I’m not reading the whole original thread, but if the question is phrased as “Are Christians persecuted in the US?”, perhaps the problem isn’t so much the definition of “persectuted” and more… well I suppose the definition of “are”. I.e. I think it’s likely that there are many small instances of the persecutions of Christians in the US. However, in this instance, the word “are” has a higher tolerance and demands a little more than one or two examples of persecution a year before it will give the output “yes” in answer to the question.
“Nobody else?”
So…was the purpose of the thread in Great Debates to simply garner approval from like-minded people?
I’ve not read that entire thread. (I’ve seen most of the first page, and the beginnings of the debate over Bricker’s definitions). That said, IMHO:
The core problem here is that the title of that thread and OP began with a vaguely defined premise: that Christians in America feel “victimized” or “persecuted”. It’s not established anywhere that Christians as a group do in fact feel “victimized” or “persecuted”, or what is meant by those terms. So everyone needs to imagine what makes sense in the context of that OP.
So suppose we consider the possibility that the correct definition of “persecute” is “a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs”. Do Christians in America tend to think that they are being “exterminated, driven away, or subjugated as a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs”? Does anyone really believe that this is a common belief among Christians? That seems like a huge stretch to me, and would need some solid foundation before it’s even worthy of being discussed, IMO.
No, the definition of “persecution” for purposes of that thread has to be something that could reasonably be considered a common belief among Christians in America. In that context, I think Bricker’s definition is more appropriate.
To the contrary, the ones playing dishonest word games in that thread are Bricker’s opponents. Because in establishing the premise that Christians feel “victimized” or “persecuted” they are implicitly accepting the premise that Christian whining about opposition to them amounts to complaining about “persecution”, and then in turning around to ridicule that positon they shift to a more strict definition, under which the initial premise wouldn’t be true to begin with.
There are a handful of posters here who are very vocal in their disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular. A few know exactly who they are, and I bet a few others are so non-introspective that they just think it’s a natural thing to do. As an atheist myself, I cringe that they’re on my side.
Does that rise to the level of “persecution”? It probably can feel that way to certain religious folk who post here. But I would not consider this MB to represent the US, and would not accept that Christians are persecuted in any meaningful way IRL in the US. As I said in that thread, some might feel peeved that they are no longer in such positions of power and privilege, but that’s a whole 'nuther thing.
Are there any posters that are specifically anti-Christian on this board, or do they just usually discuss issues related to Christianity because it’s the dominant religion that affect their lives? Is anyone especially anti-Christian, or just anti-religious?
It’s relevant since the idea fits into the Christian identity persecution complex - that people specifically target Christianity - but the reality is that they get most of the flak because they’re the most powerful, most common religion by far in the places most of the people here post from.
And didn’t I agree with this general point in the thread?
Is the pope Catholic?
You mentioned that there were posters who had a disdain for Christianity in particular. I’m wondering if you think they’re antagonistic out of some hatred of the philosophy of Christianity, or simply because it’s the religion that most affects their lives? I just think it’s relevant since persecution is part of the identity of Christianity, and they certainly think there are people out there who specifically persecute them for being Christian, but in reality very few people in the west are specifically anti-Christianity, it’s simply the most powerful religion and hence has the biggest affect on their lives.
Actually, the criticism is that just about all of your posts show too little effort, Linda.
The beauty of this is that you are oblivious to the degree that it utterly fails. And why.
You are not familiar with Der Trihs? I figured with a join date of 2001 you couldn’t have missed him. I’m not sure who he thinks is worse-- Americans, Christians, or Christian Americans. Or maybe it’s American, Christian Businessmen.
Using the “comfy chair” definition of persecution, I think we can all agree that Christians in the United States are indeed being persecuted on a daily basis.
I’m familiar with him, I just think that if he lived in Indonesia, he’d be complaining about all of the ways Islam is affecting his life. You made note to say that there were posters on this board who were particularly anti-Christian, and I was wondering if you meant they specifically had a beef with Christianity, or they were generally anti-religion and naturally that took the form of rubbing up against the dominant religion of where they live.
The idea that Christianity has a special place among the persecuted is an idea that’s part of the Christian identity, but I think you’re incorrect to support the idea by suggesting that anyone here is specifically anti-Christian rather than simply anti-religious.
I’m one of them anti-religion types, but I try to keep things fair. I’m pretty sure my criticism of various religions has less effect on the religious than their practising of religion affects me. Christianity doesn’t deserve the most criticism, in my opinion, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to criticize, especially on this board. In some ways I have sympathy for Christians who feel persecuted because they probably do get less respect than those of other, more “interesting” faiths. My solution is to get comfortable with Christianity-level criticisms of all religions, rather than rebuilding the bubble around Christianity. Note that I’m talking about beliefs here. The distinction between criticizing wacky beliefs and those who believe in them is important.
Bricker would much rather engage in a slap fight with the shrieking harpies and low hanging fruit of those who disagree with him than deal with actual debate or acknowledge points that weaken his argument. It’s just so much easier.
The purpose of the thread was to discuss whether Christians were as persecuted as some of them claim to be. Way to fuck up the conversation.
Given the level of hostility directed at my contributions, I suggest that the purpose of the thread was to garner agreement from like-minded contributers, and brook no dissent.
Nobody who matters, or who has anything to contribute, anyways. I honesty don’t understand how this issue is not clear-cut. It’s really, really simple. When discussing persecution, there is a certain standard implied within the discussion. Persecution, as a term, has a historical context, and Christians who claim they are persecuted are appealing to that context in an attempt to make themselves out to be the victims. If all they had to go on was “some people somewhere are mean to me”, then nobody would give a damn, not even them! As I previously stated, it’s like going into a discussion about android phones and insisting that “android” means “human-like robot”. No, I’m sorry, but we’re talking about something totally different, and if you don’t get that, you’re fucking stupid. Full stop.
And it’s perfectly fine for dissent to happen in that thread, but the thread was not about “how do we define persecution”! It was about “given a definition of persecution derived from both the statements of Christians and historical context, why do Christians consider themselves persecuted”. And hey, if you want to make an argument that there’s something being done to Christians that qualifies as persecution, by all means, have at it! But don’t do this by defining persecution down to the point where you could just as easily define “first degree murder” as “anything that causes any bodily harm to anyone”.
So yes, only people that agree with you and are already involved in the circle jerk. Does this definition of people “who matter” include non-child molesters too? Because I think that would greatly reduce the numbers in your circle jerk.
Of course, this ignores the fairly simple fact that the only people “involved in the circle jerk” are the ones who aren’t demonstrably wrong and stupid. It’s like saying that the opinion of those who think Seralini’s GMO rat paper was meaningful is irrelevant on GMOs - they’re not irrelevant because they disagree with you, but because they’re wrong and could only be so wrong due to a fairly severe underlying ignorance, or just being dishonest fucks. No points for guessing where I categorize Bricker. Look, we can have a nuanced conversation about christian persecution, but not if some insist on the definition of “persecution” being “buried in fuzzy puppies”.