Your reaction to an atheist block. I’m quite well aware that no such block was proposed.
I’m not sure I agree. I think there are some things that Christians worry about (or at least claim to worry about) which are utterly baseless. There’s zero possibility that, 50 years from now, it will be illegal for churches to exist and to have steeples and crosses and little signs out front with pithy sayings. There’s zero possibility that all the Christians will be rounded up and put in Obama’s UN-run work camps. There’s zero possibility that the White House will become the White Mosque. Those are things that no one wants to happen (with “no one” needing some modification to allow for TRULY fringe-y fringe groups).
The probability that “In God We Trust” might be removed from US money is very very low, but that is something that substantial portions of the US population are in favor of. As in, measurable single digits or so. And it’s something that one can make a creditable constitutional argument for. So with demographic shifts and maybe a shift in prevailing political climate… well, I’d say it’s certainly unlikely, but I don’t think it’s something that can be dismissed as impossible.
(Of course it’s also in no way anti-Christian, nor is it persecution by any meaningful definition of the word. But that’s another issue.)
You never asked me for my reaction. You said you wondered what the donor would feel. Here is your post:
I’m happy to answer what my personal reaction is, though. As long as the “There is no God,” donor paid the requisite fee, I have no objection whatsoever to the brick’s inclusion.
I of course feel the brick’s message is in error, but I also feel that Bootsie Albert Drennan was not the best cat ever. That doesn’t stop the brick donor from offering the opinion, of course.
Speaking as a Bible only fundamentalist, I sense no persecution as such going on in the West; at least not in the U.S. It is occurring to Christians in various areas of the world, but not here - or if it is, it’s typically limited to a one-on-one scale. That, I have experienced and technically qualifies as persecution, but I don’t whine about it…we were told it’s to be expected.
A post from yesterday speaking of Christian’s perceived declining influence in society is part of the problem, and I’m not surprised some would class that as persecution. But I am one of a minority that believes in keeping to a bare minimum entanglement in political and otherwise temporal worldly affairs, which seems to have become a religion unto itself, or at least a non-negotiable point of doctrine, among many Christians I personally know (largely due to crypto-Reconstructionist and Replacement theology influences that have crept into the Body of Christ unawares). My two cents as an insider.
Could you explain these two terms, please?
I think the board lost a lot with the death of Polycarp. Not to diminish the effect on his family by any means. I think there was a loss when Diogenes managed to get himself banned as well. What this board needs is people who can understand and discuss big issues like theology and theodicy. Not only that, but also smaller subjects such as the history of pre-millennial dispensationalism or the prosperity gospel and why they’re both complete loads of crap.
I think there’s a breakdown of “victimization” along denominational lines. In my experience, I have never heard much of this idea from Catholics or the mainline Protestant groups (say Episcopalian, some Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) or even from the various Anabaptists. It seems to come from the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and “non-denominational” mega-churches and prosperity theologists. I’m going to have to think a bit more (and don’t have time right now) on how I want to argue the point without it coming across as something as simplistic as “stupid fundamentalists.”
They’re more or less the same thing, or very closely related. The basic assumption is that God is forever finished with national Israel in any form and has been replaced by the Body of Christ in God’s ultimate purposes for the world. Those who assume such feel free to claim all the O.T. blessings and prophecies directed to Israel (they tend to ignore the curses and warnings, oddly). That assumption results in a further assumption that it’s up to Christians to work to usher in or help manifest the actual Kingdom of Christ on earth. Political activism and ecumenism in the name of socio-political causes naturally follows. Some believe the Kingdom must be established by force, if necessary, but they’re in the relative minority. Most believe earnest political involvement = obedience to Christ. That’s basically it in a nutshell.
I could name names within modern evangelicalism (and outside of it) that are very much involved in the goals of reconstructionism (whether they fully realize it or not) but I won’t bother. One can simply look around and spot them pretty easily.
I wonder if it might come from the evangelical belief that not only are they correct in their beliefs but that their correctness is so self evident that those who don’t follow their brand of Christianity are either uniformed or are willful god haters (see Chick tracts). When seen in this light, the only possible explanation for anyone acting against the promotion of Christianity must be a tool of the devil who hates god and so therefore hates god’s servants (ie Christians).
Combine this with a literalistic view of the bible, which warns repeatedly that Christians will suffer persecution and you are good to go.
You have not met my Catholic family.
They are persecuted for their faith, their money, and for their politics (very right-wing). It’s quite tragic.
I still think there’s just an aspect of people wanting to be liked, and feeling hurt when they are kisliked, so they have to make the “dislike” something grand instead of “I’m acting like an asshole so people don’t like me.” And when they cave to the pressure, they want it to seem like they caved to something serious and threatening rather than “I caved because people didn’t like me.”
(post shortened for clarity)
If you’re referring to a certain pit thread, there were several posters who were mocked quite openly. I don’t believe anyone actually felt persecuted by the comments in that thread. IMHO, of course.
You seem to be under the impression that Christians aren’t persecuted sufficiently for them to feel persecuted.
Non-Christians have felt sufficiently persecuted to the point where they chose to file lawsuits in order to stop church bells from pealing and school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Do you believe the non-Christians are sufficiently persecuted by ringing bells and pledge recital for you to consider them to be persecuted?
That’s a legitimately complicated question, as it involves a variety of “it depends what you mean by…” type issues.
For instance, I can quite confidently state that no one has ever been mistreated purely for BEING a Christian on the SDMB… as long as they never revealed that they were Christian. (Which may seem like a ridiculous distinction to make, but I’m sure there were plenty of blacks in Apartheid South Africa who would have been happy to live their lives never mentioning that they were black if it let them avoid mistreatment.)
There’s also the distinction between mistreatment directed at Christianity vs mistreatment directed at Christians. (If you, as a Christian, read a thread in which a bunch of people are saying how evil Christianity is, but no one says “oh, and Bricker is a jerk”, does that count as mistreatment?)
Then there are certainly distinctions between different branches of Christianity. If someone goes into a gay marriage thread and says “…and I’m so proud that my local Methodist church, where I’m a deacon, which has been pro-gay-marriage for years, was the site of the first legal gay marriage in (my state)…” are they going to be mistreated for being a Christian? Heck, that person is a DEACON!
All of that said, yes, it’s certainly the case that there exists on the SDMB a non-trivial level of hostility towards Christianity as an institution that sometimes spills over into hostility towards individual Christians such as you. On the other hand, it could be worse. I mean, at least you’re not a REPUBLICAN!!! (oh, wait…)
I was referring to Der Trihs; without context that post is pretty unclear. I mean one poster in the sense of one poster who gives Christians shit just for being Christian. Even that might be an overstatement of his position. And he gets a lot of flak for being perceived to hold that position.
I’m under the impression that depending on how Christians define “persecuted”, we can either not care (because their definition is so ubiquitous and non-threatening that virtually everyone else is more persecuted) or they simply aren’t.
In the case of the church bells lawsuit, the problem was not “I am being persecuted for my beliefs”, it was “OH MY GOD THESE BELLS ARE RUINING MY LIFE!” As in, going off upwards of 700 times a week. Basically, it was a noise complaint that became a religious issue when he was told that his locality’s noise ordinances had a religious exception - i.e. Christian privilege was allowing the behavior, which he was perfectly justified in complaining about, to continue. I don’t know how you get from that to “persecuted”, or even begin to draw parallels. I don’t consider him “persecuted”; I don’t think he considers him “persecuted”. It’s got nothing to do with persecution.
I don’t know which lawsuit you’re referring to with regards to the pledge of allegiance, but again, same issue - are they complaining that they’re persecuted? Or is the issue more “we think this favors religion, runs against what a secular state stands for, and violates the first amendment”? Personally, I think it’s the latter.
“More persecuted”? Doesn’t that imply they are persecuted but not as much as someone else?
I wonder why some people feel so persecuted by Christians saying Christians are persecuted that they would feel the need to publically object to Christians saying they are persecuted. Imagine a world where people can have an opinion without getting permission to have that opinion. Absolute chaos. :rolleyes:
You people aren’t persecuted enough to feel persecuted and we demand you stop talking about subject!
- the Thought Police
Isn’t that more of an “on the internet, nobody knows youre a dog” type of thing, though?
A thought occurs: “Christians” as a vague group don’t (and have never) actually had power or influence. Rather, power and influence is concentrated in a relative handful of individuals or families or corporations. If they feel that power threatened, it’s certainly in their interest to get the general and normally powerless Christian masses on their side (and thus giving them money and/or votes) by pretending that the faith overall is under attack.
I did garble the question. Here it is - given that you feel (and I agree) that the two bricks should be treated the same way, is the “persecution” here against religious expression as a part of public land as opposed to being about Christianity?
Whether or not they were correct in rejecting the brick is immaterial in this thread if they would reject any religiously themed brick. I’m including specific denial of religion in religiously themed.
If you allow a Christian prayer group in school but not an Islamic one, you can be said to be singling out Islam. If you allow neither you can’t be, though it is pretty clear that both should be allowed.
I’d love to see Fox claim a war on religion, especially if they use Christian groups trying to prevent mosques from being built as an example.
It would imply that… by a definition that is totally ridiculous (see also: how the previous thread on this subject devolved). And I’d probably get on their case about that as well.
…Whatchoo talkin’ 'bout, Willis? Who here implied that they were persecuted by that? Methinks you’re trying to call things that aren’t persecution persecution… Like in the “bell” example?
That’s not because we feel we’re being persecuted, it’s because it’s annoying, untrue, and leads to a totally warped worldview that we think should be fought against. This has nothing to do with us feeling “persecuted”, any more than we press charges against a burglar because he “persecuted” us.
…Honestly, I’m not sure how you got from point A to point B here. Like, at all.
No. Try this instead:
“You people feel persecuted but are not being persecuted. Get some perspective before your flawed worldview develops into real consequences for the rest of us. You have the right to feel like you’re being persecuted, but we think you’re very stupid for doing so.”
- Rational Human Beings
Of course not. But atheists may have read polls suggesting that a substantial majority of Americans believe they should be unable to hold public office, for example, and may end up feeling a wee bit persecuted therefore.
Note the changing in wording: it’s not non-Christians per se who object to the Pledge of Allegiance’s theistic add-on, but rather atheists. I don’t think that many more Muslims or Jews have a problem with this add-on than do Christians.
Sorta.
The problem I see with your claim is that because no non-Christian religious messages were offered to test the theory, we cannot be clear on the limits of the policy – a policy that was, by the way, not explained or published in advance.
In any event, the Park District was wrong on the law: they can’t prohibit all religious messages.
You admit to feeling persecuted. That’s a good start. According to some in this thread, it would be acceptable for me to say that I don’t believe you are persecuted enough for you to publically say you are persecuted.