If we’re just answering the question, this should be in GQ, and could have been locked after post #3.
Who can argue that it isn’t the erosion of Christian Dominance fueling these claims of victimization? We went from 60 years ago having the President sign a law stating
to Christians today being unable to get a Nativity display in the town square.
The fact that they want to use the words Victim, Persecute and War to describe this erosion of influence is something I think is fair to discuss.
Yes, ditto for that; it’s weird that Christians would think otherwise, huh?
Alright, there are some fringe groups out there. But the little bit of ceremonial deism that “In God We Trust” represents is hardly an endorsement of Christianity. As for the Pledge, well who gives a shit?
I agree that neither the Pledge nor the money is an endorsement of Christianity.
But your argument seems to have turned completely around. I understand that Christians are moved by these stories, you said, but the stories are false.
Now that you learn the stories are true, you immediately reverse your analysis: now it’s “Who gives a shit?”
That seems inconsistent to me.
Can you explain why you think that the first example that springs to mind should be ignored? You seem to be saying it doesn’t happen, apart from when it does.
Regards,
Shodan
How serious a threat would you call this case?
I think you’re going to chime in to provide that explanation yourself, if you want one that doesn’t simultaneously prove (for example) that one cannot legitimately ignore Fred Phelps as an example of Christianity.
Let me revise and say there is no realistic threat to either the motto or the pledge. Fringe groups always press nutty lawsuits. I’m not worried about some tax protester winning a case on the basis of gold fringe on a flag and right wing Christians shouldn’t worry about lawsuits filed by fringe groups.
I’m not seeing the inconsistency. It’s equivalent to saying that, no, the legal system is not under attack in any meaningful sense of the word because somebody filed a screed asserting that the gold fringe on the flag made the court’s proceedings illegal.
Removing God from the Pledge and from our money isn’t Christian persecution, it’s ending persecution of the rest of us. Now, if we wanted to replace it with “your God is stupid” they might have a point.
I agree with half. The Pledge is asinine, nobody should ever say it, Lincoln never did, Washington never did, etc. To me, it’s about as creepy as the Hitler Youth.
A little ceremonial deism on the coin really to me seems pretty harmless. My eyes are getting too old to read the damn thing anyway.
Not remotely serious, for two reasons:
I thought the question was - Why Do Christians Feel So Victimized - Defined Edition?
Court cases by “unknown” persons to remove the word God from anything and everything could conceivably cause Christians to feel victimized. The fact that such a court case could land in the Massachusetts Supreme Court could also conceivably cause Christians to feel victimized.
That’s not accurate. The “gold fringe,” type attacks are legally meritless.
The lawsuits in question raise colorable legal issues.
It’s like saying that the chance to win the office football pool is small, and the chance to win the MegaMillions Lottery is small – therefore, they are the same.
Yes and no. I’ve heard Christians act offended by general “secularization” of modern society.
I agree, but many of these brittle Christians wouldn’t. They may well think “of COURSE the God of the coin and the pledge is the Christian God”. So I can see a logic that they would perceive discontinuing them would be a threat to their faith.
Because one outlier does not a trend make. The overwhelming rule here is that Christians do not have to take a lot of crap simply for being Christians. There’s one example that comes to mind where this is not true; one single poster (who is mocked quite openly for doing so, mind you) who anyone here is likely to be able to name off the top of their heads, and then maybe a handful of people who are antagonistic to the concept of religion and faith but do not treat Christians badly so much as simply ask questions that are uncomfortable for them (myself, probably quite a few others, but definitely not more than a dozen or so).
The reason I exclude Der Trihs as an obvious outlier is because we’re not talking individual cases, we’re talking trends. And one relatively non-prolific poster does not a trend make. I mean, I’d certainly place “People who give Christians shit for little to no reason” far above Christians on the scale of “who gets the most shit around here” given how people react to Der Trihs. Lawyers would probably be way up there as well.
Sure – but that goes back to the overarching question. Christians offended by that trend are, in effect, saying that their negative effect is a diminution of the historically unbalanced influence that they have wielded in the past.
I’m not seeing ignoring them until they become too big a problem to ignore as a viable solution to the problem. How big a problem would you have it become before you would do anything, and what would you do(if anything?).
Two additional reasons (copied from the previous thread):
From the Jewish slavery in Egypt, and exile in Babylon, onto the Jesus suffering on the cross, and then the persecution of the early church by the Romans, there is a general theme in Christianity that earthly suffering for your beliefs is holy. So even if they aren’t actually suffering for their religion they have a moral imparative to feel as if they are.
In our culture there is a strong desire to root for the underdog. So to make themselves sympathetic they have to convince themselves that they are on the losing side.