In that case Hobby Lobby should shut the fuck up about the social or government policy being suggested in their “persecution” case, n’est pas?
Hobby Lobby’s claim does not rest on establishing “persecution.” It rests on the text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, which provides that Congress may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can show that the burden is necessary for the furtherance of a compelling government interest, and that imposed burden is the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest; and further on the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. § 1, which provides that in any act of Congress, the word “person” includes corporations.
Hobby Lobby claims that the Affordable Care Act’s mandates with respect to insurance coverage of contraceptives substantially burdens their exercise of religion, and that the mandate is not the least restrictive way of accomplishing that interest. The government claims that as a for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby is not entitled to invoke the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.
So: non. Il n’en est rien. The question of “persecution” is not part of Hobby Lobby’s claim.
Under the definition of persecution you are adhering to in this thread, would you say they are being persecuted, either by the legal system or by some of the public at large?
Yes, I agree – there is no “structural” anti-Christian bigotry here. The phenomenon arises from the demographics alone.
I’ve already touched on what I suspect is the key element underlying American Christians’ claims of persecution: their declining influence. While they remain numerically superior and politically powerful, there’s no real debate that the last fifty or so years have seen the dominance exercised by American Christians erode. It is that delta, that change, that I suspect they are reacting to.
As you say, this doesn’t mean this is a serious ill to be remedied, since their absolute position remains so advantageous.
And your effort to draw an analogy between liberals on the SDMB and Christians in American society is, in my opinion, spot-on. Liberals may get grief here from the occasional upstart, but can take solace in a ready-made bunker of allied support. They may experience persecution, yes, but it’s not something that should concern a neutral observer, because the persecution has no real threat behind it.
In American society, Christians enjoy a similar – indeed, perhaps even greater – advantage in terms of numbers and political power. They certainly suffer some hostility and ill-treatment, and can fairly be said to experience persecution. But it’s not the kind of treatment that should engage a neutral observer to worry, because society as a whole remains comfortably monolithically Christian, and the persecution in question will not lead to any real threat.
The law in question is one of general applicability. So I’d say they are NOT being persecuted by the legal system, since the legal system is not directing either hostility or ill-treatment their way.
Certainly they are being persecuted by some members of the public at large. As I suggest in post #185 above, though, it’s not the type of persecution that should give a neutral observer cause to fear some genuine threat is at hand.
And would you say the same of the low-level persecution you’ve seen on this board?
The author of the article that appears first has adopted a definition of persecution that is not consistent with the dictionary. In the alternative, he has ascribed to the President a personal animus that simply doesn’t exist. (In my view, of course).
Without checking each site, I suspect I’ll find a lot of authors who, in the service of making their case, are hedging the definition of the word.
So: yes, others are saying it. Some of them may be correct, depending on the specifics of their claims. In no event, however, am I aware of any persecution of Hobby Lobby that would cause a neutral observer to perceive a serious threat.
Notwithstanding the concerns mentioned upthread about on-line harassment being the basis for suicides, I am inclined to believe that any persecution delivered via an anonymous message board site is going to fall into that category, yes. After all, even words that constitute a serious threat if spoken face to face are blunted in their impact here.
So, yes. I’d say that any instances of persecution here fits into that same category, which I’m happy to call “low-level,” as a useful descriptor.
Thank you. If I might take just one more step here: If you were to describe how Christianity is treated on this message board, would “persecuted” be the first word that comes to mind? If not, what descriptor would ?
This is getting way too ridiculous, even for me.
I propose in future if a discussion comes up about persecution, we be sure to clarify early on if we mean a Bricker standard of persecution (which could include looking at someone funny) or a normal standard of persecution (which entails actual abuse).
I think the Christians who cry they are victimized do so because they saw how other groups (women, gays, blacks, non-Christians) did the same thing and were given rights they had been denied and so they think all they have to do is shout “Victim” and they’ll get what they want too.
Which would only make sense if Christians were denied rights in the first place.
“The dictionary” is a bit of a presumptive claim there dear council, and you have used it well to deflect from the OP.
I can also pull a random cite to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority. Now while the meaning of words is important, your definition was chosen to fit your argument and not due to it’s particular suitability of purpose on this topic. (Really, claiming google dictionary is a respected authoritative denotative source?)
Now they may argue that being disallowed to force your beliefs on employees is a form of injury or that not being allowed to force others to practice your religious beliefs, (anti-gay marriage). However most of these claims of Christian “persecution” are purely individuals being forced to extend the same rights they have enjoyed to others. Of course they lose some privilege that they may have enjoyed in the past, but they had those privileges at the expense of other groups. Outside of great debates and the pit, most of the posited claims of “persecution” of christians tend to be purelly querulant and the vexatious.
The same is true of you, no? You’ve continued to fail to speak out against Shodan based now both on your own basis and in response to my invitation to, an invitation which you must have seen given you’ve quoted andros from a post he quoted it in.
Wouldn’t that make it worse? I mean, at the least, those people who are disagreeing with you are honestly disagreeing with you, even if you consider them to be wrong. You’re sounding the trumpet against refusing to speak out against those who share your loose political affiliations, while not doing so yourself when given a clear opportunity. It would seem to make them wrong and you hypocritical - though I suppose there’s always the obvious out that you would agree with Shodan’s characterisation of whiny atheists, though that would seem to go against your other current bugbear of reasonable, helpful debate, so I strongly believe that isn’t the case.
As I’ve said in other threads…
I, for one, look forward to the day when an openly Christian man may be elected President. Those poor, poor persecuted Christians.
They think they are. They’re denied the right to have the Bible taught as science. They’re denied the right to limit their employees access to contraceptives. They’re denied the right to discriminate against homosexuals. They’re denied the right to make everyone listen to Christian prayers at public events.
No, I think I’d probably pick “ridiculed” as the first word. “Disparaged,” and “mocked” might also be words I’d choose as having a better, richer, and more complete description than “persecuted.”
Leaving out qualifiers such as “wrongfully” or “justifiably” that others may choose to add, I think that those are good descriptors.
The fallacy of appeal to authority is not committed when the source in question is a legitimate authority on the subject. Cite.
I’m not even willing to include The Pit, because it seems to me fair warning that participation in the Pit is acceptance of hostile treatment.
But that not true for Great Debates, and, indeed, it is GD upon which I focus my attention.