embolden their faith - to the point that some of them will even manufacture claims in order to ‘feel’ it.
Well, except Christians, who object to other religions being mentioned in anything other than purely negative terms, and to Christianity being mentioned in anything other than glowing terms.
I think that if another thread is started to find out how they are really treated, anything stronger than “How are Christians at a disadvantage in this country?” wil have responses similar to the ones in this thread.
I long ago accepted that, for most Christians, imposing Christianity on other people by force of government is indeed an important tenet of their religion. So, yeah, being a modern human being and supporting the separation of church and state does in fact “infringe” on their practice to some extent, but tough shit for them.