• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why are they ignoring the persecution of Christians?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm an advocate of teaching comparative religion in public schools. I think kids should have a good understanding of other nations and their cultural beliefs.
I don't see the need, personally.

It's fine to want kids to learn about other cultures, but this already gets covered in geography.

There's so much stuff kids could be learning. Offering one course - e.g. comparative religion - means denying that course slot to all the other possibilities that could have gone there. Why should religion get priority over all those others?

At most, make comparative religion an elective if you're going to offer it at all, but even then, there's tremendous potential for abuse. It's very easy for a comparative religion course to turn into a "how every religion but the teacher's religion is wrong" course if that's how the teacher feels like spinning it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That certainly is not relevant.
An agnostic is not an Atheist, nor a theist.
In regards to god concepts I argue that everyone is agnostic. Ag-nosis means no-knowledge. This is true, no one knows if any gods exist or not. Some theists claim to know their god exists, but can't explain how they supposedly know. They equate belief with knowledge. How agnostic is defined has a more nuanced definition, but I think it can apply to everyone in the broadest, most general sense.

The point is all non-theists are not Atheists.
They mean the same thing. A-theist means non-theist.


There are behavioral patterns that all people have in common.
Thanks for backing me up.


Most Atheist - if not all - have had some religious background or raised by someone with certain religious values, which is why they tend to have certain morals.
Correct. This is why atheists have a lot of understanding about religious experience and belief and can bring that understanding to argue against religious claims.


The religious people who are immoral, are often lacking certain values because they choose to go against certain religious values, or are not taught them... like any other human being.
It's not about being religious. It about the values taught.
There are other variables. Some folks can sort out ethics and moral through their own thinking, just as humans have over time. We can see how kids are raised in white supremacist environments, which are notably Christian, and after some emotional and intellectual crisis and/or conflict will move away from this social influence. Or perhaps not and a new racist has been created, and they bring more chaos to other citizens. Being religious guarantees no moral advantages.


You did say Atheist are non-theists.
Who tries to stamp out religion? Not non-theists?
Other religions do quite a bit. Islam and Christianity have been at odds for over 1000 years. It's not only atheists that have seen some religious system as a threat in one way or another. Let's look at what Stalin did in the 30-40's. He did what dictators do. He came into power from a revolution that had many actors that were out for their own power. The Russian Revolution wasn't just between the Whites and the Reds, there were 19 different political organizations fighting for power. Stalin went about killing anyone he didn't trust. That was every officer over the rank of colonel, which was stupid once Germany invaded in June, 1941. Stalin also saw the Eatsern Orthodox hierarchy as a threat since it was the official national religion. Stalin killed all EO leaders. But he did leave priests in monasteries and churches, even though he closed the churches to the public and no more services.

Stalin did bring Russia into the 20th century with a huge industrialization program. So despite his purges he was doing a pretty good job, and to replace religion he pushed a nationalism approach.

After Germany invaded and Russia suffered huge losses of territory and troops the nation was in crisis. Stalin knew this and worried he would lose support of the people. His response was to reopen to churches so the people could find solace in the services. This worked, and as we know the Red Army was able to reorganize and take advantage of the industrialization to produce tanks and weapons in overwhelming numbers.

So Stalin could have wiped out the EO church, but didn't. He was going to be a priest himself before the Revolution. So the non-religious nature of Communism was a political approach that saw religion as a conflict with power and control, not something hostile to religion itself.[/quote]
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I don't see the need, personally.

It's fine to want kids to learn about other cultures, but this already gets covered in geography.

There's so much stuff kids could be learning. Offering one course - e.g. comparative religion - means denying that course slot to all the other possibilities that could have gone there. Why should religion get priority over all those others?

At most, make comparative religion an elective if you're going to offer it at all, but even then, there's tremendous potential for abuse. It's very easy for a comparative religion course to turn into a "how every religion but the teacher's religion is wrong" course if that's how the teacher feels like spinning it.
I have no idea what kids learn these days. I think given the ignorance of many Americans I've encountered there seems to be a very real need for an emphasis on how other people live. People in Europe have a vastly better understanding of the planet than many Americans. The USA is largely isolated, and even republicans advocate for isolation, which is naive and destined for disaster.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have no idea what kids learn these days. I think given the ignorance of many Americans I've encountered there seems to be a very real need for an emphasis on how other people live.
... and human geography is a thing.

Religion probably deserves a mention in a human geography course, but I'm not sure it warrants a whole unit, let alone a whole course by itself.

There are much more significant factors in the differences between how people live around the world.


People in Europe have a vastly better understanding of the planet than many Americans. The USA is largely isolated, and even republicans advocate for isolation, which is naive and destined for disaster.
No argument here. I just don't think that a religion course is the best way to address this problem.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Do you believe that people other than White straight Christians experience any kind of real hardship at all?
Yes - of course - but White straight Christians have to endure constant stupid questions from ignorant people who assume that they are racist and bigoted - like the one you just asked me.

That's its own kind of Hell.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes - of course - but White straight Christians have to endure constant stupid questions from ignorant people who assume that they are racist and bigoted - like the one you just asked me.

That's its own kind of Hell.
How is that any different from atheists who are assumed to be lacking in morals or LGBT who are assumed to be promiscuous or mentally ill, or pagans who are assumed to be Satan worshippers etc etc etc?
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
How is that any different from atheists who are assumed to be lacking in morals or LGBT who are assumed to be promiscuous or mentally ill, or pagans who are assumed to be Satan worshippers etc etc etc?
It's not much different to be honest - except that the cases you mentioned are higher on the "Oppression Hierarchy" totem pole.
Most liberal elites *are* Christian.
Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.

Liberals today tend to reject traditions - like religious observance.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Yes - of course - but White straight Christians have to endure constant stupid questions from ignorant people who assume that they are racist and bigoted - like the one you just asked me.

That's its own kind of Hell.
And that's just as bad as literal, material oppression and persecution?
Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.
It's not an article of faith, but an issue of facticity.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
And that's just as bad as literal, material oppression and persecution?
Thank you for proving me right about Christians constantly being asked stupid questions.

And I love how you turned my initial comment about Christians into "White straight" Christians - as if race and sexual orientation are par for the course.

I seem to be exhibiting some racism and bias.
It's not an article of faith, but an issue of facticity.
A statement made is not a "fact" until it is proved.

I saw no such evidence presented.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
And I love how you turned my initial comment about Christians into "White straight" Christians - as if race and sexual orientation are par for the course.
I did not turn anything into anything, I asked you a very simple question.

The allegiations of persecution and racism do not originate from my statements, but are your own addition. I simply asked you whether you could conceive of any of the people in your "oppression hierarchy" facing actual, material oppression.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
I did not turn anything into anything, I asked you a very simple question.
I said in Post #221,

"The liberal "elites" have provided an "Oppressed Hierarchy" of sorts - and Christians are at the bottom."

To which you replied in Post #222,

"Do you believe that people other than White straight Christians experience any kind of real hardship at all?"

So - yes - you turned my "comment about Christians into "White straight" Christians" - as I claimed.
The allegiations of persecution and racism do not originate from my statements, but are your own addition.
I have alleged that liberal "elites" have place Christians at the bottom of the "Oppressed Hierarchy".

I never claimed that Christians were more or less persecuted than any other group of people.

Just that liberal "elites" don't care about the persecution of Christians.

All the racism came from you - since you were the one who brought race into the equation.

Not to mention the stupid questions.
I simply asked you whether you could conceive of any of the people in your "oppression hierarchy" facing actual, material oppression.
Yeah - that stupid question.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not much different to be honest - except that the cases you mentioned are higher on the "Oppression Hierarchy" totem pole.

Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.

Liberals today tend to reject traditions - like religious observance.
Oppression Olympics is something Christians are well versed in. It's baked into the belief that the true of faith will be rejected and hated by the world, so it's something many Christians who are doing better off than, say religious or sexual minorities, tend to assume they experience anyway.

Liberal Christians usually reject fundamentalism but fundamentalism is a small part of the overall umbrella.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Oppression Olympics is something Christians are well versed in.
Sure - like the Jews - but you wouldn't be so dismissive with them and their plights - would you?
It's baked into the belief that the true of faith will be rejected and hated by the world, so it's something many Christians who are doing better off than, say religious or sexual minorities, tend to assume they experience anyway.
Persecution comes in all shapes and sizes. Only someone trying to compete in the "Oppression Olympics" tries to place value on someone by how "oppressed" they claim to be.

Besides - none of that excuses the leftist media's desire to sweep any and all Christian persecution under the rug.
Liberal Christians usually reject fundamentalism but fundamentalism is a small part of the overall umbrella.
I'm not saying that liberal Christians don't exist - only that they don't make up a significant portion of those "elites" that put Christians at the bottom of the Oppression Hierarchy.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
someone trying to compete in the "Oppression Olympics" tries to place value on someone by how "oppressed" they claim to be.
The OP is alleging without evidence that Christians are the most persecuted demographic, while downplaying the groups who are in the same boat where Christians are persecuted, and also ignoring where Christians have persecuted those same groups.

I'm not saying that liberal Christians don't exist - only that they don't make up a significant portion of those "elites" that put Christians at the bottom of the Oppression Hierarchy.
Such as?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It's not much different to be honest - except that the cases you mentioned are higher on the "Oppression Hierarchy" totem pole.

Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.

Liberals today tend to reject traditions - like religious observance.
And slavery. Liberals were forced into a civil war to end the tradition of slavery by conservative Christians.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
The OP is alleging without evidence that Christians are the most persecuted demographic, while downplaying the groups who are in the same boat where Christians are persecuted, and also ignoring where Christians have persecuted those same groups.
I didn't read that in the OP.

It is my understanding that the OP was indeed claiming that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world - and considering how many Christians there are in the world and how spread the religion is - that may be true - I cannot confirm or deny it.

However - the OP was not "downplaying" the plight of other persecuted groups - only that no one cares about the plight of Christians.

The OP said,

"It is really a phenomenon, when Jews are in danger, then there is great noise in Europe and in the USA, but the persecution of Christians is ignored. Even the situation of Muslims in China has more attention; I wonder if Europe and the USA are still really Christian."

Never once did the OP "downplay" the persecutions had by Jews and Muslims. The OP claimed that when these groups are victims - there is a "great noise" and "attention" generated on their behalf.

Not so about the persecution of Christians.
I don't understand the question.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
And slavery. Liberals were forced into a civil war to end the tradition of slavery by conservative Christians.
Pretty sure both sides were predominantly conservative Christians.

And no - the Civil War was not fought to end the tradition of slavery - but to preserve the Union.

The conflict began due to the economic and political control the Democratic South had due to being slave holders (3/5 Rules) - and issues involving State's rights.

Sure - the Democratic South tried to use the Bible to justify their owning slaves - but their motivation was wealth and political power - not religion.

And the Abolitionist North also tried to use the Bible to justify their wanting to free slaves - but they were also motivated by wealth and political power.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I have no idea what kids learn these days. I think given the ignorance of many Americans I've encountered there seems to be a very real need for an emphasis on how other people live. People in Europe have a vastly better understanding of the planet than many Americans. The USA is largely isolated, and even republicans advocate for isolation, which is naive and destined for disaster.
Can you give a few examples of what you mean by "ignorance of many Americans I've encountered there", and how "People in Europe have a vastly better understanding of the planet than many Americans"?
 
Top