You’re not arguing that it’s confirmation bias, you’re demonstrating that it’s confirmation bias.
No. The law against feeding the homeless is not a law against Christianity, it’s a law intended to drive the homeless away from certain communities. Anyone who violates these laws–and good on them for doing so–will be arrested, whether their motivation is because they feel God compels them to do so, or whether they are just acting out of compassion for their less fortunate fellow humans. I personally know several atheists who volunteer feeding the homeless, generally alongside Christians. Fortunately that’s a legal activity here, but I suspect they’d be tempted to continue in the unlikely event it wasn’t. Again, I don’t know this for sure, but I would be willing to wager a fair amount of money that most if not all of the councilmen who passed these laws are churchgoers themselves. It’s not an attack on Christianity, it’s an attack on the poor. The Kosher analogy doesn’t work.
Can you give an example of that happened in real world America? Somebody being arrested for doing a Christian duty?
And it has to be a real Christian duty. Not something like “I’m allowed to drive over the speed limit if I’m driving to church.”
Some cities have indeed put laws into place restricting the feeding of the homeless. The ACLU is generally successful at challenging them. I’m sure ITR Champion is a member, since he is so concerned.
They mean “boo hoo, Christians don’t have absolute power anymore in government”
We seem to be going around in circles here. You say that the laws apply equally to people of all religions. I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to describe it as an attack on Christian values. It could simultaneously be reasonably described as an attack on Jewish values, Muslim values, liberal secular values, and for all I know, Zoroastrian values. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attack on Christian values. And I agree that the likely motivation of such laws has to do with harassing the poor, but that also doesn’t mean that it’s not an attach on Christian values. It’s not an either/or proposition.
What I said was “If a law outlaws an activity that many Christians view as a religious duty, then it’s perfectly reasonable to view that law as an attack on Christianity”; I never said that anybody has been arrested. But as it happens, I’ve already linked to an example of a group being threatened with arrest:
Numerous other examples of the government intruding on religious practice, or of groups attempting to do so. The Obama Administrations attempts to force religious groups to buy insurance that covers birth control, for instance, or the ACLU’s failed attempt to force a Catholic hospital to perform abortions.
They feel that they should have the right to do X (degrade women, ban abortion, kill gays) because X is a Christian value. They do not feel that anyone who wants to do X for another reason (Nazi, Muslim, or just wanting to) should be able to do it. And if anyone wants to do the same to Christians, they should definitely not have that right.
This is just absurd on it’s face.
Are you trying to make a joke out of this? The question was about attacks on Christianity SPECIFICALLY, not just religion in general.
To take your argument to it’s logical conclusion, the US Constitution is “an attack on Christian values”.
I fully agree that if the government was going around arresting people for being Christians, Christianity would be under attack. But that’s not happening.
The topic of this thread isn’t “Is it possible to imagine a situation where Christians were being attacked in America”. The topic is “Christian values in America are under attack, these days”. So you need to provide examples of things that are actually happening to stay on topic.
These are examples of people saying that something that is illegal is part of their Christian beliefs. If you allow people to define any act as part of their religion, where do you draw the line? Especially in the examples you’ve chosen where people are claiming it violates their religious beliefs just to be connected to somebody doing something. (The government wasn’t asking people to practice birth control or to perform abortions. It was just requiring them to participate in a program that might fund other people doing these things.)
Should I be allowed to claim I don’t have to pay federal taxes because some of my taxes will fund the military and my religion prohibits killing? Should I be allowed to claim I don’t have to pay my local property tax because the money will be used to fund a public school that has sex education? Should I be allowed to claim I don’t have to pay state taxes because the money will be used to pay for a highway that somebody will drive on en route to commit adultery? These examples show how unworkable your theory of religious exemption would be.
People should only be allowed a religious exemption if they’re being required to directly violate their religion. Nobody should be required to kill another person or perform an abortion or practice birth control or eat pork if they have a religious belief that prohibits them from doing so. But that doesn’t extend to paying taxes, even if those taxes will be used to fund those activities.
As for helping the homeless, the government does not prohibit that. The law just prohibits one specific method of helping the homeless. Other methods of offering help are legal. So the people involved could perform their religious duties without breaking the law if they chose to do so.
The law says I have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t mean I have the right to stand naked in the middle of the street while talking to people because that’s the method of speaking I prefer. The government can’t forbid me from speaking but it can regulate the method by which I speak.
No, I am not trying to make a joke. The word “specifically” does not appear in the OP, not capitalized, not uncapitalized. The question that the OP asked was “So, when US Christians say they are under attack, what do they mean?” An attack on religion generally is obviously also an attack on Christianity, since Christianity is a type of religion.
Okay, if we are going to start this little spiral, then let me point out that I (the OP) specifically referred to Christians saying they were under attack. So I think it’s fair to say it is CHRISTIANS that I am specifically referencing when I ask what they mean when they insist they are under attack.
Jeez.
Almost. It really means that other people are allowed to do things that the Christians don’t want them to be able to do. Like get married.
It’s amazing how many people think they should have the right to live their life as they see fit, but not extend that right to other people.
I’m a vegetarian. Should I be protesting the steakhouse next to our local women’s health center? Should I be able to call the people who go in there pro-death or death squads. And kill the cooks for burning animals? Even if my religion is anti-meat, does that make it right?
No. If there was an attempt to outlaw a religious duty like charity, then all or most instances of it would be outlawed. Outlawing one very specific expression of this duty is not the same thing as attacking the general duty. Especially when there is a logical reason to ban it (I disagree, but I do see there is a rationale behind the law.)
As a non-vegetarian, sure you should have the right to protest. But if you do something like obstruct the entrance the government that arrests you is being anti-obstructing entrances, not anti-vegetarian.
Agreed. One can still help the homeless, just not in that one particular way.
It would also be illegal to operate a “free restaurant” out of your house due to zoning regulations. That is NOT an attack on Christianity.
Plus, it’s absurd to think that restrictions on feeding the homeless are what people mean when they spout that Christianity is under attack. More likely they’re worried about gays having rights. Or not being able to erect a creche in the town square w/o also having to add displays for other religions.
Which is what I’ve done. Every article that I’ve linked to is about events that occurred in the past few years. (Except for the Roosevelt Administration’s attempt to outlaw kosher food, which occurred in the 1930’s.)
Okay, let’s see whether that’s true or not. One of the examples that I mentioned is when the ACLU sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in an attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The USCCB defended against the lawsuit, and the court tossed it out with prejudice. What is the “something that is illegal” in this particular case.
There is a large body of law in the United States that addresses that question.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson
What is my “theory of religious exemption”?
We can all quote out of context phrases from the Founding Fathers.
Does nothing to advance this discussion.
The context of that quote ITR is using wrong is here: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Wikipedia