Christians--the persecuted majority

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by pldennison *

No, I asked you to provide evidence that they are. I don’t expect you to understand the difference.>1

Um, gee, by that criteria, all the groups are a minority. Jews, Christians, atheists, and Wiccans. All minorities. >2

If, in a system with more than two choices, some group has a plurality, they can in no significant way be said to be “a clear minority.” >3
Uh-huh. Hey, do you remember that time that you argued for three pages that the outdated concept of Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasian “races” was genetically valid and significant, and a bunch of other people handed you your ass, and you finally came to the realization that you had no idea what you were talking about, and then continued to attempt to argue that there was some significance in genetic homogenity at the population level, and people continued to hand you your ass?>4

Oh, remember when you called ~spoke a KKK apologizer and racist, too? >5**

>1 Ah, so you thought or knew that Christians were under 50% here, but you were just demanding evidence to rattle my cage- and because you did not think I could get it. REAL mature. I notice that AFTER the polls results, you then said “I said this all along” or some words to that extent. Hey, if you thought Christians were a plurality, but not a majority, why did you not say so-BEFORE? I smell weasel.

>2 yes, exactly. In the Likud- all political parties= “minoritiest”.

>3 The dictionary, Oxford in fact, as i quoted above, disagrees with you. Going for thos “Humpty Dumpty” definitions again, eh? Or thought that after you LOST, you could confuse the issue by argueing the definition of “Minority/majority”. The smell of weasel get stronger.

>4 Nope, I argued that there was a genetic differnce in 'raceS"- and i used the terms “Negroid” etc, in their still-perfectly-correct ANTHOPOLOGICAL meanings. However, it is very true, that my science was some 2 decades out of date, and thus i was wrong on several facts, which, after getting the new facts from Col, I then admitted my science was out-of-date & now wrong. That is one of the marks of ‘maturity"- aknowledging that you are wrong- try it sometime. I will point out, that Col AGREES with me about “genetic meaning” at the population level, and always has. “Populations” CAN have discrete genetic meaning, at some level. Yes, true, Col hates the use of "race’ to refer to these “populations”- but that is a matter of terminology. Col- would you explain about populations to our sub-literate freind here?

>5- Never called him a “racist”, in fact said i did NOT do so. I also said some of his “apologies” for the KKK made him APPEAR to be close to a “KKK apologist”- which I stand by.

However, that new aftershave you are wearing- “eau de belette” suits you to a “T”.

[pldennison]

>3 The dictionary, Oxford in fact, as i quoted above, disagrees with you. Going for thos “Humpty Dumpty” definitions again, eh? Or thought that after you LOST, you could confuse the issue by argueing the definition of “Minority/majority”. The smell of weasel get stronger.

Here’s a word problem for you, Danielintheweaselsden: THe American Reform Party suddenly becomes a significant political force. In the next election, they pick up a number of House seats. After the election, the outcome is:

Republicans: 42%
Democrats: 40%
Reform: 18%

Which party gets to assign a Majority Leader? You have 60 seconds to answer. Please show all your work.

Given the title of this thread – “Christians: The Persecuted Majority” – the definitions we are using here should be obvious to anyone. If Christians comprise a 50%+1 majority, then obviously they are not suffering persecution. If Christians are a 40%+ plurality, it’s bloody unlikely that they are suffering persecution.

Do you want to go back and look at the precise sentence I asked you to justify with a cite, kiddo? “Christians are in the minority here.” Period. “In the minority.” Not “less than half, but a plurality,” but “in the minority.” In debates of this nature, “in the minority” has a specific, obvious meaning that you’re now trying to back away from. It means having the fewest members, or at least fewer members than some larger group. If you’re defining that larger group as “non-Christians,” well, congratulations, you’re correct. Goodie for you. Unfortunately, it’s a nonsensical grouping. Atheists and agnostics probably have less “spiritual” common ground with Wiccans and New Agers than they do with Christians.

This is the very goddamned definition of weaseling. Every other person besides you understands what I’m talking about. I mean, were you dropped repeatedly on your head as an infant , or what? Is English not your first language? What is with this stubborn refusal to use words and phrases the way most other people use them?

>4 Nope, I argued that there was a genetic differnce in 'raceS"- and i used the terms “Negroid” etc, in their still-perfectly-correct ANTHOPOLOGICAL meanings.

Sigh . . . Isn’t someone here married to an anthropologist? Someone we all know really well?

However, it is very true, that my science was some 2 decades out of date, and thus i was wrong on several facts, which, after getting the new facts from Col, I then admitted my science was out-of-date & now wrong.

Oooh, that’s my other favorite tool of yours: Absurd reductionism. You bitched and moaned for three pages, arguing from your knowledge of a single upper-level anthro course from 25 years ago, plus your favorite authoritative source, the dictionary.

That is one of the marks of 'maturity"- aknowledging that you are wrong- try it sometime.

HAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>5- Never called him a “racist”, in fact said i did NOT do so.

Riiiiiiiiight. “Here’s a shoe–see if it fits.” Pop goes the Daniel.

I also said some of his “apologies” for the KKK made him APPEAR to be close to a “KKK apologist”- which I stand by.

He never once apologized for the KKK. He did, however, take you to school on its history.

[Sophie_L]

Just a point to add.
Arguing about population statistics and ‘majority’ vs ‘plurality’ is one thing, arguing about norms, perceived norms and stereotypes is another.
The facts are (so these are disprovable if you have evidence)is that in America the perceived cultural religious norm is “Christian”. Christian religious holidays are government religious holidays, the assumption upon meeting a stranger is that they are Christian - “How was Christmas?” - is asked without intent to offend, simply by default.
Regardless of the demographics of peons, the 5% of Americans that own 95% of your wealth (or thereabouts) is close to 100% Christian and white, hence the continuing media myths about “God’s Country” and Presidents who have to say the right thing to satisfy media owners.
Those Christians who actually feel discriminated against I assume are those who walk around wearing “Hi, Jesus loves me” badges. In other words, Christians who believe American is not Christian ENOUGH !
Considering that it is so blatantly obvious to the non-Christian majority that white-anglo-saxon-Christians dominate the wealth of America to such an extreme degree, the thought of America needing to be ‘more’ Christian is understandably laughable, and an idea worthy of derision.

…However, the ‘Christians’ who rule and the ‘Christians’ who live in trailer parks and bark about abortion, aren’t necessarily the same. The horrific excesses of Hollywood violence imply that there IS a Christian minority that is simply being ignored. Further, there are probably a million Christian ‘minorities’ disillusioned by the mainstream, whose members rightly feel discriminated against. Such Christians claim to believe in the same God as the ruling elite, and are therefore harassed when they claim persecution, yet hold entirely different agendas to those ‘Christians’ which control the majority of American resources.
It is perceptions alone which guides prejudice. Stop rattling on about ‘how many’ people in each category.

It’s just a thought ! Start shooting

[Measure_for_Measure]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Here on the SDMB Christians are in the minority. So- sometimes it does seem like we are “persecuted”. But again, i think not- there is a lot of intolerance for ALL faith here- and Christianity is just the biggest target.

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Daniel, I’ll make you a deal: If you can provide evidence that, among active posters – not even all registered members, but just active posters – Christians constitute a minority, I will march myself down to the nearest McDonald’s and consume 2 Big Macs in your honor…

Since Dan said that Christians are “a minority” and “the biggest target”, it seems to me that he was implying that they were a “plurality” on the SDMB.

In the US, of course, Christians are the majority.

Appropos Nothing: In CA, I sometimes hear white males referred to as “the majority minority”.

Finally, it seems to me that Christian charity alone would require Daniel to waive the terms of the non-bet: 2 Big Macs in one sitting is simply cruel and unusual…
[sub]Well, maybe not unusual.[/sub]

[Measure_for_Measure]

Retraction: Reading the post again, Christianity could be interpreted as being “the biggest target” merely because it’s the dominant US religion.

Got to stop making these late night posts…

[Czarcasm]

It has been determined that Christians are in the majority in this country. It has been determined that the President, Vice President, and a large majority of Congress professes to be Christian. Most, if not all, cities have radio stations that profess to be Christian. Though you can find television shows that have a Christian slant, and even whole networks dedicated to Christianity, the chances of finding one show that is dedicated to Atheism are slim to none.

I wonder if an anteater feels “persecuted” when the ant objects to being eaten?