quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

What freedoms would you personally have to lose in order to give a rat's rump about the issue?

quote:

Our savior and many of those who chose to carry the light of the Lord after his passing were beaten, spat upon, tortured, and killed and it makes me sick when i hear Christians in America complain because the feel uncomfortable in the work place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Our savior and many of those who chose to carry the light of the Lord after his passing were beaten, spat upon, tortured, and killed and it makes me sick when i hear Christians in America complain because the feel uncomfortable in the work place.

I am not sure that the fact that someone talks about the existence of certain treatment amounts to 'complaining', particularly in a forum where we are discussing whether persecution exists.

As one who has been publicly denounced in the press for my beliefs, berated by professors, mocked publicly for not participating in typical worldly activities, thrown in a shower and had individuals throw buckets of ice on me for refusing to subsidize pornography parties with my college social dues, had vile things scribbled on my property, chased down by atheists who wanted to engage me in arguments, and had my employment threatened for things I refused to do that were contrary to my beliefs, I never felt compelled to 'complain', but instead wondered what other Christians were doing wrong that they didn't recieve the same treatment.

Nonetheless, in considering whether or not such treatment amounts to persecution, one need only think about someone being treated in the same manner for being black or female.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

There's a fine line between being allowed to wear a cross around your neck and being forced by the state to wear one around your neck for identification purposes.

Just ask some eighty year old European Jews.

LOL, that is a line a mile wide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Nonetheless, in considering whether or not such treatment amounts to persecution, one need only think about someone being treated in the same manner for being black or female.

quote:

When i am forbidden to practice my religion then i will call it pesecution. Right now most of the cases i see amount to little more than an inconvenience to a believer and most times not even that, what makes you feel that you have a right to pray out loud at work or school, is your belief or faith in any way diminished when you pray silently? What makes your or my "right" to pray any more important than others "right" to not have our views pushed upon them?

quote:

Exactly.


It's called puluralsim folks...and it's worked for over 200 hundred years...

I really don't understand why some people expect the State to favor their specific religion.

quote:

But that's just it. You will find people who say and do just as many outrageous and in many cases more outrageous things to women, to blacks, to the handicapped, etc. There will always be idiots among us. That being said, I'm not going to say that women are persecuted in this country because some imbecile professor says that it's ok to rape a woman who doesn't cover her head or because my junior high math teacher told me to get all the math I could now because women just don't succeed in math or because some guy down the road won't hire a woman. Those are all wrong things, very wrong. That doesn't mean that women are "persecuted" though. That means that we live in the world where people do slimy things to people. Do those things make me mad? Absolutely! Should we address those issues and fight against them? Absolutely! Does that mean I should use the same term used to describe how women are treated by the Taliban and use it to describe the US because some people in the US are jerks? NO! It's not the same thing, so let's not describe it in the same way!

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

There's a fine line between being allowed to wear a cross around your neck and being forced by the state to wear one around your neck for identification purposes.

Just ask some eighty year old European Jews.

LOL, that is a line a mile wide.

You might dust off your history book and do some research that will show that the persecution that culminated with the irradication of 6,000,000 Jews across Europe began with similar innocuous (by your lights) discriminations and "inconveniences".

The secular humanist anti-Christian movement in America is making a slow but concerted effort to erradicate everything that references Christianity from public view, cow.

I suppose you also would be cheering on those who would remove any vaguly Christian symbology from local government seals, as well as those who seek to force name changes for cities that have "Christian themed" names.

If such councils are successful in removing crosses and such from city seals so as not to offend the sensibilities of the unbelievers among us, is it not possible that some day there will be efforts to have crosses removed from the roofs of churches that are in full view from taxpayer funded roads and parks under the self same guise?

Sometimes the minority DOES tyranize the majority, cow.
If you don't realise that it must be because you're too young to remember the actual processes that led to Roe v Wade being made the law of the land, homosexuality being "reclassified" as an alternate lifestyle by the mental health community when ever before it had been considered a mental illness/aberration, and a few other situations I've seen over the years.

Anyone who dismisses the "Slippery Slope" theory simply won't recognize that it's a reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257


BTW I'm old enough to remember Roe v Wade. The difference is that the majority (assuming pro life is the majority) has not been forced to do anything. Roe v Wade simply limited restrictions on abortion. You confuse persecution with social policy and jurisprudence. In China, where families are forced to limit families-- that is persecution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EverLearning

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257


BTW I'm old enough to remember Roe v Wade. The difference is that the majority (assuming pro life is the majority) has not been forced to do anything. Roe v Wade simply limited restrictions on abortion. You confuse persecution with social policy and jurisprudence. In China, where families are forced to limit families-- that is persecution.

I dont' know how roe vs. wade is persecution to anyone but the unborn. It is not persecution to not accept the tenets of Christian faith. Persecution is an action not an inaction. A person doing something that is outside of the beliefs of Christians is not persecuting Christians. The day that someone calls for churches to not display Christian symbology then I will begin to cry persecution. The inability to display Christian symbols on a government building is not persecution, the inability to display them on our homes or our churches would be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257

quote:

ORIGINAL: EverLearning

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257


BTW I'm old enough to remember Roe v Wade. The difference is that the majority (assuming pro life is the majority) has not been forced to do anything. Roe v Wade simply limited restrictions on abortion. You confuse persecution with social policy and jurisprudence. In China, where families are forced to limit families-- that is persecution.

I dont' know how roe vs. wade is persecution to anyone but the unborn. It is not persecution to not accept the tenets of Christian faith. Persecution is an action not an inaction. A person doing something that is outside of the beliefs of Christians is not persecuting Christians. The day that someone calls for churches to not display Christian symbology then I will begin to cry persecution. The inability to display Christian symbols on a government building is not persecution, the inability to display them on our homes or our churches would be.

You're doing it again. People are gonna gossip..... start saying you've gone over to the dark side.[sm=tiefighter.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But that's just it. You will find people who say and do just as many outrageous and in many cases more outrageous things to women, to blacks, to the handicapped, etc. There will always be idiots among us. That being said, I'm not going to say that women are persecuted in this country because some imbecile professor says that it's ok to rape a woman who doesn't cover her head or because my junior high math teacher told me to get all the math I could now because women just don't succeed in math or because some guy down the road won't hire a woman. Those are all wrong things, very wrong. That doesn't mean that women are "persecuted" though. That means that we live in the world where people do slimy things to people. Do those things make me mad? Absolutely! Should we address those issues and fight against them? Absolutely! Does that mean I should use the same term used to describe how women are treated by the Taliban and use it to describe the US because some people in the US are jerks? NO! It's not the same thing, so let's not describe it in the same way!

What exactly do you consider persecution to mean? The dictionary definition is:

To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

I think we can safely say the some Christians are persecuted in America, without having to say all are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow257

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

There's a fine line between being allowed to wear a cross around your neck and being forced by the state to wear one around your neck for identification purposes.

Just ask some eighty year old European Jews.

LOL, that is a line a mile wide.

You might dust off your history book and do some research that will show that the persecution that culminated with the irradication of 6,000,000 Jews across Europe began with similar innocuous (by your lights) discriminations and "inconveniences".

The secular humanist anti-Christian movement in America is making a slow but concerted effort to erradicate everything that references Christianity from public view, cow.

I suppose you also would be cheering on those who would remove any vaguly Christian symbology from local government seals, as well as those who seek to force name changes for cities that have "Christian themed" names.

If such councils are successful in removing crosses and such from city seals so as not to offend the sensibilities of the unbelievers among us, is it not possible that some day there will be efforts to have crosses removed from the roofs of churches that are in full view from taxpayer funded roads and parks under the self same guise?

Sometimes the minority DOES tyranize the majority, cow.
If you don't realise that it must be because you're too young to remember the actual processes that led to Roe v Wade being made the law of the land, homosexuality being "reclassified" as an alternate lifestyle by the mental health community when ever before it had been considered a mental illness/aberration, and a few other situations I've seen over the years.

Anyone who dismisses the "Slippery Slope" theory simply won't recognize that it's a reality.

Go back and read your post. Since when is being allowed to wear a cross persecution? Maybe you meant NOT being allowed to wear a cross.

BTW I'm old enough to remember Roe v Wade. The difference is that the majority (assuming pro life is the majority) has not been forced to do anything. Roe v Wade simply limited restrictions on abortion. You confuse persecution with social policy and jurisprudence. In China, where families are forced to limit families-- that is persecution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

As for Roe v Wade, in no way was "any time, any reason" legalized abortion wanted by the vast majority of Americans in 1973. NO way.
The courts enacted this horrible law against the will of the majority--hence, the tyranny of the minority.

quote:

State sanctioned persecutory laws against Christians could be passed just as easily.

quote:


For a guy who seems to distrust the government to no small degree, you sure are trusting of them protecting the rights of Christians, Cow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

You think the Constitution can protect us in the face of a revisionist Supreme Court, and secular humanism being the onlt "religion" being touted by the influential, and Christians being the "ugly American" du jour?

My--you are a trusting soul.

quote:

The best defense is a good offense, and I see no reason to wait around like a bunch of Pollyannas until these "petty inconveniences" become fully blown persecutions because we were too weak-kneed to act beforehand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

You trust wholy in Jesus? Do you have car insurance, and do you look both ways before crossing the street?
:)

quote:

We'll never agree because you believe that these "petty inconveniences" have gone as far as they will, and I don't--not at all.
The best defense is a good offense, and I see no reason to wait around like a bunch of Pollyannas until these "petty inconveniences" become fully blown persecutions because we were too weak-kneed to act beforehand.

quote:


As for Roe v Wade; it would have NEVER been made the law of the land if Christians of conscience had actively resisted it from the jump in an effective way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian


As for Roe v Wade, in no way was "any time, any reason" legalized abortion wanted by the vast majority of Americans in 1973. NO way.
The courts enacted this horrible law against the will of the majority--hence, the tyranny of the minority.
State sanctioned persecutory laws against Christians could be passed just as easily.

For a guy who seems to distrust the government to no small degree, you sure are trusting of them protecting the rights of Christians, Cow.

quote:

The courts do not enact laws. The Supreme Court rules on cases to interpret laws in light of the constitution. I'm not endorsing the Roe decision, just pointing out that it is not a law. Since then laws with respect to abortion have been enacted to limit abortions and the court recently upheld the partial birth ban.

A republic involves majority decisions, but is not exclusively rule by majority. Otherwise there would still be widespread legal racial discrimination. I do trust the "checks and balances" system to take care of things overall. That does not mean instant gratification, nor me getting everything done my way. you misunderstand the way government functions in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The courts do not enact laws. The Supreme Court rules on cases to interpret laws in light of the constitution. I'm not endorsing the Roe decision, just pointing out that it is not a law. Since then laws with respect to abortion have been enacted to limit abortions and the court recently upheld the partial birth ban.

A republic involves majority decisions, but is not exclusively rule by majority. Otherwise there would still be widespread legal racial discrimination. I do trust the "checks and balances" system to take care of things overall. That does not mean instant gratification, nor me getting everything done my way. you misunderstand the way government functions in the US.

Cow is right - the court didn't act legislatively, but rather by making up a hitherto unknown 'right'.

quote:

Privacy? Never heard of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EverLearning

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

You trust wholy in Jesus? Do you have car insurance, and do you look both ways before crossing the street?
:)

you said trusting soul, as far as my soul goes i trust wholy in Jesus the physical aspects of my life must be managed by me.

quote:

We'll never agree because you believe that these "petty inconveniences" have gone as far as they will, and I don't--not at all.
The best defense is a good offense, and I see no reason to wait around like a bunch of Pollyannas until these "petty inconveniences" become fully blown persecutions because we were too weak-kneed to act beforehand.

I have no doubt that at some time someone will attempt to take away our rights, but we have protections in place against such things, and as i mentioned earlier it is our job to manage our government in such a way that the bill of rights is always protected. Christians being the majority need to get off their rumps and ensure that our actual right to practice our religion is not taken away. That being said wasting time on the petty things and whining only shows us as weak. Defend always your true rights and stop whining about inconveniences that do not affect your ability to practice your religion.

quote:


As for Roe v Wade; it would have NEVER been made the law of the land if Christians of conscience had actively resisted it from the jump in an effective way.

That may very well be true but the fact of the matter is that roe v wade is not persecution of Christians so i don't know why it keeps being brought up here. it in no way hampers your ability to practice your religion as you see fit, you are not required to participate in, have, or perform abortions. You can't get tossed out of your job for not having one, you can not be denied access to housing, healthcare, college entrance or anything else for not participating.