Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Do you believe that people other than White straight Christians experience any kind of real hardship at all?The liberal "elites" have provided an "Oppressed Hierarchy" of sorts - and Christians are at the bottom.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe that people other than White straight Christians experience any kind of real hardship at all?The liberal "elites" have provided an "Oppressed Hierarchy" of sorts - and Christians are at the bottom.
I don't see the need, personally.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.
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.That certainly is not relevant.
An agnostic is not an Atheist, nor a theist.
They mean the same thing. A-theist means non-theist.The point is all non-theists are not Atheists.
Thanks for backing me up.There are behavioral patterns that all people have in common.
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.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.
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.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.
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.You did say Atheist are non-theists.
Who tries to stamp out religion? Not non-theists?
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.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.
... and human geography is a thing.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.
No argument here. I just don't think that a religion course is the best way to address this problem.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.
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.Do you believe that people other than White straight Christians experience any kind of real hardship at all?
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?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.
Most liberal elites *are* Christian.The liberal "elites" have provided an "Oppressed Hierarchy" of sorts - and Christians are at the bottom.
It's not much different to be honest - except that the cases you mentioned are higher on the "Oppression Hierarchy" totem pole.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?
Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.Most liberal elites *are* Christian.
And that's just as bad as literal, material oppression and persecution?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.
It's not an article of faith, but an issue of facticity.Not "liberal" as defined today - no I do not believe that for a second.
Thank you for proving me right about Christians constantly being asked stupid questions.And that's just as bad as literal, material oppression and persecution?
A statement made is not a "fact" until it is proved.It's not an article of faith, but an issue of facticity.
I did not turn anything into anything, I asked you a very simple question.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 said in Post #221,I did not turn anything into anything, I asked you a very simple question.
I have alleged that liberal "elites" have place Christians at the bottom of the "Oppressed Hierarchy".The allegiations of persecution and racism do not originate from my statements, but are your own addition.
Yeah - that stupid question.I simply asked you whether you could conceive of any of the people in your "oppression hierarchy" facing actual, material oppression.
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.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.
Sure - like the Jews - but you wouldn't be so dismissive with them and their plights - would you?Oppression Olympics is something Christians are well versed in.
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.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.
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.Liberal Christians usually reject fundamentalism but fundamentalism is a small part of the overall umbrella.
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.someone trying to compete in the "Oppression Olympics" tries to place value on someone by how "oppressed" they claim to be.
Such as?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.
And slavery. Liberals were forced into a civil war to end the tradition of slavery by conservative Christians.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.
I didn't read that in the OP.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 don't understand the question.Such as?
Pretty sure both sides were predominantly conservative Christians.And slavery. Liberals were forced into a civil war to end the tradition of slavery by conservative Christians.
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"?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.