Is Christianity Picked On?

[Fluffy]

The idea that Christians living in such areas as America or Europe are "picked on" is aboslutely ridiculous. I fail to see how a vast majority can be persecuted, when they outnumber all of the minorities, even when those minorities are all grouped together.

In my personal experience (growing up in a Christian country with enforced prayer etc.), persecution towards Christians is significant enough to be viewed as serious as any other intolerant act.

 

[Songofmorning]

Probably.

We have to be so politically correct, that we are not allowed to make fun of any ethnic minority Religion any more, without risking the wrath of the courts.

I guess that leaves our own home grown Christianity, to be the sole target for 'picking fun at people'. Add to that the fact that any Christian worth his salt will want to turn the other cheek when made fun of, and I guess that makes followers of that faith an easy target.

So eloquently stated and so perfectly true. Great job Michel!

 

[Tannenisis]

Perhaps someone should define what is meant by persecution. At one job I held, I was reported 33 times for "Satanism," as if this is a valid reason to report anyone. When I got into work, I would have pamlets where the statement "God said not to suffer a witch to live" underlined and bolded. A co-worker walked right up to me and said that she hoped I had a miscarriage (as I worked during my pregnancy) just so my son wouldn't be born "a heathen."

All this because I am not Christian, but Pagan. How many Christians has this happened to?

For those who really feel like Christianity is being persecuted, perhaps you live in a different world from me. The one I live in has Muslims being harrassed and made fun of on a daily basis. I have seen so much hatred and bias towards Muslims since 9/11. It is even worse because I am expected to share in this hatred because my husband and I worked in WTC5 up until it was destroyed on that day.

I have witnessed Muslims being stopped in neighborhoods from NYC to Rhode Island for no reason. Slammed to the ground, harrassed by police officers that make fun of their style of dress, their beards, etcs. I have family members that proclaim to be open-minded, but every Muslim is a suicide-bomber in the making. Muhummad was a pedophile, according to them. Their religion is a disgrace. The quote and distort the Quran to make every Muslim both ignorant and backwards.

And this is said OPENLY on a daily basis. I hear talk-show hosts like Michael Savage and Ann Coutler spouting off on national television that Muslims should be converted to Christianity and the whole region bombed out of existence.

But Christianity is being persecuted?

It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my Islamic co-worker attending our company meeting on 9/13/2001 without her traditional attire. It was fear of people who saw her dress and harrassed her going down the street. It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my neighborhood in Queens militarized because every business owned by an Arab or Middle Eastern-looking person was vandalized and destroyed in the aftermath of the tragedy. It certainly wasn't persecution of Christianity that had the police in Providence, RI knocking down a man and restraining him merely because he had on a turban.

So please define persecution and "picked on" for me. I'm a little lost.

My two cents,
Tannenisis

 

[mr.guy]

Christians, to the best of my estimation and experience, are most frequently "persecuted" by other christians.

 

[maggie2]

Tannenisis,

Thank you for that thoughtful post.

 

[s2a]

Hi NetDoc,

After I previously imparted:
"If you wish to call/label/accuse someone of being (or presenting themselves as): a bigot; a racist; biased; prejudiced; or some other untoward boorish behavior, then say so - or give it a rest."

You replied:

Great concept: but it's not allowed by the TOS. When I have done so I have been censured. I have gone to great lengths to abide by the TOS and now you criticise me for playing within the rules? Get a grip.

Perhaps the one of the reasons for your past censures were due in part to your selective memory/application of what the TOS specifically states. I would counsel you a renewed grasp of certain rungs of the TOS, and thereupon which, take note that he TOS states:
"Part 5a) You agree not to provide any Messages to the RF that...is knowlingly false, and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harrassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law or regulation."

Is it your defense that your (prospective) comments would therefore be knowingly false and/or defamatory? Thus far, I would but concur with such an assessment.

Note that (within the TOS) there is no prohibition in posting comments that are demonstrably factual and/or true. You are not prohibited in substantiating an accusation of bigotry in provision of evidence that supports such a claim. You are not prohibited by the TOS to address and illustrate as support a claim of say, someone being a "racist", if you can readily reference a post/comment of the so accused that states something akin to, "I hate all black people" (which would be both compelling and undeniable proof).
If you wish to substantiate a claim of personal/communal bias against, say...Christians, then you are well within the acceptable boundaries of the TOS to illustrate/reference directly applicable posts/comments that would establish the legitimacy of the claim (beyond reasonable dounts).
If a "mod" were to state, say...his/her opinion that Buddhists (or perhaps just you) were only deserving of second-class treatment and consideration within REF, then you would be within the acceptable boundaries of TOS and CoC to note that such a comment was direct evidence of bias, and that it's plainly accurate to claim that the mod is, in fact, "biased".

I invite you to "play by the rules", and not fabricate rules of special pleading/convenience that are non-existent.

On the other hand, your continued (readily referenced and evidentially demonstrable) practice of generalized and none-too-subtle imputations/allusions/allegations levied against such amorphously "offensive" ambiguous perpetrators (as REF members), as: "some(one)"; "they"; "them"; "those", etc. - is certainly questionable, if not implicitly forbidden by the rules outlined above.
[Note: "Special rules" apply to threads within the "General Debates" section of REF, which simply state: "The only things that will be deleted or edited are complete hatred posts and non-etiquette posts. We want everyone to have a good friendly time debating but remember everybody has a different view and try not to take it personal. So be warned, if you participate in this forum be prepared for the worst."]

I am no REF mod, nor do I retain aspirations in assumption of such incumbent (and time consuming) responsibilities (been there, done that elsewhere); so you may well question my understanding of the quoted TOS, as I am neither cop nor prosecutor of forum offenses.

But take heart. You need not publicly continue baseless claims of impropriety by unnamed members. You have the option of doing so privately, as described in Part 6c of the TOS:
"Any user who feels that a Message is objectionable may request RF to delete said Message...Upon receipt of such a request, RF will determine, in its sole opinion, if such deletion is necessary."

See? If you can't legitimately substantiate your claims of "personal offense" with directly (and publicly) referenced evidences, you can still place the burden upon others to do so, and allow objectivity and discretion take it's own course as to the ultimate merit and legitimacy of your stated objections and personal offense.

Of course, you can extract solace in:
Rule 6e) -
"RF is not responsible for any and all Messages expressed in the RF. RF does not attempt to control or validate any comments or recommendations provided by the participants and is not responsible for any inaccuracies in the Messages. Therefore, you bear the risk associated with, the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the Messages."

I guess you're off the hook of personal accountability after all...at least or until someone in the REF community-at-large has the audacity or temerity to challenge spurious/specious claims....

Recall that I said:
"You have been invited upon numerous occasions to question/examine, even openly deride any of my (you know - addressing me specifically - not in some ambiguous, vague, or general reference) stated perspectives, observations, or commentaries."

You replied:

I am sure that it would amuse you to see me banned for indulging in such boorish behavior.

Um, hello?

Is it your position that merely questioning/examining someone's stated perspectives/observations/commentaries is tantamount to boorish behavior deserving of censure and outright banning? REF is a discussion/debate forum. It invites open critical examination and discussion of topics, ideas, opinions, and individualized perspectives.

If you can't understand my generalities, please don't blame me!

Inaccurate (and self-serving) projection on your part. I understand your "generalities" all too well. It was my suggestion that you refrain from their continued use.

If you can't apply the criticisms then again: don't blame me. If my rhetoric hurts your eyes, then PLEASE put me on ignore.

I wouldn't even contemplate such a measure (though your historic posts suggest that is an option you unabashedly employ) . I am (and remain) a skeptic. Debunking false/spurious claims, and deconstruction of vapid rhetoric are my hobbies. I only wish there were less ripe fodder for the cannon...:-(

However, your "put up or shut up" diatribe is disengenuous and to quote one of my greatest critics on this board: "Rubbish". Your attempt to silence me by asking me to break the TOS is nothing short of ludicrous.

Again with the "thunderous verbal attack" assignation? Much more like wishful thinking, mischaracterization, and special pleading on your part...

You (apparently) misunderstand yet again. I am not disingenuous (in this specific case), but indeed most sincere (your concomitantly "cavalier" dismissal hereby noted)...
[Odd, is it not, that I have yet to ascribe any personalized motivations upon you for your participation in REF?]

It is of neither concern nor interest to me as to what level or degree of participation within REF you choose to partake. I am both pleased and self-ingratiated to be a monetary supporter of REF, and I welcome any and all contributors that wish to engage reasoned and amicable discussion and debate upon the relevant and interesting concepts/topics presented here, on a daily basis, for open community consideration. For you to imply that my motivations for participation within the REF community includes manifesting some adjudged unwilling departure on your part is utterly absurd; and both inanely and inaccurately suggests some deferential levels of consternation, significance, or compelling communal impact - as to my regard of your participation herein. I perceive you as no greater, nor a lesser contributor of import or profundity than myself within REF.

Inasmuch, my counsel/commentary remains as it was initially lent:
Be plain-spoken (direct); be specific in claims/accusations made; be prepared to be substantial (or prepared to be challenged accordingly).

There is nothing in the TOS that precludes/prohibits such invited conduct in REF discussion/debate. If you can acurately/factually support/substantiate your protestations/claims (derisive or not), then they ain't "knowlingly false, and/or defamatory, inaccurate...".

If you can't (or don't know how to); then as previously suggested...give it a rest.

 

[Scuba Pete]

s2a,

You are way off topic here. Should you wish to persue this, please start another thread. Until that time, until you can demonstrate that my posts have violated the TOS, I will not "give it a rest" and would recommend that you use the "ignore feature" instead.

 

[michel]

Perhaps someone should define what is meant by persecution. At one job I held, I was reported 33 times for "Satanism," as if this is a valid reason to report anyone. When I got into work, I would have pamlets where the statement "God said not to suffer a witch to live" underlined and bolded. A co-worker walked right up to me and said that she hoped I had a miscarriage (as I worked during my pregnancy) just so my son wouldn't be born "a heathen."

All this because I am not Christian, but Pagan. How many Christians has this happened to?

For those who really feel like Christianity is being persecuted, perhaps you live in a different world from me. The one I live in has Muslims being harrassed and made fun of on a daily basis. I have seen so much hatred and bias towards Muslims since 9/11. It is even worse because I am expected to share in this hatred because my husband and I worked in WTC5 up until it was destroyed on that day.

I have witnessed Muslims being stopped in neighborhoods from NYC to Rhode Island for no reason. Slammed to the ground, harrassed by police officers that make fun of their style of dress, their beards, etcs. I have family members that proclaim to be open-minded, but every Muslim is a suicide-bomber in the making. Muhummad was a pedophile, according to them. Their religion is a disgrace. The quote and distort the Quran to make every Muslim both ignorant and backwards.

And this is said OPENLY on a daily basis. I hear talk-show hosts like Michael Savage and Ann Coutler spouting off on national television that Muslims should be converted to Christianity and the whole region bombed out of existence.

But Christianity is being persecuted?

It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my Islamic co-worker attending our company meeting on 9/13/2001 without her traditional attire. It was fear of people who saw her dress and harrassed her going down the street. It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my neighborhood in Queens militarized because every business owned by an Arab or Middle Eastern-looking person was vandalized and destroyed in the aftermath of the tragedy. It certainly wasn't persecution of Christianity that had the police in Providence, RI knocking down a man and restraining him merely because he had on a turban.

So please define persecution and "picked on" for me. I'm a little lost.

My two cents,
Tannenisis

Hi Tannenisis,
As I notice that this is your first visit here, I thought I would take the opportunity to welcome you to Religious Forums;
I hope that you would feel able to introduce yourself to the other members of the forum, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to look at.

I notice you don't say where you live, and I will assume you live in the States (actually, later on you do give an indication that I am right). All I can say is that the Christians you have met have not quite 'got the message right';

A co-worker walked right up to me and said that she hoped I had a miscarriage (as I worked during my pregnancy) just so my son wouldn't be born "a heathen."

Well, I should not be judgemental, but if that is christianity.....(No, I am being silly); that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity; I haven't heard such a wicked thing being said in years. I hope you can accept my apologies for that abysmal lack of humanity on behalf of the co-worker....

It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my Islamic co-worker attending our company meeting on 9/13/2001 without her traditional attire. It was fear of people who saw her dress and harrassed her going down the street. It wasn't persecution of Christianity that had my neighborhood in Queens militarized because every business owned by an Arab or Middle Eastern-looking person was vandalized and destroyed in the aftermath of the tragedy. It certainly wasn't persecution of Christianity that had the police in Providence, RI knocking down a man and restraining him merely because he had on a turban.

What can I say ?......just too dreadful to think about..........Knockout

 

[may]

Christians, to the best of my estimation and experience, are most frequently "persecuted" by other christians.

i would say that true christians are most frequently persecuted by so called christians

 

[Tannenisis]

Hi Tannenisis,
As I notice that this is your first visit here, I thought I would take the opportunity to welcome you to Religious Forums.

Thank you for the warm welcome and the links.

I notice you don't say where you live, and I will assume you live in the States (actually, later on you do give an indication that I am right). All I can say is that the Christians you have met have not quite 'got the message right';

Yes, I do live in the U.S. Born and raised strict Seventh Day Adventist in rural Georgia. So I am fully aware of the vast diversity of Christianity and what it means. I have come across my fair share of Christians that are helpful and insightful, full of light and love as I strive to be.
However, I am noting that in my experience, living in the U.S., Christianity is the default. You are assumed to be Christian unless you state otherwise because everybody else is. And when it comes across to people that you are not Christian in the U.S., sometimes you are subjected to many varied degrees of biased thinking.
Lastly, there is no greater critic of a Christian than another Christian. I have heard so much hateful rhetoric between various sects of Christianity that it defies all reason, like the schism between Catholics and Protestants.

Well, I should not be judgemental, but if that is christianity.....(No, I am being silly); that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity; I haven't heard such a wicked thing being said in years.

It doesn't? The main thrust of the effort to ban gays in the U.S. from marrying has nothing to do with Christianity? The continual notion that Christianity is being persecuted by some large Secular boogyman has nothing to do with Christianity? What about the firestorm over the FCC tightening regulations to bring us all "moral" television during PrimeTime?

All over the internet, there are calls for moderate Muslims to reign in their extremists and take action. Yet where are the calls for moderate Christians to do the same? Where are the picket lines rallying against Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity? Where is the Christian outcry when a national pundit states Target is part of the "Secular agenda" to wipe out Christmas when this has never been more false? Or when Ann Coulter and the like spout off that the rest of the world should be forcibly converted? Or when a mother is kept from seeing her child for no other reason than she is Wiccan?

The overwhelming silence on these issues brings one to the conclusion that moderates are somewhat supportive of this type of behavior even if they aren't.

So when I see a thread here asking whether Christians are being picked on or persecuted, I'm asking for a definition of what "persecution" means. We don't have people that are openly atheist or of other religions in positions of power in this country. We have people in powerful positions in the United States that are Christian.

I hope you can accept my apologies for that abysmal lack of humanity on behalf of the co-worker....

What can I say ?......just too dreadful to think about..........Knockout

There is no need for you to apologize on her behalf. But on the last comment, this is why I felt the need to speak up. Can anyone here honestly state that Christianity is a bigger target of being made fun of and attacked than Islam right now? Seriously? I have yet to read of a Christian being slammed to the ground by authorities because they are wearing a cross around their neck. How many Muslims have you heard being harrassed for no reason?

My two cents,
Tannenisis

 

[Scuba Pete]

It doesn't? The main thrust of the effort to ban gays in the U.S. from marrying has nothing to do with Christianity?

That's right: it has EVERYTHING to do with fear and hate. Or do you paint me with the same homophobic brush that you seem to use on all Christians? You wonder why we feel "picked on" when there are willing Christophobes waiting to ascribe all sorts of evil intents to ALL Christians? You commit the same crime you accuse Christians of doing.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I think it's important to differentiate between the shades of faith we are discussing. Just as all pagans are not one thing, all Christians/ Islamics/ atheists and so on aren't one thing. Labelling them as such only serves to think in the same way of the people that we disagree with.

 

[askeptic]

The question itself is a generalization, so no one should be surprised when it is answered in a generalized way.

The Dobsons, the Falwells, and the Robertsons, and a plethora of others appear to be self-appointed spokesmen, and their vitriole invites derision and ridicule, not to mention, downright disgust. Why is it that these kinds of Christians seem to dominate the national stage? I am surprised by the surprise that these folks are viewed as being representative of the Christian religion.

And then I see the "no true Christian" defense used to claim bigotry against Christianity, when the target of most commentary I see is directed at these folks. If you are a Christian and are critical of them, then good. Are you being bigoted for criticising their interpretation of Christianity? I think "criticism" and "bigotry" are being used interchangeably. Accuse a person who challenges or criticises your viewpoint of bigotry, and you no longer need to address their points.

These same folks play the "persecution" card because it is a great tool to push people's buttons, and deflect the criticism they so rightly deserve. If you buy in, you have become an ally. This issue is a red herring.

Lots of other points raised here I could comment on, but I'll confine myself to the topic. S2A, I think you've made some very excellent points. Any chance you might simplify the language a bit?

 

[Tannenisis]

That's right: it has EVERYTHING to do with fear and hate. Or do you paint me with the same homophobic brush that you seem to use on all Christians? You wonder why we feel "picked on" when there are willing Christophobes waiting to ascribe all sorts of evil intents to ALL Christians? You commit the same crime you accuse Christians of doing.

Let's go back and refresh ourselves with what I posted yesterday, shall we? I stated this prior to the statement you quoted:

Yes, I do live in the U.S. Born and raised strict Seventh Day Adventist in rural Georgia. So I am fully aware of the vast diversity of Christianity and what it means. I have come across my fair share of Christians that are helpful and insightful, full of light and love as I strive to be.

How is this ascribing negative behavior to ALL Christians? Or did you just skip this portion of my post?
My family is majority Christian as is my husband's family. None of them are raging homophobes. Neither is my best friend, who is Roman Catholic.

What you need to do is separate commentary on the religion itself from that of the followers. Christianity is a diverse religion, and the interpretations of it varies. The main thrust of the arguments against gay marriage have to do with a singular Biblical interpretation that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. So trying to say that Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with that movement is intellectually dishonest. It isn't a version of Christianity that all people follow, but it is still a Christian belief that mainly drives it nonetheless.

How is stating this tarring all Christians as homophobes?
How is it hateful to state that there are, in fact, Christian extremeists that need to be curtailed and the best people to do this are Christians themselves because:

Lastly, there is no greater critic of a Christian than another Christian.

I am not against Christianity. I find it to be a beautiful religion, rich in methaphorical meaning and symbolism. So your accusation of my being a Christophobe is hardly accurate, particularly when a portion of my last job entailed doing the advertising for all the local churches for the sermon directory in my local paper and speaking with various pastors and reverends of all faiths. The study of all religions is what I have dedicated a large portion of my life to. I walk a path of light and love, not of division and hatred.

My two cents,
Tannenisis

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think "criticism" and "bigotry" are being used interchangeably. Accuse a person who challenges or criticises your viewpoint of bigotry, and you no longer need to address their points.

That's a neg. Criticisms that cover the entire religion are probably bigoted. IE ALL Christians hate gays. or Christianity supports intolerance towards gays. These lump ALL Christians into being homophobes and it's patently NOT FAIR. If A consists of B and C, and those two subsets are mutually exclusive, then saying that all As are Bs merely shows your prejudice.

Specific criticisms towards individuals (Falwell, etc) or groups that are homogeneous is not bigotry, but truth or your opinion of the truth.

These same folks play the "persecution" card because it is a great tool to push people's buttons, and deflect the criticism they so rightly deserve. If you buy in, you have become an ally. This issue is a red herring.

When you, by default, call me a homophobe, etc BECAUSE I am a Christian, I cry FOUL! Should I stand blithely by while you eviscerate my reputation? BTW, none of the Christians posting here seem to be using the "persecution card", but that doesn't seem to stop you from accusing us of using it! Talk about a RED HERRING!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think it's important to differentiate between the shades of faith we are discussing. Just as all pagans are not one thing, all Christians/ Islamics/ atheists and so on aren't one thing. Labelling them as such only serves to think in the same way of the people that we disagree with.

Amen Sister Feathers!

But some people feel it's their right to make false statements and not my right to challenge them on it.

 

[Tannenisis]

Question: who here is claiming that all Christians are raging homophobes? Who is stating that you don't have a right to challenge the opinions of others, NetDoc?

 

[askeptic]

Netdoc, the only one lumping all Christians together is you. You also seem to be trying to create a non-christian group out of thin air that is saying this. You act as if all non-christians are saying that all christians are homophobes in order to support some notion you have that there is this huge group of anti-christian bigots out there. Yes, I'm sure that some people do this, although no one I've ever met. So? Where is this huge group of people that says this? If you can't name names then why do you keep harping on it?

I stand by my contention that this is used to deflect criticism instead of addressing the actual criticism being leveled. For example, there are those who denigrate the idea of church-state separation as "anti-christian bigotry"

One such theocrat appears to be State Representative Jack White of Georgia. Kevin Cummings writes for The Catoosa County Times:

"We cannot allow the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the tiny minority of anti-religious bigots and cultural radicals that it represents to further destroy America's Christian heritage and the values that come from God's law."​

Clearly, this is an attempt to avoid debating the issue by accusing those who don't agree of BIGOTRY. This is the point. And it is being used by many more than Jack White or Kevin Cummings. This was used to deflect criticism of John Ashcroft's extremist behavior. Don't address the criticism - accuse those folks of BIGOTRY!

Hmmmmm....

 

[Katzpur]

Is it permissable to pick on Christianity in ways that it's not permissable to pick on other religions? What do you think?

I don't know. To me, it seems as if only certain denominations of Christianity are picked on. And it's mostly certain other denominations doing the "picking." (Won't say who, but if the shoe fits...)

 

[Scuba Pete]

A class in logic or possibly Boolean Algebra would suffice to show you just how inclusive several of your statements are: regardless of any face saving caveats. Your words would be less offensive were you to temper them with "some", "a few" or even "many".

If only more people were as eager to CHANGE their outlook instead of trying to justify them!