POLL: Christians facing increased persecution in USA...

[Somerville]

Intolerance defined by leftists is the simple practice of being Christian. Therefore leftist persecute Christians for being Christian.

This persecution by the left is one of the methods in which leftists are destroying the country.

I will say that SOME who call themselves Christian, all too often deny the faith of others who call themselves Christian. It is that group with a rather narrowly-defined meaning for "Christian" which is the only group claiming persecution. As others have noted, there will always be some people who see equality for all as suppression of their beliefs and actions.

Here's a list of some of the churches which support same-sex marriage: are they Christian?

• Anglican Church of Canada
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Community of Christ
• Ecclesia Gnostica
• Episcopal Church (United States)
• Evangelical Anglican Church In America
• Evangelical Catholic Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
• The Evangelical Network
• Friends General Conference
• Friends of Jesus Fellowship in America
• Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
• Independent Greek Orthodox Church of the United States
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
• Swedenborgian Church of North America
• The Progressive Episcopal Church
• United Catholic Church
• United Church of Christ
• United Church of Canada
• Unity Fellowship Church Movement
• Unity Church

Please provide a list of specific actions which might be seen as "persecution of Christianity" in the United States and/or Canada and Europe

 

[Eric7216]

But those are not delusions, they are demonstrably real. Gods are not. So my original statement stands, no matter how hard you try to twist it.

And your delusion seems to be that religion has something to do with a belief in gods. Which takes me back to my first point. There is no consensus for what religion is. You have not defined it. Most people in the US automatically think of the Catholic or Christian definition of what makes a true religion. And when you use that definition, you are automatically granting privilege to religions that don't fit that definition. Unitarianism, Buddhism, Juche, Scientology, etc. are not religions, according to Catholic theology therefore they can be taught in schools. That makes an uneven playing field.

 

[Somerville]

And your delusion seems to be that religion has something to do with a belief in gods. Which takes me back to my first point. There is no consensus for what religion is. You have not defined it. Most people in the US automatically think of the Catholic or Christian definition of what makes a true religion. And when you use that definition, you are automatically granting privilege to religions that don't fit that definition. Unitarianism, Buddhism, Juche, Scientology, etc. are not religions, according to Catholic theology therefore they can be taught in schools. That makes an uneven playing field.

In the vast majority of American school districts, "Catholic theology" plays no part in determining what beliefs are to be seen as religion or not. Not counting parochial schools

 

[Eric7216]

In the vast majority of American school districts, "Catholic theology" plays no part in determining what beliefs are to be seen as religion or not. Not counting parochial schools

Then what is a religion and what is religious speech? How can one determine whether some words are religious speech and some are not? Cephus seems to think that a belief in god makes a religion yet that is wrong (except to Catholics and some others).
Why is having a prayer or benediction probably illegal in a public school but talking about the interdependent web of existence or justice, equity and compassion in human relations is acceptable?
(Those last bits are 2 of the 7 principles of Unitarianism)

 

[Cephus]

Then what is a religion and what is religious speech? How can one determine whether some words are religious speech and some are not? Cephus seems to think that a belief in god makes a religion yet that is wrong (except to Catholics and some others).
Why is having a prayer or benediction probably illegal in a public school but talking about the interdependent web of existence or justice, equity and compassion in human relations is acceptable?
(Those last bits are 2 of the 7 principles of Unitarianism)

Religion is just religious belief codified. It's an organized means of believing. You can have faith without belonging to an organized religion. Religion happens when people with faith come together to celebrate together.

 

[Logicman]

Oh look, another 'good' Christian attempting to conflate assaults upon children with love between consenting adults. Is it because they have no other reason for their bias and hatred?

"Consenting adults"!! Adulterers are consenting adults. Are they not sinners either? So that cop-out won't fly.

Those who attack LGBT persons seem to be trying to deny to themselves their own desires.

<facepalm>

They couldn't possibly have ulterior motives in trying to save them from perdition. Nope, those who don't approve due to theological reasons must be hated and despised by the pro-gay community, or made into closet gays.

Somerville, another nice try but no biscuit for you today.

 

[Somerville]

"Consenting adults"!! Adulterers are consenting adults. Are they not sinners either? So that cop-out won't fly.



<facepalm>

They couldn't possibly have ulterior motives in trying to save them from perdition. Nope, those who don't approve due to theological reasons must be hated and despised by the pro-gay community, or made into closet gays.

Somerville, another nice try but no biscuit for you today.

Yeah "consenting adults". Why did you ignore your own words from post #47? In a reply to HenryChinaski you brought in "pedophilia". Nobody else, just you. This is a rather common tactic, mention an action which all rational beings condemn while 'answering' a totally unrelated comment. Apparently this is because you and others see same sex love between adults as being just as evil as an adult attacking a minor.

Your answers all too often have little to do with topic being discussed..

Ever hear of Larry Craig? How about Ted Haggard? Or George Rekers, Eddie Long, Paul Crouch, Troy King, Richard Curtis, Glenn Murphy Jr, Bruce Barclay, Roy Ashburn -- There are more of these preachers and politicians who were known for their anti-gay speeches and actions all the while they were closeted gay men, denying their sexuality.

 

[Slyfox696]

"Consenting adults"!! Adulterers are consenting adults. Are they not sinners either?

They are, but do you see anyone discriminating against them? Are adulterers being denied wedding licenses?

Adultery is one of the biggest sins in the Christian religion, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and yet those Christians who would discriminate against homosexuals seem to care very little about those who commit adultery.

I doubt you'll see the difference, but it really is smacking you across the face like a 2x4. The fact of the matter is the original person to whom you replied was right, "Gay has become the new black for fundie Christians who use their beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those they disapprove of.".

 

[Logicman]

They are, but do you see anyone discriminating against them? Are adulterers being denied wedding licenses?

Adultery is one of the biggest sins in the Christian religion, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and yet those Christians who would discriminate against homosexuals seem to care very little about those who commit adultery.

It's not "either/or". Both adultery and gay sex are sins. They're both condemned at various times by preachers and Christians alike. But you probably don't hear about adultery as much because there's no grand movement to legitimize it. There's no 'adultery pride' parades, no flaunting it per se in the media, and really no defending it in these fora.

Gay pride = two sins.

I doubt you'll see the difference, but it really is smacking you across the face like a 2x4. The fact of the matter is the original person to whom you replied was right, "Gay has become the new black for fundie Christians who use their beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those they disapprove of.".

I just showed you the difference, and the only 2X4's that's going to smack anyone will be at the Judgment, when the gay pride parades and all adulterers, unbelievers, fornicators, etc., get cast into the Lake of Fire.

 

[AGENT J]

A poll finds that, in just two years, the number of Americans who think Christians are facing growing intolerance in the U.S. has drastically increased.

Sixty-three percent of respondents in the LifeWay Research survey said they agree or strongly agree that Christians are facing growing levels of persecution, up from 50 percent in 2013. The bulk of that surge comes from respondents who said they “strongly agree” with the statement, a number that increased from 28 percent to 38 percent.

Christians facing increased persecution in America: poll - Washington Times

On the planet . . yes there are Christian persecuted
in my country USA, im sure there are PEOPLE that try to persecute chrisitians just like everybody else

But my country has a whole certainly does not nor does the law or government, those claims are never taken seriously because they are a complete joke and theres nothign to support them.

I myself am a christian and I have never been persecuted in any way based on my faith nor are there any laws that infringe on my religious rights.

It's all made up fantasy that if not controlled could lead to us ALL losing some rights but I doubt that will ever happen because equal rights is winning and these extreme nutters are mocked and laughed at. They do not represent Christianity as a whole nor religion in general.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's not "either/or". Both adultery and gay sex are sins.

I disagree, but let's say for argument's sake they are. Only one of those two sins are being discriminated against by Christians. See the point?

They're both condemned at various times by preachers and Christians alike. But you probably don't hear about adultery as much because there's no grand movement to legitimize it. There's no 'adultery pride' parades, no flaunting it per se in the media, and really no defending it in these fora.

Gay pride = two sins.

Not everyone believes in your religion and the Constitution expressely allows them to believe what they want. The point is that even if you consider them both to be sins, Christians only seem to be concerned about discriminating against one of the two sins.

I just showed you the difference, and the only 2X4's that's going to smack anyone will be at the Judgment, when the gay pride parades and all adulterers, unbelievers, fornicators, etc., get cast into the Lake of Fire.

Yeah yeah, whatever. We're talking about discrimination and how some Christians are just using their faith to discriminate, not because they are against sin, but because they just find being gay to be distasteful. If Christians believed those who sin should be discriminated against, then A) all Christians should be discriminated against since all Christians sin, and B) We should be discriminating those who commit adultery far more than those who engage in homosexuality, since homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Bible and adultery is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

It's not about religion, it's about persecution of homosexuals for personal preference. It has nothing to do with religion. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then don't have sex with someone of the same gender. But you don't get to persecute others and discriminate against them for believing differently.

 

[Logicman]

I disagree, but let's say for argument's sake they are. Only one of those two sins are being discriminated against by Christians. See the point?

We're talking about Christianity and the Bible. Both adultery and same-sex sexual relations are clearly condemned. If you need the scriptures on the latter let me know.

The point is that even if you consider them both to be sins, Christians only seem to be concerned about discriminating against one of the two sins.

Wrong. Unrepentant adulterers are almost always restricted from the pulpit, and from positions of authority in the church. They are also ostracized by various parties in the non-theological world. Top secret clearances may be withheld, along with various positions of responsibility, you need to rethink your position on adulterers not being 'discriminated' against.

"... homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Bible..."

OK, time for your scriptural enlightenment on that. Make sure you make a note of these for the future.

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

And that is more than sufficient as the moral guideline on that.

 

[Slyfox696]

We're talking about Christianity and the Bible.

No, we're talking about how Christians are using their faith to justify discrimination.

If you don't even know what is being discussed, why are you still posting?

Both adultery and same-sex sexual relations are clearly condemned.

But only one is of concern to so many Christians when it comes to discriminating against others.

Wrong. Unrepentant adulterers are almost always restricted from the pulpit, and from positions of authority in the church.

...right.

But we're not talking about the internal structure of a church, we're talking about the United States. Again, it would help if you knew what was being discussed.

OK, time for your scriptural enlightenment on that. Make sure you make a note of these for the future.

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

So in a book of roughly 1200 pages, you've provided me with 11 sentences (some of which are even questionable) and you're claiming it's not barely mentioned?

Seriously?

God is consistent on that.

And how is he on adultery? But Christians seems to be ostracizing adulterers, nor advocating for legal discrimination against them...

 

[Logicman]

No, we're talking about how Christians are using their faith to justify discrimination.

If you don't even know what is being discussed, why are you still posting?

But only one is of concern to so many Christians when it comes to discriminating against others.

...right.

But we're not talking about the internal structure of a church, we're talking about the United States. Again, it would help if you knew what was being discussed.


So in a book of roughly 1200 pages, you've provided me with 11 sentences (some of which are even questionable) and you're claiming it's not barely mentioned?

Seriously?

And how is he on adultery? But Christians seems to be ostracizing adulterers, nor advocating for legal discrimination against them...

Like I said previously, I've missed the adultery pride parades and people cramming it down the throats of our third graders, trying to legitimize it. And unlike the debauchery of gay sex sin that you're defending, I'm not defending adultery. And neither is any church I've ever attended. So get a better argument.

 

[winston53660]

Like I said previously, I've missed the adultery pride parades and people cramming it down the throats of our third graders, trying to legitimize it. And unlike the debauchery of gay sex sin that you're defending, I'm not defending adultery. And neither is any church I've ever attended. So get a better argument.

Do you live in a cave?

 

[Slyfox696]

Like I said previously, I've missed the adultery pride parades

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? We're talking about "Christians" (and I do not consider them truly living as a Christian, to be honest) who want to use their religion as a tool to discriminate. There is no law or ordinance preventing an "adultery pride" parade. But there are plenty of laws trying to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the same freedoms as anyone else.

and people cramming it down the throats of our third graders, trying to legitimize it.

No, those who claim to be Christian have already done a far better job legitimizing adultery in American society than any parade ever could.

and unlike the debauchery of gay sex sin that you're defending, I'm not defending adultery.

No one is defending anything, I'm pointing out that "Christians" aren't trying to pass laws to discriminate against adulterers. It's a very simply argument I'm making, though your difficulty to comprehend it doesn't surprise me.

And neither is any church I've ever attended. So get a better argument.

No one gives a rat's ass about your church, we're talking about a very popular movement right now across the southern states to legalize the ability to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Casper]

This nonsensical conspiracy thread still going? Go figure......................................

 

[roguenuke]

1. There have been cases in which symbols seen as "religious" have been removed from public grounds. But mainly I was thinking about public organizations, including non-privately owned business that are required to make pubic accommodations. And those bakers were required to bake the cake or face stiff fines. Close to being a gun to their head. I believe that they went out of business.
2. That is a slippery slope-some prior acts and "repatriations". Sounds like the Hatfield-McCoy feud. What happened generations ago happened generations ago. There is no justice available at this point. And certainly violating the separation of church and state for one group would not be acceptable.
3. If you ban "religious" speech in schools you have to define religious speech in a way that doesn't establish one type of religious speech. What makes "religious" speech religious.

They went out of business because others chose not to do business with them based on their unwillingness to sell certain items to certain groups of people, not because they were Christian.

The courts do a fairly good job at defining religious speech that cannot be used/said/presented in school.

 

[roguenuke]

Intolerance defined by leftists is the simple practice of being Christian. Therefore leftist persecute Christians for being Christian.

This persecution by the left is one of the methods in which leftists are destroying the country.

You have absolutely no evidence for any of this. Most leftist could care less what Christians say, do, or believe unless their actions are harming others. Most leftists are Christians themselves.

 

[Eric7216]

They went out of business because others chose not to do business with them based on their unwillingness to sell certain items to certain groups of people, not because they were Christian.

The courts do a fairly good job at defining religious speech that cannot be used/said/presented in school.

My position is that everyone should be allowed to have a belief system and live by that belief system, whether "religious" or not, and whether in public or private, as long as that belief system does not impact on anyone else's rights. And it is hard to see how anyone has a right for someone else to do something for them. You don't have to do anything for me, regardless of whether you are in business or not. Oregon did fine the bakers $135,000 which seems to be a heavy handed response. If they went out of business because less people wanted to do business with them than the free market works and did not need the heavy hand of totalitarian government. I believe that bigots will lose in the end so why involve the government. If this were 1930s perhaps I would feel differently but it is not. If society becomes so prejudiced again then perhaps government involvement is needed. One baker is not the same as segregated waterfountains.

My contention is that Americans, and courts, think of religion in Judeo-Christian terms and therefore tend to come harder on "religious" speech that meet those Judeo-Christian definitions. And religious speech that doesn't quite match those definitions get a pass. I suspect that I could talk about the interdependent web and the inherent worth of every human being and put an eternal flame in front of a school and get a pass while someone talking about the love of god, Jesus, and putting up two boards in a "t" shape could not. Despite the fact that my talk consisted of 2 of the 7 principles of Unitarianism as well as the symbol of Unitarians. I can not tell what is religious speech and what is not and don't believe that courts can either, without basically establishing a religion by using their definition. Religion is defined as "is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence"(Wikipedia). Seems rather broad. Seems like almost any speech.

 

[roguenuke]

My position is that everyone should be allowed to have a belief system and live by that belief system, whether "religious" or not, and whether in public or private, as long as that belief system does not impact on anyone else's rights. And it is hard to see how anyone has a right for someone else to do something for them. You don't have to do anything for me, regardless of whether you are in business or not. Oregon did fine the bakers $135,000 which seems to be a heavy handed response. If they went out of business because less people wanted to do business with them than the free market works and did not need the heavy hand of totalitarian government. I believe that bigots will lose in the end so why involve the government. If this were 1930s perhaps I would feel differently but it is not. If society becomes so prejudiced again then perhaps government involvement is needed. One baker is not the same as segregated waterfountains.

My contention is that Americans, and courts, think of religion in Judeo-Christian terms and therefore tend to come harder on "religious" speech that meet those Judeo-Christian definitions. And religious speech that doesn't quite match those definitions get a pass. I suspect that I could talk about the interdependent web and the inherent worth of every human being and put an eternal flame in front of a school and get a pass while someone talking about the love of god, Jesus, and putting up two boards in a "t" shape could not. Despite the fact that my talk consisted of 2 of the 7 principles of Unitarianism as well as the symbol of Unitarians. I can not tell what is religious speech and what is not and don't believe that courts can either, without basically establishing a religion by using their definition. Religion is defined as "is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence"(Wikipedia). Seems rather broad. Seems like almost any speech.

The fine was well after they closed their business, and they already had raised plenty of money to pay it.

We, as a society, have decided that we are too dependent on trade with others to allow for those who operate businesses to refuse to serve people based on their religious beliefs. In some Muslim countries, merchants will not do business with a woman who is either a) not accompanied by a man, or b) not in the "correct" clothing for being outside. This is their religious belief. So why should we allow that same sort of obviously harmful business practice to happen here?

 

[Eric7216]

The fine was well after they closed their business, and they already had raised plenty of money to pay it.

We, as a society, have decided that we are too dependent on trade with others to allow for those who operate businesses to refuse to serve people based on their religious beliefs. In some Muslim countries, merchants will not do business with a woman who is either a) not accompanied by a man, or b) not in the "correct" clothing for being outside. This is their religious belief. So why should we allow that same sort of obviously harmful business practice to happen here?

The allegation that the bakers raised enough to pay the fine is irrelevant. There should not have been a fine
One baker does not equate to a Muslim country banning women not being properly dressed or accompanied.

So why should we allow that same sort of obviously harmful business practice to happen here?

Because it is obviously a harmful business practice. To the business.
I realize that we are a repressive society. Perhaps in the future we may live up to the progressive spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Public or private. Thoughts or actions. Religious or other belief. Progress through freedoms to all and not through repression.

As a practical matter, the baker incident did little. They can still operate a bakery as a private concern. The fine was paid by volunteers. The couple did not get their cake from them. After the sound and fury things went back to basically where they would have been if the couple simply went to another bakery.

 

[Moot]

Christians in US feel persecuted because they can't legally persecute others.

 

[Casper]

Christians in US feel persecuted because they can't legally persecute others.

Yeup, that pretty much nails it. The funny part is how loudly their whine when they pass laws to discriminate and persecute others and people take their business elsewhere, accountability is not one of their qualities. FYI, only the far right Christians fall into this category.

 

[AGENT J]

Christians in US feel persecuted because they can't legally persecute others.

No, extremist nutters, who happen to claim Christianity feel that way. Most Christians respect the laws and rights of others.