NationStates Jolt Archive

I objected to GnI saying Jesus was a communist, and, a textbook communist, and that his teachings read like a communist manifesto. GnI refuses to retract any of it.


Fine. I'll retract it, when you admit that a) Jesus ONLY came for the Jews, and b) Jesus was not Messiah.

Both of those are directly supported by the scripture, whereas my contested idea about communism can be argued for or against with what is available.

Deal?

again, its not that i disagree with your point. i dont see the jesus of the bible as a guy who proclaimed himself divine and expected all future generations to worship him. i dont see him wanting to create a new religion at all. (leaving out the part where i dont think that jesus existed at all. not relevant to my point)

however, it seems that the apostles DID think that and that they DID want to start a new religion. i dont think it is wrong of a christian to follow the example of the earliest christians. (the part where i think that they had a worship style long before they made up the stories about jesus and what he thought makes this opinion much easier to hold.)

Jesus was the smiling face on one of dozens of Messiah cults. Most dissolved to the extent that they are barely recorded.

Indeed - hundreds MAY have dissolved leaving no trace at all... obviously, we only KNOW about the ones that left traces... :)

So - I agree that the 'vehicle' was already there, by the time the specific 'story' came to be accomodated. Problem is, when you actually look at the story that caught on... it doesn't match the vehicle they designed for it.

Grave,.. Poot, like MOST folks in these fora, are unbelievably "sensitive" in seeing "insult" whenever it suits them.

The reason it "suits them" so much is that it's an easy excuse to ignore ANY amount of sense (or at least potential sense) from "the other side" of the conversation (I have a problem calling what goes on in here "debate").

They fail to realize that if they simply explain themselves, disregarding the perceived "insults" from their "opponents", they would come off as sounding EXTREMELY POWERFUL in their arguments!

But the juvenile mind has a VERY difficult time getting past it's own ego component, and understanding that "insults" (when done "well" :)) are merely "prods" to empower the opponent into putting a little "energy" into his end of the conversation.

Don't be too hard on him.


I'd be the first to admit that there are 'ego components' to my own arguments, that my points could be considered juvenile. But, unless someone comes right out and tells me 'hey, you are a dumbass' or something, I tend to ignore what others might consider failings.

If someone wants to attack me for my age (as Poot seems to think I have been doing...?), knock themselves out, fine by me. I'm this age because I've lived this long, and totmorrow hasn't happened yet. Is that a slight on me? I don't see how.

I have been trying to go easy. I'll admit, I have recently come to feel I'm hitting my head against a rock:

Me: Yes, SOME communists ARE Atheists... but not ALL communists...
Poot: But Marx said "..."
Me: But not ALL communists ARE Marxist...
Poot: But Marx said "..."
Me: "d'oh!"

Jesus was the smiling face on one of dozens of Messiah cults. Most dissolved to the extent that they are barely recorded.

Indeed - hundreds MAY have dissolved leaving no trace at all... obviously, we only KNOW about the ones that left traces... :)

So - I agree that the 'vehicle' was already there, by the time the specific 'story' came to be accomodated. Problem is, when you actually look at the story that caught on... it doesn't match the vehicle they designed for it.

yeah that is odd. the conclusion i came to is that judaism was the most sophisticated theology of the mediterranean world. monotheism was a concept whose time had come and there is was ready-made for the taking.

they didnt seem to have a great regard for the day to day details of judaism--dietary laws, circumcision, etc. so they ditched them. in the end, christianity bears only a tiny resemblance to the judaism it supposedly came from. they dont even really have the same god.

and as you said, the stories of the life and ministry of jesus dont match up totally with the epistles. paul, who never met jesus (not that he could), has very different ideas of jesus than those presented in the gospels.

i guess what im trying to say is that they could have used an editor for the new testament.

yeah that is odd. the conclusion i came to is that judaism was the most sophisticated theology of the mediterranean world. monotheism was a concept whose time had come and there is was ready-made for the taking.

they didnt seem to have a great regard for the day to day details of judaism--dietary laws, circumcision, etc. so they ditched them. in the end, christianity bears only a tiny resemblance to the judaism it supposedly came from. they dont even really have the same god.

and as you said, the stories of the life and ministry of jesus dont match up totally with the epistles. paul, who never met jesus (not that he could), has very different ideas of jesus than those presented in the gospels.

i guess what im trying to say is that they could have used an editor for the new testament.

They definitely could have used some quality control. :)

The problem for me, is that Christianity just DOESN'T follow the monotheistic model that the Hebrew scripture had finally evolved towards (although the Hebrew texts show a lot of evidence of polytheistic origins). Indeed, the 'aspects of the same thing' angle they chose is FAR closer to some of the Egyptian models (Ra manifested in Horus or Sekhmet, that kind of thing).

But, if you are going to pick an angle... you should at least stick with it... not jump within the next couple of books to exactly the same scenario again, just with Snowball as the big pig.

Right. :rolleyes:

I see your inability to focus on the question in hand (if Jesus preached communism it would have been sedition against the state of Rome, since it is known that Rome dismissed charges of sedition against Jesus, including the Tax question, then Jesus must not have been preaching Communism in the Roman province) is matched only by your incessant need to make personal insults...

How boorish.

Oh, the irony. In a post where you insult him twice you complain about his 'incessant need to make personal insults".

You are seriously funny sometimes when you miss the point so badly.


Meanwhile, Jesus preached against wealth, suggested giving away everything you and expecting that you'd be provided for by an outisde force as a result. Hmmmm... yep, nothing in common with communism there.

Nothing in the definition of communism includes atheism. Communism is a economic and political movement. It is not inherently religious. But, hey, I guess if it turns out that, say, Darwin was a racist then I guess evolution must be a racist ideology. Or perhaps a movement and a particular leader of a particular aspect of that movement are not directly linked.

There I go looking at facts and definitions rather than making strawman arguments.

I also happen to notice that there were several claims that Jesus didn't propose an economic or political change while also claiming that he advocated 'destitutism'. Interesting. I guess giving away everything you own isn't an economic change. I guess seperating religion from politics wasn't a political change.

Finally, state-owned production does not mean that one has nothing and is thus unable to pay taxes or give tithing even with personal ownership. If one owns things, one can be taxed on them and one can be tithed on them. That's obvious.

The flaws in the arguments I've read over the last couple dozen pages are so blatant it's hard to imagine they aren't intentional.

Its got about the same credibility as casper really


You really have a rude awaking headed your way bub if you truely believe that .... :rolleyes:

Is it really necessary to make personal insults on a forum? Thats really immature/ridiculous.


I demand you all kiss and make up!!!

You really have a rude awaking headed your way bub if you truely believe that .... :rolleyes:

Time will tell, eh?
Really, that's the only thing you can know for certain about religion.
Time will tell.

You really have a rude awaking headed your way bub if you truely believe that .... :rolleyes:
Yay for empty post mortem threats!

Christians aren't persecuted in America...they simply suffer from a persecution complex. None of 'em would have a clue what it's like to have people talk about them behind their backs, calling them "weird" or to have to defend their views from even the closest of friends.

You really have a rude awaking headed your way bub if you truely believe that .... :rolleyes:

Whereas, if he's right... maybe you've got to explain to the REAL god why you insisted on backing an obvious fake...

Christians aren't persecuted in America...they simply suffer from a persecution complex. None of 'em would have a clue what it's like to have people talk about them behind their backs, calling them "weird" or to have to defend their views from even the closest of friends.

*snort*

Hell, I've gotten that kind of shit just being a Catholic on a university campus. While Prodistants tend not to question their fellow Christians who are members of other denominations, they certainly will go after Catholics with a will in some cases.

Back when I was Prodistant, there was plenty of Catholic-bashing going on where the Catholics wouldn't hear. It's ironic how most of the persecution of Christians comes from other Christians, ain't it?

Granted, there's some pretty antagonistic behavior to Christianity on this forum, but I've never had much trouble defending myself from it. I think part of the reason some Christians feel persecuted is because they can't effectively defend their choice of faith.

Oh such bs on the persecution.
For a matter of fact; step into the viewpoint of an aethiest or theist like me. Wow. Do you know how much we get "persecuted"?
Catholics and Protestants have their issues; yes; but hell when it comes to Aethiests and theists... apparently everyone hates them.

In a sense; free will states in the matter of religion: "We don't have to be part of your religion; In your mind; we can go to hell if we want to and there's nothing you can do about it"

And what makes christians so much better than theists? Why do you guys get public places of worship and theists don't?
I'm personally kind of anti-religion in general; but I do have some beliefs so I guess i'm technically a theist.

Religion has screwed up the world in the past; and in some cases it still does. I.E. the israel/palestinian war, the "Jihad", etc.

Hell, even our government is "supposed" to be in seperation of religion and government; but for some reason it seems like it's "too fine of a line" to be accepted in many cases.

*snort*

Hell, I've gotten that kind of shit just being a Catholic on a university campus. While Prodistants tend not to question their fellow Christians who are members of other denominations, they certainly will go after Catholics with a will in some cases.
The word is "protestant" (unless you're deliberately misspelling it to make a point, like creationist/cretinist).

People make a similar error with baptist/babdist. It makes me weep for the educational system the person was in.

Oh such bs on the persecution.
For a matter of fact; step into the viewpoint of an aethiest or theist like me. Wow. Do you know how much we get "persecuted"?
Catholics and Protestants have their issues; yes; but hell when it comes to Aethiests and theists... apparently everyone hates them.

ummm, how the heck can you be an atheist as well as a theist at the same time? Unless you have multiple personalities?

and as far as I am concerned when it comes to atheists, since you believe in no God, then you should just shrug off religous symbolism if you see it. Even if it were in a public place. Atheists also need to understand that though we do have separation of Church and State, the law of this land was founded under Judeo-Christian values where it is the governments responsibility to protect humanity's god-given rights. The rights are not given to us by the government, or by ourselves, but by a higher force and it is our duty to preserve these rights. Having a secular government is actually quite different than having an atheistic government.

In a sense; free will states in the matter of religion: "We don't have to be part of your religion; In your mind; we can go to hell if we want to and there's nothing you can do about it"

And what makes christians so much better than theists? Why do you guys get public places of worship and theists don't?
I'm personally kind of anti-religion in general; but I do have some beliefs so I guess i'm technically a theist.

any theist as far as I know is allowed to worship as they please, as long as they do not break law. I have seen muslims praying in public at parks, Christians praying at picnics, Hare Krishnas blessing people at airports, neo-pagans discussing their faith at the local Barnes and Noble...I do not see people deprived of worship in public. And they should not be denied this either. An atheist has no faith, no god, no religion and therefore has nothing to be deprived of.

I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist, but still a Christian. I do not see myself as better than you, as far as I am concerned that is pride or vanity which is a sin according to the Christian faith. To be honest, there are a ton of Atheists who look down their noses at any person of faith who believes in a higher power. They see these people as superstitious, irrational and ignorant even. Just look at the whole "Darwin Fish" thing, it is nothing more than thumb at the nose gesture to Christians who wanted to symbolize their faith with the original "Jesus Fish".

Religion has screwed up the world in the past; and in some cases it still does. I.E. the israel/palestinian war, the "Jihad", etc.

Alot of wrongs have been done in the name of religion in the past, that is true, but it is misguided thinking to blame the worlds problems on religion. If there were no religion, humanity would find a way to go to war over something else, be it race, ethnicity, natural resources, territorial disputes, personal disputes or machismo. It took the atheistic rulers Hitler and Stalin decades to murder millions of people while it took the Spanish Inquisition hundreds of years to kill a few thousand. If people are willing to twist the teachings of their religion and almighty God to hurt others, do you not think they would do the same if there was no religous code or higher God? Religion and spirituality is good for the human soul, which I believe in. Man will always find something to fight over though.

Hell, even our government is "supposed" to be in seperation of religion and government; but for some reason it seems like it's "too fine of a line" to be accepted in many cases.

I think certain people are misinterpreting "Freedom of Religion" as "Freedom from Religion".

The word is "protestant" (unless you're deliberately misspelling it to make a point, like creationist/cretinist).

People make a similar error with baptist/babdist. It makes me weep for the educational system the person was in.

Actually, Prodistant is a common term for non-Catholics, though I don't think it's in use much outside Catholic circles. Visit Catholic apologetics websites, and you'll probably see the term used plenty, when referencing the Protestant Bible and so on.

and as far as I am concerned when it comes to atheists, since you believe in no God, than you should just shrug off religous symbolism if you see it.
Why?


Even if it were in a public place. Atheists also need to understand that though we do have separation of Church and State, the law of this land was founded under Judeo-Christian values
No it wasn't.


where it is the governments responsibility to protect humanity's god-given rights.
Rights aren't granted.



any theist as far as I know is allowed to worship as they please, as long as they do not break law. I have muslims praying in public at parks, Christians praying at picnics, Hare Krishnas blessing people at airports, neo-pagans discussing their faith at the local Barnes and Noble...I do not see people deprived of worship in public. And they should should not be denied this either. An atheist has no faith, no god, no religion and therefore has nothing to be deprived of.
Except to not have his or her tax dollars used to support a religion.


and I am a Christian, not a fundamentalist, but still a Christian. I do not see myself as better than you, as far as I am concerned that is pride or vanity which is a sin according to the Christian faith. And to be honest, there are a ton of Atheists look down their noses at any person of faith who believes in a higher power.
That's because it's no different from belief in pixies, elves, or Santa Claus.


Alot of wrongs have been done in the name of religion in the past true, but it is misguided thinking to blame the worlds problems on religion. If there were no religion, humanity would find a way to go to war over something else, be it race, ethnicity, natural resources, territorial disputes, personal disputes or machismo. It took the atheistic rulers Hitler
Hitler was not an atheist, bubba. He was Catholic.


and Stalin
Stalin was Russian Orthodox.


I think certain people are misinterpreting "Freedom of Religion" as "Freedom from Religion".
Can't have one without the other.

Stalin was Russian Orthodox.He was probably baptized as one, but as a communist he was against religion. And as leader of the soviet union he most certainly violently suppressed it. I don't think it would be accurate to classify him as Russian orthodox.

Rights aren't granted.Not by God anyways..

Why?

Because the Cross, the Crescent or even the Pentacle should mean no more to you than the Nike Swoosh.



No it wasn't.

Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you deny the possible existance of God, but it won't make you right.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the only nation I can think of that is. It is not beholden to these values for America is a secular government but a society founded on these values. Old documents have the frequent mention of "God" in them and in some cases "the almighty", "In God we Trust" is on on our currency and Government buildings and Thomas Jefferson wanted to design the seal of the United States to show the Jews leaving Egypt to symbolize Americans leaving the old ways of Europe. Many of the founding fathers of the nation studied Hebrew as well as LAtin and Greek and the words on the Liberty Bell are ripped straight from the Torah.

The law is based on the 10 Commandments and the belief that Americans must answer morally to God and not just a mortal man-made government.


Rights aren't granted.

Not by any Government they are not. They are eternal...our Natural Rights.


Except to not have his or her tax dollars used to support a religion.

are you referring to a specific incident here? Otherwise all I can say is there is no official religion in America, nor should there be and there certainly are no tax funded religions.



That's because it's no different from belief in pixies, elves, or Santa Claus.

There is that insensitive, "holier than thou" Atheistic attitude I was referring to. Thank you for proving my part. There are Jesus Freaks as well as Godless Freaks.


Hitler was not an atheist, bubba. He was Catholic.

Like many Atheists, Hitler was born a Catholic. But he was no Catholic, he did not go to church, speak of Jesus and would never allow any religous institution to interfere with his propaganda.

Stalin was Russian Orthodox.

Stalin had less faith than Hitler, if that is even possible. He specifically targeted the church in his country because he saw them as a threat to his influence. Religion was outlawed. He was God in his country as far as he was concerned and the only religion to be allowed was Stalinism.


Can't have one without the other.

Sure you can. Allow people to express their faith freely. Do not cut it out of public life and force it inside the walls of peoples homes. Tolerance of all religions is freedom of religion. Forcing a complete absence of religous expression outside the home is freedom from religion also known as oppression.

Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you deny the possible existance of God, but it won't make you right.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the only nation I can think of that is. It is not beholden to these values for America is a secular government but a society founded on these values. Old documents have the frequent mention of "God" in them and in some cases "the almighty", "In God we Trust" is on on our currency and Government buildings and Thomas Jefferson wanted to design the seal of the United States to show the Jews leaving Egypt to symbolize Americans leaving the old ways of Europe. Many of the founding fathers of the nation studied Hebrew as well as LAtin and Greek and the words on the Liberty Bell are ripped straight from the Torah.


The Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)disagrees with you.

The law is based on the 10 Commandments and the belief that Americans must answer morally to God and not just a mortal man-made government.
Like many Atheists, Hitler was born a Catholic. But he was no Catholic, he did not go to church, speak of Jesus and would never allow any religous institution to interfere with his propaganda.

Wiki says different. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion)

Stalin had less faith than Hitler, if that is even possible. He specifically targeted the church in his country because he saw them as a threat to his influence. Religion was outlawed. He was God in his country as far as he was concerned and the only religion to be allowed was Stalinism.

Think you know more then wiki, eh?
You're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union)

Think you know more then wiki, eh?
You're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union)
From the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) about Stalin, his stance toward the Russian orthodox church
Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been levelled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted.

Admittedly, he might very well have persecuted the hell out them without outlawing them. Technicalities like that meant very little to him.

Was Jesus a communist? Yes.
I wonder why so many communists are not Christian, and even hostile towards the religion.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the only nation I can think of that is.
What is this Judeo-Christianity? What influence did Jews have on the founding of America?

I wonder why so many communists are not Christian, and even hostile towards the religion.


Because most communists are Marxists, and Marx thought that the state should take up the space currently taken by religion.

Because most communists are Marxists, and Marx thought that the state should take up the space currently taken by religion.
Really? Although I've never read a Marx book I thought that he only criticised the abuse and exploitation of religious belief by authorities.

I'm fairly sure he didn't want to deify the state.

I wasn't aware that the minority of non-christians in this country had so much power. They must be geniuses to manage to persecute the majority so effectively.

The Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)disagrees with you.

OK, first of all you should get more specific and just say that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli "disagrees" with me. Second, you should not talk in absolutes as if you were around in 1796 and know exactly what was going on when the Treaty was drafted.

The treaty was meant to smooth over relations with the Barbary Pirates who were basically the islamic terrorists of the day, siezing American Ships, enslaving the crew members and demanding ransom. They claimed they were doing this in retaliation to the injustices they faced under the Christian crusader nations of Europe. I personally feel they were just seeking profit but regardless, America wanted to assure these thugs that they were not in any way linked to the crusader countries of Europe and had no ill feelings towards Islam.

Also, America is not a Christian Theocracy. Christianity is NOT the official or sponsored religion of America. There is no official religion, the government is secular and not influenced by the Catholic Church the way European governments had been but yet the society and its values are based off Judeo- Christian philophy and beliefs which includes recognizing a God. Once again, secular government does not equal atheist.

If anything, the Treaty of Tripoli is a cowardly document which showed a scared young America trying to get on the good side of those who were harassing them. The treaty was done away with several years later when Jefferson grew some balls and beefed up the navy to go after the pirates. It was a political document and not a religous/secular statement.

Also, just for kicks, a quote from John Adams...the man who signed this treaty into existance:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite….And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United… I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

– John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

Oh and since we're on the topic of treaties, let me link you to the Paris Peace Treaty (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/paris.htm) which begins with the phrase, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

Also, all treaties speak for the Federal government. Do not forget that in early America the States had much more autonomy than they do now. So much so that many states actually made Christianity their official religion (something I do think is wrong to do).

It is pretty clear how the founders of America were influenced.



Wiki says different. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion)

I see nothing disproving what I said. I see a rather ambiguous article with links at the bottom of the page to articles which argue my exact point. Oh and Wiki should never be referenced as hard facts the way you just did seeing how almost anyone can write articles for them.

Think you know more then wiki, eh?
You're wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union)

Lots of people know more than Wiki; but are you even reading the articles you are referencing? People practiced their religion in fear and in spite of Stalin's threats.

He was probably baptized as one, but as a communist he was against religion.
No, he was against COMPETITION in the religious sphere which would detract from his own cult of personality.


And as leader of the soviet union he most certainly violently suppressed it.
And then he relented after the Good Comrades of the Worker's Paradise nearly revolted.

Because the Cross, the Crescent or even the Pentacle should mean no more to you than the Nike Swoosh.
Non sequitur. They are religious icons, and when they are supported by tax dollars I sure and hell have a problem with that.



Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you deny the possible existance of God, but it won't make you right.
Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you exclaim the existance of God, but it won't make you right.


America was founded on Judeo-Christian values,
Why do you like to repeat that lie?


the only nation I can think of that is. It is not beholden to these values for America is a secular government but a society founded on these values. Old documents have the frequent mention of "God"
Nature's god.


in them and in some cases "the almighty", "In God we Trust" is on on our currency
In violation of the Constitution.


and Government buildings and Thomas Jefferson wanted to design the seal of the United States to show the Jews leaving Egypt to symbolize Americans leaving the old ways of Europe.
Jefferson also wanted a wall of separation between church and state.


The law is based on the 10 Commandments
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Why do you insist on that lie as well? Our laws are based on Roman jurisprudence and English common law. If our laws were based on the 10 demandments (which were in part based on the much much older Code of Hammurabi), we would punish grandchildren for the crimes of the grandparents (that's in the 10 demandments, by the way. You should read them).



Not by any Government they are not. They are eternal...our Natural Rights.
No, rights stem from a combination of hypothetico-actual agreements and a priori facts.



are you referring to a specific incident here?
All the faith-based funding.



There is that insensitive, "holier than thou" Atheistic attitude I was referring to.
No it's not. If it is, then you're insensitive to Hindus for beliving that vishnu doesn't exist.



Like many Atheists, Hitler
Was never an atheist. Sorry bubba, I know you want to believe the lie that he was an atheist, but he was Catholic. He spoke of jesus many times, including in Mein Kampf. But you go right ahead and don't let facts stand in your way.



Stalin had less faith than Hitler, if that is even possible. He specifically targeted the church in his country because he saw them as a threat to his influence. Religion was outlawed.
Only for a brief time, after which the populace was so outraged that he relented and allowed worship.

I'll bet your preacher never told you the whole story, did he?



Sure you can.
Sure you can't. If you don't have freedom from religion, how can you have freedom of? What--are you going to FORCE people to believe in some religion? That IS what you're saying, you realize.


Allow people to express their faith freely. Do not cut it out of public life and force it inside the walls of peoples homes. Tolerance of all religions is freedom of religion. Forcing a complete absence of religous expression outside the home is freedom from religion
WRONG! Freedom from religion simply means that a person shall not be coerced into having any religious beliefs at all. Why are you xers so damned paranoid?

Because the Cross, the Crescent or even the Pentacle should mean no more to you than the Nike Swoosh.
But seeing other people's religious symbols emblazoned all over things he does have to use, such as court rooms, does mean something.

Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you deny the possible existance of God, but it won't make you right.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, the only nation I can think of that is. It is not beholden to these values for America is a secular government but a society founded on these values. Old documents have the frequent mention of "God" in them and in some cases "the almighty", "In God we Trust" is on on our currency and Government buildings and Thomas Jefferson wanted to design the seal of the United States to show the Jews leaving Egypt to symbolize Americans leaving the old ways of Europe. Many of the founding fathers of the nation studied Hebrew as well as LAtin and Greek and the words on the Liberty Bell are ripped straight from the Torah.

The law is based on the 10 Commandments and the belief that Americans must answer morally to God and not just a mortal man-made government.
No. The founders did not base the legal system of the US on the "belief that Americans must answer morally to God." It would have been idiotic of them to try to create a system of temporal laws that made man answerable to a god. Particularly to a god most of them didn't even believe in.

A) Most of the founders were deists, Freemasons, and/or members of what we now know of as the Unitarian church. They did not believe in a personal god that interfered with human affairs and to which people would be answerable.

B) They were very smart men. Some of them were also outstanding lawyers. They could easily have seen the logical flaw in thinking that a human-invented system of laws could somehow hold people accountable to a divine entity. Human laws can only hold people accountable to each other, either person to person (civil law) or via the state (criminal law). US law is NOT designed to hold anyone morally accountable to any god.

C) They most certainly DID mean to set up a system of law and government in the US that would be as free FROM religion as they wanted religion to be from government. Their writings on this subject are explicit. They wanted a country in which every human being would have the total freedom to, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "believe in 100 gods or no god" without interference of any kind, and they sought to ensure this by very pointedly separating church from state.

Not by any Government they are not. They are eternal...our Natural Rights.
Some people assume such a thing as "natural rights," but few people agree about what such rights are. In actual practice, "rights" are legal constructs that limit the power of government to interfere with people. It is always about people versus government. And rights are never granted to people; they belong to the people to the exact degree that the people exercise and defend them.

are you referring to a specific incident here? Otherwise all I can say is there is no official religion in America, nor should there be and there certainly are no tax funded religions.
I consider "faith-based initiatives" to be a violation of the First Amendment, particularly as practiced by the current US administration, which so far has not granted a single dollar to any non-Christian program or group, but has given plenty of money to evangelical and conservative Christian programs/groups.

There is that insensitive, "holier than thou" Atheistic attitude I was referring to. Thank you for proving my part. There are Jesus Freaks as well as Godless Freaks.
Every philosophy is susceptible to extremism. I am sure we agree that the actions of extremists on one side does not excuse the actions of extremists on the other.

Like many Atheists, Hitler was born a Catholic. But he was no Catholic, he did not go to church, speak of Jesus and would never allow any religous institution to interfere with his propaganda.


Stalin had less faith than Hitler, if that is even possible. He specifically targeted the church in his country because he saw them as a threat to his influence. Religion was outlawed. He was God in his country as far as he was concerned and the only religion to be allowed was Stalinism.
Can we all please try to avoid equating either atheists or religious people with Hitler and Stalin? Neither man stands as an example the best of either belief system, and neither man was a sincere participant in either system, either. The only things they worshipped were themselves, so they really have nothing to do with this discussion.

Sure you can. Allow people to express their faith freely. Do not cut it out of public life and force it inside the walls of peoples homes. Tolerance of all religions is freedom of religion. Forcing a complete absence of religous expression outside the home is freedom from religion also known as oppression.
Who said anything about not allowing public expressions of religion? Just because we want the US government to abide by its own laws and not endorse any religion or group of religions in the course of its governmental business does not mean that nobody should be allowed to display their faith or have great big festivals or whatever.

OK, first of all you should get more specific and just say that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli "disagrees" with me. Second, you should not talk in absolutes as if you were around in 1796 and know exactly what was going on when the Treaty was drafted.

The treaty was meant to smooth over relations with the Barbary Pirates who were basically the islamic terrorists of the day, siezing American Ships, enslaving the crew members and demanding ransom. They claimed they were doing this in retaliation to the injustices they faced under the Christian crusader nations of Europe. I personally feel they were just seeking profit but regardless, America wanted to assure these thugs that they were not in any way linked to the crusader countries of Europe and had no ill feelings towards Islam.

So? The point still stands.

Also, America is not a Christian Theocracy. Christianity is NOT the official or sponsored religion of America. There is no official religion, the government is secular and not influenced by the Catholic Church the way European governments had been but yet the society and its values are based off Judeo- Christian philophy and beliefs which includes recognizing a God. Once again, secular government does not equal atheist.

Explain why you called Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union atheist then.
And American law is mostly based on British law at the time.

If anything, the Treaty of Tripoli is a cowardly document which showed a scared young America trying to get on the good side of those who were harassing them. The treaty was done away with several years later when Jefferson grew some balls and beefed up the navy to go after the pirates. It was a political document and not a religous/secular statement.

So? It still clearly states that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

Also, just for kicks, a quote from John Adams...the man who signed this treaty into existance:

For your quote:
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/08/more-twaddle.html


Oh and since we're on the topic of treaties, let me link you to the Paris Peace Treaty (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/paris.htm) which begins with the phrase, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

The treaty of paris was written from the perspective of Britain.

Also, all treaties speak for the Federal government. Do not forget that in early America the States had much more autonomy than they do now. So much so that many states actually made Christianity their official religion (something I do think is wrong to do).

True, but that doesn't have any bearing on this argument, as that was obviously overturned early in the history of the U.S.

It is pretty clear how the founders of America were influenced.

Yes, against Britian and its government.
Nothing else.





I see nothing disproving what I said. I see a rather ambiguous article with links at the bottom of the page to articles which argue my exact point. Oh and Wiki should never be referenced as hard facts the way you just did seeing how almost anyone can write articles for them.

Funny, I read those links too, and not one of them says he was an atheist.
Dealing with your beef against Wikipedia. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html)



Lots of people know more than Wiki; but are you even reading the articles you are referencing? People practiced their religion in fear and in spite of Stalin's threats.

You'll note he never outlawed religion in general.
I'll concede you're a bit closer on this one then I am.

Non sequitur. They are religious icons, and when they are supported by tax dollars I sure and hell have a problem with that.

I'll address your comments simply as you have mine. you act as if I am some sort of fundamentalist, which makes you neurotic, and it is clear you are as avid an Atheist as Jerry Falwell is a Fundamentalist. So here we go...

You have no religion and no God, so who cares what you think about religous icons? in your atheistic utopia, there would be no religous symbolism or public expression at all, taxpayer funded or not. All taxpayers often fund alot of what they may disagree with from pacifists having to fund the war in Iraq to Christians having to fund explicit sex ed programs in public schools. deal with it.

Well you can stand there, cross your arms and stomp your feet and deny this all you want the way you exclaim the existance of God, but it won't make you right.

I don't know if God exists, I believe it. It's called a leap of faith.



Why do you like to repeat that lie?

A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. That fact that you claim it to be a lie, rather than a "mistake" shows your lack of objectivity.

Nature's god.

Nature is Gods creation.

In violation of the Constitution.

No actually it is not. Making an official national religion would be against the constitution, but not the mentioning of God which has been done before, since and after the drafting of the Constitution.

Jefferson also wanted a wall of separation between church and state.

And it was a good idea which I support. He did not want America to be controlled, as Europe was, by a religous institution like the Catholic Church. He did not however want a wall separating Faith and state.



BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Why do you insist on that lie as well? Our laws are based on Roman jurisprudence and English common law. If our laws were based on the 10 demandments (which were in part based on the much much older Code of Hammurabi), we would punish grandchildren for the crimes of the grandparents (that's in the 10 demandments, by the way. You should read them).

The set up of our Judicial system and its inner workings was based after English Common Law which was influenced by the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was signed by the King of England around 1215 AD. Actually he was forced to the sign the document because it stated that there was a higher power to which even the crown was subservient to. The morals and principles of this higher power were described in the Holy Bible.

The King was subverting the people's rights. The Magna Carta essentially put him in his place under God. The crown could not harm the God given rights of the people. I realize religion is icky to you, but you just can't get away from it, and the farther back you go the more of it you'll find.

but go ahead and accuse me of deliberately deceiving you by calling me a liar. real mature.


No, rights stem from a combination of hypothetico-actual agreements and a priori facts.

We are born with our natural rights. They are not given to us by man and they are not given to us by any government or deals or agreements.


All the faith-based funding.

name some faith based funding which you find so offensive.


No it's not. If it is, then you're insensitive to Hindus for beliving that vishnu doesn't exist.

LOL, what you said before was completely offensive and the very idea that you fail to recognize that is troubling. You callously and smugly mocked my entire faith. A Christian stating that Salvation is achieved through Christ is completely different than saying Vishna does not exist anymore than the tooth fairy! Like I said, there are Fundamentalist Christians who go over the line and there also Fundamentalist Atheists such as yourself.




Was never an atheist. Sorry bubba, I know you want to believe the lie that he was an atheist, but he was Catholic. He spoke of jesus many times, including in Mein Kampf. But you go right ahead and don't let facts stand in your way.

well I have not read Mein Kempf, as much as I try to educate myself on even the most despicable of people, I could not bring myself to read Mein Kempf. But Hitler was an atheist no matter his baptism. Not only did he go against the entire moral code of Christianity, but his whole war was not even that of religous zealotry. It was a completely secular, non-Christian lust for power and genocide. He followed no God and he feared no judgement. This man was an atheist. Even Bin-Laden is a believer, he may be a twisted and distorted zealot, but he is a believer. Hitler was not.


Only for a brief time, after which the populace was so outraged that he relented and allowed worship.

Really? was this before or after he slaughtered tens of millions of people? He never relented. He was God in that country.

I'll bet your preacher never told you the whole story, did he?

yet another snide remark. My preacher is not my leader and he does not do my thinking for me. I suggest you drop the stereotypes.

Sure you can't. If you don't have freedom from religion, how can you have freedom of? What--are you going to FORCE people to believe in some religion? That IS what you're saying, you realize.

Paranoia. That is not at all what I am saying. I was quite clear in what I said: those who believe should be allowed to express their faith publicly and freely. Those who do not believe can just carry on with whatever it is they are doing.

WRONG! Freedom from religion simply means that a person shall not be coerced into having any religious beliefs at all. Why are you xers so damned paranoid?

The word from in this context indicates separation, removal or exclusion. Freedom from religion therefore would mean the separation, removal or exclusion of religion. This is what most secular/atheistic organizations are striving for; having religion confined to the insides of one's own private dwelling or place of worship. No mention of it in public life, policy or settings.

and what the hell is an xer? you can't even say the word Christian?

I'll address your comments simply as you have mine. you act as if I am some sort of fundamentalist,
No, I do not.


You have no religion and no God, so who cares what you think about religous icons?
Well that's a nice way to marginalize someone who disagrees with you.


in your atheistic utopia, there would be no religous symbolism or public expression at all,
Prove that I believe that.


taxpayer funded or not. All taxpayers often fund alot of what they may disagree with from pacifists having to fund the war in Iraq to Christians having to fund explicit sex ed programs in public schools. deal with it.
So I should shut up and have my rights trampled on. Great. What's next--tell the jews in the Warsaw ghetto to STFU and quit complaining?



I don't know if God exists, I believe it. It's called a leap of faith.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.


A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive.
And you are.


Nature is Gods creation.
Blatant assertion. Rejected as such.



No actually it is not.
Yes, actually it is. It is promoting a specific religion (since the people who instituted it exclaimed it was for the xer god).


And it was a good idea which I support. He did not want America to be controlled, as Europe was, by a religous institution like the Catholic Church. He did not however want a wall separating Faith and state.
And?



The set up of our Judicial system and its inner workings was based after English Common Law which was influenced by the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was signed by the King of England around 1215 AD. Actually he was forced to the sign the document because it stated that there was a higher power to which even the crown was subservient to.
And? I can write that the moon is made of green cheese--that doesn't make it so, does it?


The King was subverting the people's rights. The Magna Carta essentially put him in his place under God. The crown could not harm the God given rights of the people.
Rights aren't granted, least of all by some magic space-pixie.


but go ahead and accuse me of deliberately deceiving you by calling me a liar.
I will.


real mature.
It is.



We are born with our natural rights. They are not given to us by man and they are not given to us by any government or deals or agreements.
They aren't granted by some magic space-pixie.


name some faith based funding which you find so offensive.
Mandatory AA treatment for some drunk drivers (AA is explicitly xer).

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.pdf



LOL, what you said before was completely offensive
No it isn't. The very idea that you think it is is troubling.


and the very idea that you fail to recognize that is troubling. You callously and smugly mocked my entire faith.
It deserves to be mocked.


A Christian stating that Salvation is achieved through Christ is completely different than saying Vishna does not exist anymore than the tooth fairy!
Wrong. It's exactly the same. That you cannot see it is troubling.



well I have not read Mein Kempf,
Then you don't know what you're talking about.


as much as I try to educate myself on even the most despicable of people, I could not bring myself to read Mein Kempf. But Hitler was an atheist no matter his baptism.
How many times will you repeat that lie?


Not only did he go against the entire moral code of Christianity,
Actually, he tried to do what the history of xerdom failed--eliminate the jews.

Now then, since Hitler believed that there was a god, he clearly wasn't an atheist. Not unless you want to define an atheist as "someone who believes there is a god", which of course is not the definition.


Really? was this before or after he slaughtered tens of millions of people? He never relented.
Oh yes he did, little one. Stalin allowed worship, despite your lies to the contrary.


yet another snide remark.
So what?


My preacher is not my leader and he does not do my thinking for me. I suggest you drop the stereotypes.
I suggest you start thinking for yourself and stop spouting lies which cause me to state that you do not think for yourself, since what you state has been debunked so many times over that a cursory google search would have sufficed to disabuse you of your idiotic notions.


Paranoia.
On your part.


That is not at all what I am saying.
Of course it is. If you do not have freedom from religion, then necessarily people are forced to believe. That's the logical conclusion, little one.


I was quite clear in what I said: those who believe should be allowed to express their faith publicly and freely.
No one has ever denied that they should.


The word from in this context indicates separation, removal or exclusion.
It means that a person should not be forced to be of a religion. It does not mean what your paranoid mind thinks it does.


and what the hell is an xer? you can't even say the word Christian?
Why should I? It was the original xers who used the XP monograph.

Christians aren't persecuted in America...they simply suffer from a persecution complex. None of 'em would have a clue what it's like to have people talk about them behind their backs, calling them "weird" or to have to defend their views from even the closest of friends.
I don't give a crap about people gossipping about me. I'm a non-hetero female who is open about my enjoyment of sex, so I get plenty of gossip for that already. Gossip doesn't hurt me.

The reason Christians in the US are full of bullshit when they whine about "persecution" is because they are the most privaledged and pampered group in our nation. Christian organizations get tax breaks simply by virtue of being Christian. Our government throws free money at them. Their faith is recognized in federal holidays, stamped on our money, written into our pledge, and contained in most of our "patriotic" songs. Their superstitions are indulged at every turn. They are handled with kid gloves by the media. They hold every branch of the government. They hold most major US corporations.

Frankly, if American Christians still feel "persecuted" despite all this, I'm inclined to say that their feelings are pathological, and indicate that we'd better lock them all up in institutions for their own good.

Frankly, if American Christians still feel "persecuted" despite all this, I'm inclined to say that their feelings are pathological, and indicate that we'd better lock them all up in institutions for their own good.

Hahah yeah I say we should mock them, mock them untill they cry!;)

Hahah yeah I say we should mock them, mock them untill they cry!;)
You don't even have to mock them to make them cry. Just wish them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," and they'll bitch about it until Easter.

You don't even have to mock them to make them cry. Just wish them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," and they'll bitch about it until Easter.

Or give em the old, yeah well we know you stole all of your holydays from the Pagans anyhoo!

Well that's a nice way to marginalize someone who disagrees with you.

something you excel at.


So I should shut up and have my rights trampled on. Great. What's next--tell the jews in the Warsaw ghetto to STFU and quit complaining?

are you seriously comparing your tax dollars going to a faith based charity to what the jews went through in a Nazi ghetto?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

My believing is a personal problem? Then I guess your not believing is an arrogance problem or a sign of your inability to open your mind and soul and look beyond yourself.

and you are.

I am stating what I believe and/or know to be true. hardly a lie. But irrationality often leads people to make accusations such as yours.

and?

..."and" this is a country founded on faith and theism, not atheism.


And? I can write that the moon is made of green cheese--that doesn't make it so, does it?

how about instead you read your history? you might learn something.


They aren't granted by some magic space-pixie.

space-pixie. real sensitive. you are an anti-religous bigot. congratulations.


Mandatory AA treatment for some drunk drivers (AA is explicitly xer).

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/faith_based_2003.pdf

and AA works. It has high success rates, and you would do away with this because faith makes you uncomfortable.

It deserves to be mocked.

anti-Religous Bigotry.


I suggest you start thinking for yourself and stop spouting lies which cause me to state that you do not think for yourself, since what you state has been debunked so many times over that a cursory google search would have sufficed to disabuse you of your idiotic notions.

you are so hostile and sound so angry and bitter. Something must have happened to you in your life that lead to this disposition of yours.

I have read and also enjoy the writings of non-Christian "freethinkers" such as Thomas Paine and Montcure Daniel Conway. I have read more non-christian and in some cases, anti-Christian, texts than I have those in support. Yet you accuse me of not thinking for myself...for the sole reason because I do not think like you. You call me a liar, which is an attack on my integrity, simply because you do not like or agree with what I say.

and now you tell me to a google search? are you serious? All you have done is call me a liar, call my God a pixie, mock my faith and play shadow by echoing my words but twisting them to your own use. Where is your "proof"? Where is the substance to your argument, besides the hostile tone, the accusations and the snide remarks?


It means that a person should not be forced to be of a religion. It does not mean what your paranoid mind thinks it does.

that is what you want it to mean. Look up the word "from" in this context. You do not seem to know what this word means.


well, I am done debating with you. oh yeah, may God be with you.

All you have done is call me a liar, call my God a pixie, etc etc

Observational comedy at its best.

and now you tell me to a google search? are you serious? All you have done is call me a liar, call my God a pixie, mock my faith and play shadow by echoing my words but twisting them to your own use. Where is your "proof"? Where is the substance to your argument, besides the hostile tone, the accusations and the snide remarks?


that's all he can do, apparently.

all I have ever seen him do is this

"intelligent point"
"no"
"rebuttal"
"prove it"
"source"
"liar"
"another source, with interesting point"
"stupid"


it's not really worth your time.

that's all he can do, apparently.

all I have ever seen him do is this

"intelligent point"
"no"
"rebuttal"
"prove it"
"source"
"liar"
"another source, with interesting point"
"stupid"


it's not really worth your time.

Meh!

The only difference between the two is Baawa is more rude.

well, I am done debating with you. oh yeah, may God be with you. He/she is obviously very angry about Christianity. You have done well to address his/her points, but perhaps you could have realized sooner (just before trading insults) that it really isn't worth debating about Christianity and its role in the American government with someone so obviously angry with Christianity. Still, it did make interesting reading. And to BAAWAKnights, just why are you so anti-Christian? Or shouldn't I ask?

it's not really worth your time.

- rather like this thread.

that's all he can do, apparently.

all I have ever seen him do is this

"intelligent point"
"no"
"rebuttal"
"prove it"
"source"
"liar"
"another source, with interesting point"
"stupid"


it's not really worth your time.

While I hesitate to defend the behavior of BK, the opponent is hardly better. His argument rests on either a sad misrepresentation of facts or simply ignorance of them. His response to the point about Nature's God is a perfect example. Nature's God is a specific reference made by members of a particular religion that is not Christianity. To pretend it's a reference to Christianity simply because it's possible is dishonest, ignorant or both. This is one of those nuh-uh, uh-huh arguments that are totally uninteresting.

He/she is obviously very angry about Christianity. You have done well to address his/her points, but perhaps you could have realized sooner (just before trading insults) that it really isn't worth debating about Christianity and its role in the American government with someone so obviously angry with Christianity. Still, it did make interesting reading. And to BAAWAKnights, just why are you so anti-Christian? Or shouldn't I ask?

Versus somebody like you that will parrot the arguments no matter the evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry but the Magna Carta was not this great and wonderful document that was signed in 1215 and immediately became some pillar of law and righteousness. It was largely based (nearly word for word copied) from the Charter of Liberties issued by Henry I in 1100 (not that it really held any weight then). The Magna Carta was signed, promptly broken, rewritten, signed, ignored, rewritten, signed, ignored, etc etc. It wasn't until 1272 that it actually, REALLY began to become a part of English law. And the document didn't even really begin to influence the development of Parliament until the Tudor period.

Please don't look at it as some irrefutable holy scripture of English Law History.

Oh, and the Beginnings of English Common Law are rooted in the arrival of William the Conqueror in England in 1099(he brought over new concepts of law/governance from his native land of Normandy and combined them with existing English concepts of law/governance to create something new!), that gives Common Law in England.. ohhh... over a hundred years to work on development before the Magna Carta got trotted out (to be promptly ignored/broken) for the very first time!

While I hesitate to defend the behavior of BK, the opponent is hardly better. His argument rests on either a sad misrepresentation of facts or simply ignorance of them. His response to the point about Nature's God is a perfect example. Nature's God is a specific reference made by members of a particular religion that is not Christianity. To pretend it's a reference to Christianity simply because it's possible is dishonest, ignorant or both. This is one of those nuh-uh, uh-huh arguments that are totally uninteresting.


Well you just made a sweeping statement about me and all I have written. If you have some knowledge of the ultimate truth then please share it with the rest of us.

Also, The reference to "Nature's God" actually did not register with me as clearly as it should have. I thought he was sarcastically saying "Nature is God". The only other relevant reason to mention "Nature's God" would be Thomas Jeffersons use of the term in the Declaration of Independence. "Nature's God" is a product of Deism.

It is not a reference to Christianity, but it is still a mention of God and a recognition of faith. Deism strays from Christianity in that it does not recognize the divinity of Christ, but it does accept his moral teachings and focuses on ethics. Deists believe man was given the sense of right and wrong by God, and depending on how they live their lives, will eventually answer to some sort of God in some sort of afterlife.

That is my understanding of "Nature's God". Is this what you believe i was ignorant of? Is Deism the non-Christian religion you are referring to?

I don't mind a civil discussion, especially with someone who does not see the world the way I do. Through discussion or debate I not only learn about who I am talking to but also learn alot about myself. But casually dismissing what I say and claiming ignorance or sad misinterpretation on my part is really not fair to either one of us.

something you excel at.
Prove it.


are you seriously comparing your tax dollars going to a faith based charity to what the jews went through in a Nazi ghetto?
Yes. A violation of rights is a violation of rights, no matter what. After all, you're the one telling me the shut the hell up and like the fact that my rights are being violated.



My believing is a personal problem?
No, your faith is.


Then I guess your not believing is an arrogance problem or a sign of your inability to open your mind and soul and look beyond yourself.
No, it's a sign that I'm intelligent enough to not base my life on a lie.


I am stating what I believe and/or know to be true. hardly a lie.
No, you're stating a lie.


..."and" this is a country founded on faith and theism, not atheism.
No, this country was secularly founded. In fact, I'd love for you to find me the word "god" in the US Constitution. Hint: you can't, since "god" appears nowhere in that document.


how about instead you read your history? you might learn something.
Pot. Kettle. Black.


space-pixie. real sensitive.
Why should I be sensitive to your beliefs? What reason have I? What--you're just demanding that I be? Way to be a spoiled brat.


and AA works.
Not for everyone.


It has high success rates, and you would do away with this because faith makes you uncomfortable.
It replaces one addiction with another. That's hardly good.



anti-Religous Bigotry.
Prove it.


you are so hostile and sound so angry and bitter.
No I don't.


Something must have happened to you in your life that lead to this disposition of yours.
Ah yes--piss poor pop psychology. Want me to analyze you and tell you that you're just terrified of death?


I have read and also enjoy the writings of non-Christian "freethinkers" such as Thomas Paine and Montcure Daniel Conway. I have read more non-christian and in some cases, anti-Christian, texts than I have those in support.
I highly doubt that.


and now you tell me to a google search?
Yes. Are your fingers broken?


that is what you want it to mean.
No, that is what it means. You just want to change what it means to suit your paranoia.

May the schwartz be with you.

that's all he can do, apparently.
Really?

I guess you're just one of the legion who cannot provide me with anything intelligent to discuss. So would you like some cheese with your whine?

He/she is obviously very angry about Christianity.
Prove it.

Really?

I guess you're just one of the legion who cannot provide me with anything intelligent to discuss. So would you like some cheese with your whine?

way to be an ass.

maybe it would please you more to sit in a corner and talk to yourself. (I know it would make me happy)

way to be an ass.
Am I supposed to tremble at that?

way to be an ass.



Smunkee---This is below your standards.

Well you just made a sweeping statement about me and all I have written. If you have some knowledge of the ultimate truth then please share it with the rest of us.

Also, The reference to "Nature's God" actually did not register with me as clearly as it should have. I thought he was sarcastically saying "Nature is God". The only other relevant reason to mention "Nature's God" would be Thomas Jeffersons use of the term in the Declaration of Independence. "Nature's God" is a product of Deism.

It is not a reference to Christianity, but it is still a mention of God and a recognition of faith. Deism strays from Christianity in that it does not recognize the divinity of Christ, but it does accept his moral teachings and focuses on ethics. Deists believe man was given the sense of right and wrong by God, and depending on how they live their lives, will eventually answer to some sort of God in some sort of afterlife.

That is my understanding of "Nature's God". Is this what you believe i was ignorant of? Is Deism the non-Christian religion you are referring to?

I don't mind a civil discussion, especially with someone who does not see the world the way I do. Through discussion or debate I not only learn about who I am talking to but also learn alot about myself. But casually dismissing what I say and claiming ignorance or sad misinterpretation on my part is really not fair to either one of us.

You pretended as if Nature's God was a reference to Christianity. It's an example of a diverse group of individuals who founded this country and sought to protect the freedoms of all of us, even those who are not Christian. You twisted a reference to a non-Christian founder, you admit you were wrong to do it. That satisfies me. However, it was just an example of how you have brought yourself so close to the argument that you're not actually analyzing the arguments of your opponents. I had to point it out for you before you even noticed. I think that's a problem. Don't you?

Instead of attacking me because you made a mistake, how about you recognize it and learn from it. Your demonstrating the exact same fallacies our BK friend is. Almost every rude and inappropriate thing he says you say something very similar. You're the same side of the coin even if not the same side of the argument.

Well, I stopped at page 33 and jumped ahead to now to say this: I figure that we're overcomplicating things a lot.

I aim to be the best christian I can be. Sure, I'll try and ponder the deeper mysteries of things and all, but in the end if I'm not meant to know, I won't.

I may go and tell people I disagree with what they do, or what they believe and I'll try and persuade them as best I can. But at the end of the day, it's their decision, not mine. And I'll respect their choice, no matter how much I disagree with it it.

And as far as the deeper questions that I honestly can't answer? I figure I'll ask the big Man himself when I get there.

...and that's pretty much it.

Am I supposed to tremble at that?

No, you should choose to recognize what she recognizes and adjust accordingly. She noticed what almost everyone notices. That you preach atheism and you ignore all evidence that doesn't support your argument as if it doesn't exist. You have much in common with the people you accuse. Or, hey, continue with the playground tactics. I mean it's never worked before, but maybe today's your day.

Well then what scenario should he have used? It doesn't matter what bloody example he used, it was merely a means to an end! Highly politicised my arse - it was just a believable situation.

Don't worry Zilam, I got the point.

So if the pastor had walked in with an AK-47 and said only the faithful would leave alive you'd be fine with it? Means to an end after all.

I'm European Catholic and until I went to America I didn't know Christians were such crazy people. I thought Pilgrims read THE bible once a month instead of like the rest of us once every 20 years or never.

Baptist
Methodist
Mormon
Calvanist
Scientolegy
...bla bla bla bla.

If you trust what a 17 year old wrote in the 19th century and called a bible your out of your mind, if you LOVE Jesus and God is the most important person in your life instead of your kids and wife you REALLY are out of your mind.

American religion is SCARY!!!!

If you trust what a 17 year old wrote in the 19th century and called a bible your out of your mind,

I would agree with you, but whats the difference between what some 17 year old wrote a hundred years ago, or some 50 year old guy wrote 2000 years ago?

How would one guy claiming to be a prophet be more credible than the other?
His age?

Liars come in all ages.




if you LOVE Jesus and God is the most important person in your life instead of your kids and wife you REALLY are out of your mind.
American religion is SCARY!!!!

Its not just American religion.
Its all over the world.
Ask a Muslim living in Saudi Arabia the same question, or a Catholic in S America.

Fanatics suck no matter what denomination or sect they belong to.

I wonder why so many communists are not Christian, and even hostile towards the religion.


That isn't even true.

A number of big players in the 'communist' field have insisted on non-religious governments, but most of the actual 'communists', one imagines, have done what all people have always done - and carried on about their business as much as they could, no matetr who was on 'the throne'.

Marxist communism opposes religion NOT because it has anything really against the idea of faith, but because it has something against the idea of CONTROL, by an alleged higher-power that is not answerable to any 'common' body.

Also - Marxist communism often uses the 'toolbox' of religion, repackaged in party colours. This is easier if you are not selling your product in a marketplace full of similar merchandise.

He/she is obviously very angry about Christianity. You have done well to address his/her points, but perhaps you could have realized sooner (just before trading insults) that it really isn't worth debating about Christianity and its role in the American government with someone so obviously angry with Christianity. Still, it did make interesting reading. And to BAAWAKnights, just why are you so anti-Christian? Or shouldn't I ask?
Just out of curiosity, why do people seem to think that feeling angry automatically renders a person's arguments less valid? Why is a person's anger at a subject made into such a major point? Why not concentrate on addressing their arguments, instead of pursuing this irrelevant tangent?

A lot of slaves were pretty pissed off about slavery. Does that mean that their arguments for abolishing slavery were somehow less valid? I often get angry when my rights are infringed upon, so does that somehow make it ok for people to infringe upon my rights and then ignore my complaints?

If somebody is doing nothing but rage blindly about, that's one thing. But if they are presenting arguments while ALSO being angry, then I don't see why the fact that they are angry needs to be discussed at all. Address the arguments, and give the Psych 101 a rest.

Just out of curiosity, why do people seem to think that feeling angry automatically renders a person's arguments less valid? Why is a person's anger at a subject made into such a major point? Why not concentrate on addressing their arguments, instead of pursuing this irrelevant tangent?

When a person is angry, for me personally, there is a danger of that anger taking all the enjoyment out of the discussion. Particularly when the anger means that the discussion gets all personal. The discussion sometimes degrades into a bitch-fight. And what is the point of that? Waste of time and emotional energy.


A lot of slaves were pretty pissed off about slavery. Does that mean that their arguments for abolishing slavery were somehow less valid? I often get angry when my rights are infringed upon, so does that somehow make it ok for people to infringe upon my rights and then ignore my complaints?

If you are angry about something, I suggest that you don't take it out on the poor folk on NS. Deal with the relevant people in a sensible way, like the slave trade abolutionists did. There isn't anything wrong with being angry, of course. It is what you do with it. Blatant indiscriminant attacks on Christians because you are angry with Christianity makes about as much sense as such attacks on men because your father was mean to you.


If somebody is doing nothing but rage blindly about, that's one thing. But if they are presenting arguments while ALSO being angry, then I don't see why the fact that they are angry needs to be discussed at all. Address the arguments, and give the Psych 101 a rest.

Because when someone is arguing by hurling insults at their opponent, it isn't much difference between that and a bitch-fight. So then, it might be wise to do a little Psych test just to avoid such a scenario. Plus, Psych tests can be conducted with politeness and respect and even result in far more understanding and harmony--good for everyone involved. If the anger was caused by something the opponent said, then it may simply be a matter of adjusting the way in which one presents himself. Or it could be a simple matter of distancing oneself from the object that causes anger in your opponent (if that is possible).

Therefore, sometimes it is far more intelligent to discuss the cause of the anger before addressing the arguments.

Actually, Prodistant is a common term for non-Catholics, though I don't think it's in use much outside Catholic circles. Visit Catholic apologetics websites, and you'll probably see the term used plenty, when referencing the Protestant Bible and so on.

:eek: Are you implying that Catholics are frequently incapable of spelling the word "Protestants" correctly? Or just that they're incapable of referring to anything Protestant without disdain?

Just wondering.

You pretended as if Nature's God was a reference to Christianity. It's an example of a diverse group of individuals who founded this country and sought to protect the freedoms of all of us, even those who are not Christian. You twisted a reference to a non-Christian founder, you admit you were wrong to do it. That satisfies me. However, it was just an example of how you have brought yourself so close to the argument that you're not actually analyzing the arguments of your opponents. I had to point it out for you before you even noticed. I think that's a problem. Don't you?

Instead of attacking me because you made a mistake, how about you recognize it and learn from it. Your demonstrating the exact same fallacies our BK friend is. Almost every rude and inappropriate thing he says you say something very similar. You're the same side of the coin even if not the same side of the argument.

There was no malicious intent on my part. I did not "pretend" anything and I am not even arguing that this is a "christian nation" but instead one founded on Judeo-Christian values and philosophy. Deism, which recognizes Nauture's God, which many of the founding fathers followed, uses Judeo Christian philosophy. If you disagree that is fine, but I have stated what I believe and why I believe this.

I am not trying to attack you, but I also don't like being jumped on and accused of trying to intentionally mislead or deceive anyone. At least you don't use the word liar, but no matter how soft your tone, you took a pretty hard swipe at me.

I overlooked the reference to Nature's God because, as I already stated i thought he was making a sarcastic remark about something else. I was agitated, just as he has agitated others in this thread and i missed something. He even got a rise out of Smunkee, who is normally as cool as ice on these boards. There was no malintent on my part. And i do not see myself of having "sad" interpretations.

Now we could get back to a civil discussion, it is not too late.

I'm European Catholic and until I went to America I didn't know Christians were such crazy people. I thought Pilgrims read THE bible once a month instead of like the rest of us once every 20 years or never.

Baptist
Methodist
Mormon
Calvanist
Scientolegy
...bla bla bla bla.

If you trust what a 17 year old wrote in the 19th century and called a bible your out of your mind, if you LOVE Jesus and God is the most important person in your life instead of your kids and wife you REALLY are out of your mind.

American religion is SCARY!!!!

There are still Christians left in Europe? Europe seems to be almost completely divorced from Catholicism or Christianity these days. Future Popes should be American, Latin American or African because this is where Catholicism has its influence these days.

There are still Christians left in Europe? Europe seems to be almost completely divorced from Catholicism or Christianity these days. Future Popes should be American, Latin American or African because this is where Catholicism has its influence these days.

And hopefully they get away from choosing someone like the current one ... depressing

And hopefully they get away from choosing someone like the current one ... depressing


Well, I don't know much about Pope Benedict, he has been relatively low key except for the recent speech he made. I see him as just a placeholder while the next pope is groomed and readied for the world stage. This new Pope must be non-European to have any relevance though. It is time.

or if you are worried about the end of days, supposedly the next pope is going to be the anti-christ in disguise and we're all doomed.

To be honest, I would likely have reacted the same way.

The best way to get me to do something (usually loudly, and in the most dramatic way possible) is to tell me I can't do something.

Now that U.S. telephone conversations are being bugged and listened to, I make a point of saying how much I detest Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Rove if the conversation steers to politics — and that I would like for them to set foot off an airplane in a country which would have them arrested on the spot and taken to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If having our telephone conversations monitored was supposed to silence those of us in the U.S. who oppose Bush with every ounce of our being — it's failing miserably.

If I had been in your shoes, I would likely have sung as loudly as I could — or even better, gone up to the piano and begun leading the singing with as much energy and drive as I possibly could!

(You folks from other countries — don't make the mistake of thinking that those of us in the United States are in lock step behind Bush and his Administration. A great many of us detest and loathe Bush and are quite convinced he's comparable with Hitler and Mussolini!)

Well, I don't know much about Pope Benedict, he has been relatively low key except for the recent speech he made. I see him as just a placeholder while the next pope is groomed and readied for the world stage. This new Pope must be non-European to have any relevance though. It is time.

or if you are worried about the end of days, supposedly the next pope is going to be the anti-christ in disguise and we're all doomed.

Not really afraid of the end of days myself … being atheist.

Personally I don’t see that taking a pope from another area of the world is honestly going to make it any more “relevant”

Not to the average person anyways

That isn't even true.

A number of big players in the 'communist' field have insisted on non-religious governments, but most of the actual 'communists', one imagines, have done what all people have always done - and carried on about their business as much as they could, no matetr who was on 'the throne'.

Marxist communism opposes religion NOT because it has anything really against the idea of faith, but because it has something against the idea of CONTROL, by an alleged higher-power that is not answerable to any 'common' body.

Also - Marxist communism often uses the 'toolbox' of religion, repackaged in party colours. This is easier if you are not selling your product in a marketplace full of similar merchandise.

For someone that keeps claiming that “I” am the one that projects my expectations onto communism, that I am the one that argues communism is what I THINK it is, it sure seems as if it’s YOU who doesn’t really know what communism says and preaches. You project the reason you anticipate Marx would be against religion, but it appears you haven’t actually read what Marx himself wrote about it because your reasons and his reasons aren’t the same…

The communist believes in removing the institutions of family and religion, the communist ideals are the replacement of many previous (supposedly primitive), societal traditions… Marx claimed that communism is not an evolution of the ideas of religion, morality and philosophy etc., but that it overthrows them entirely and does away with them once and for all.

“When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Additionally, as religions encourage family and sexual morality, the communist manifest clearly attacks it…and in its place puts in public prostitution (and incidentally, but not in the quote below, places children in the charge of the state).

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
(link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc) to communist manifest by Marx)

Your idea that Marx simply saw religion as a competing product is not exactly right. The philosophy of Communism necessitates the removal of both religion and family.

This wasn't a case of politics at all. The made a scenario that seemed to be most realistic to our society. I mean could they have said "we have to be silent or else the gov't will kill us" Thats just not believable at all in America.
Frankly, I found it not at all realistic, reading it. Your pastor is trying to feed into misperception - that is politics. The misperceptions being built on are part of a particular political agenda.

Anybody who has been paying attention would realize that any church group thrown out of a university need only go to court (the ACLU would probably provide a lawyer pro bono if the church group didn't have one of their own) and get their hides nailed to the wall.

:eek: Are you implying that Catholics are frequently incapable of spelling the word "Protestants" correctly? Or just that they're incapable of referring to anything Protestant without disdain?

Just wondering.

Umm...they're spelling the term correctly. It's just a different word for the same thing. Synonyms, mate. ;)

I've heard the term Prodistant used a fair amount, but rarely is there any disdain attached. Usually the tone accompanying the word is neutral.

Sounds to me like your pastor is a lying, manipulative sack of crap. No offense.

Get off it. I cannot relate because I wasn't there. But it was a moving spiritual experience for this guy as he came to better understand the early New Testament Church and what they went through.

Not everything is meant to be as underhanded as what some of you automatically assume. You can disagree that "God filled the place" whether or not you believe in God, but his experience was rather subjective and apparently beneficial. So I think that it was a great way to relate historically to the New Testament Christians who did not have the freedom we enjoy in the United States today. Rock on Constitution!

Get off it. I cannot relate because I wasn't there. But it was a moving spiritual experience for this guy as he came to better understand the early New Testament Church and what they went through.

Not everything is meant to be as underhanded as what some of you automatically assume. You can disagree that "God filled the place" whether or not you believe in God, but his experience was rather subjective and apparently beneficial. So I think that it was a great way to relate historically to the New Testament Christians who did not have the freedom we enjoy in the United States today. Rock on Constitution!

lying is always underhanded.

lying is always underhanded.

No it's not, and you know it.

I could present a thousand examples of white lies, but I'm knackered.

No it's not, and you know it.

I could present a thousand examples of white lies, but I'm knackered.

the purpose of lying is to decieve, lying is always underhanded because you seek to decieve.

the purpose of lying is to decieve, lying is always underhanded because you seek to decieve.

Not only that, but while he says "rock on, constitution", he forgets that the very thing he's rooting for proves that this situation is impossible in America. They weren't, even for a second, just like the NT christians. Not by a friggin' longshot. It's just a false sense of accomplishment and justification for said sense - somewhat like "Yay! Finally, I can actually say -I- was the victim because of my religion! I'm equal to the persecuted Jews! Take that!".

In general it was just a stupid thing to do.

the purpose of lying is to decieve, lying is always underhanded because you seek to decieve.

Alright.

I'm a death camp commander. My superior wants me to kill two hundred innocent prisoners a day. I tell him that I have, while secretly releasing them. I have lied.

Alright.

I'm a death camp commander. My superior wants me to kill two hundred innocent prisoners a day. I tell him that I have, while secretly releasing them. I have lied.

It was underhanded, by definition. Doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad thing, but it was underhanded.

Alright.

I'm a death camp commander. My superior wants me to kill two hundred innocent prisoners a day. I tell him that I have, while secretly releasing them. I have lied.

yes you have.

what's your point?

This thread will drift in yet another direction it seems...

Is lying ever a good thing? Can it be beneficial?

There are still Christians left in Europe? Europe seems to be almost completely divorced from Catholicism or Christianity these days. Future Popes should be American, Latin American or African because this is where Catholicism has its influence these days.
Most Europeans are Christian, just less loud and hypocritical about it than Americans.

I agree that a Latin American Pope would be good next.

Also - Marxist communism often uses the 'toolbox' of religion, repackaged in party colours. This is easier if you are not selling your product in a marketplace full of similar merchandise.
Indeed, Marxism, especially the ideas that come from "each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is based on the New Testament.

Umm...they're spelling the term correctly. It's just a different word for the same thing. Synonyms, mate. ;)

I've heard the term Prodistant used a fair amount, but rarely is there any disdain attached. Usually the tone accompanying the word is neutral.

The word is "Protestant" from the root "protest," partially as in "to protest one's faith" ("protest" being similar to "proclaim") and partially as in "in protest against corrupt church leadership."

Saying Prodistant is a synonym for Protestant is kind of like saying that nuke-u-lar is a synonym for nuclear. No, it is not. What it actually is, is a mispronunciation.

Original postSounds like a perfect way to give people a martyr complex...to imagine persecution, and get all riled up because of that imagined persecution...renew your faith, your conviction, and give you that 'edge'...beautiful brainwashing tactics.

It sickens you? I think it is good that we are shaken up every now and then. This was an excellent thing in my eyes. I mean, it kind of gave me an insight to how some christians around the world have to practice their faith- underground, being quiet and so on. But we looked past that and we came together as one body and we overcame the situation. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Oh yeah, you really overcame that imaginary situation...kudos to you. You are exactly like those Christians practicing their faith underground...at threat of beatings, imprisonment, possibly murder...oh wait...you're not actually like that at all.

It's like an anarchist being welcomed to a right-wing meeting, being listened to and thanked for coming...and then walking out feeling all 'repressed'. I guess if you need a persecution complex, or need to feel persecuted as some sort of middle-class angst-in-solidarity, go hard.

This thread will drift in yet another direction it seems...

Is lying ever a good thing? Can it be beneficial?

Whether it is beneficial or not, it is still a lie and is still underhanded.

Underhandedness can be understood as the opposite of being straightforward. Telling the truth is straightforward. Lying is underhanded. The motive for the truth or lie, or the effect of the truth or lie, have nothing to do with it.

If I think my friend's new boyfriend is an obnoxious jerk, but she is very much in love with him, I know that when she asks my opinion of him, she really just wants to hear how wonderful he is. So I lie and say he seems fine. The immediate effect is good -- I avoid conflict and make my friend feel good -- but I have still lied. It may even come back to haunt me if, after she falls out of love with him and finds out that I never liked him, she blames me for not having warned her and accuses me of having been underhanded rather than straightforward.

Now let's compare that with what Zilam's pastor did. You say his lie had a positive effect, but that does not change the fact that it was a lie. And since lying is underhanded, then the pastor acted in an underhanded manner. You may choose to excuse that, but you cannot negate it.

Now let's also take another look at this "positive effect" the lie supposedly had. The pastor claimed that, because of the First Amendment separation of church and state, the congregation was being requested to be quiet for the sake of a visiting politician. This was a lie. No one had ever made any such request. It just plain did not happen. Further, by casting the First Amendment as the reason why they were being asked to stifle their religious expression, he made the religious service into a rebellion against the First Amendment. But his claim about the First Amendment was also a lie. Thanks to the First Amendment, no American politician would have any right to interfere with any ongoing religious service in the first place. So the pastor's lie was a two-tiered one -- he lied about the university administrators and he lied about the First Amendment.

You say we should excuse this because the lie had the positive effect of making the congregation enjoy the service more. But it only had that effect on that one day.

What about the potentially longer-lasting effect of planting the false idea in the heads of the worshippers that the university was discriminating against them and that the US Constitution is stacked against them? When will that come back to haunt us, like the comforting lie about a friend's boyfriend? I think it will be very easy for the positive effect of a rousing service to be negated by the negative effect of increased paranoia about a persecution that is not happening.

So, the moral of the story is: Honesty is the best policy. Always.

The point you're responding to is that many of us believe that the Pastor was lying. He was pretending that efforts were being made to shut the service down when he was just trying to taunt his flock into kicking up their passion play.

It's not a great thing when a Pastor has such an apathetic flock that rather than let them go away in their faithlessness or try to persuade them with honest appeals to their faith or reason, he has to pull this manipulative bullshit.

People who respond to such things, even if true, aren't "feeling the holy spirit move them," they're feeling happy about getting the chance to indulge in childish contrariansim. In essense it wasn't the spirit of "hallelujah" it was the spirit of "na n-na n-na naaa."

hell yeah religion is opium for the masses. lets all join hands and sing kombaya, my ass!

I wonder why so many communists are not Christian, and even hostile towards the religion.

The Majority of countries that embraced communism did so as a result of being plundered by 'capitalist' countries. Many of those countries also incorrectly associated capitalism with Christianity, much as Americans themselves do. As a result, they became hostile to both because they associated them with the evil that was done to their countries.

The Majority of countries that embraced communism did so as a result of being plundered by 'capitalist' countries. Many of those countries also incorrectly associated capitalism with Christianity, much as Americans themselves do. As a result, they became hostile to both because they associated them with the evil that was done to their countries.

Russia was not plundered by any capitalist nations, they were plundered by their monarchy. Lenin took over because of a weak and unpopular monarchy and because Germany funded his revolt to get Russia out of the war.

Who exactly was Vietnam plundered by and why did the communists murder the southern residents who did not wish to embrace communism?

Communism was certainly inspired by widespread mistreatment of workers under some laissez-faire economic citizens, but lets not blame capitalism or capitalist countries as a whole now. Most countries did not embrace capitalism, they had it thrust upon them through revolution or soviet expansion. Then the communist leaders had to deal with that annoying little aspect of humanity known as free will and liberty. Religion, especially one based on morals such as Christianity, encourages the individual to live his life as ethically and morally as possible; but one ultimately chooses their own path. Communism forced its "citizens" to behave the way they wanted. Communist citizens did not become hostile to Christianity or other religions and I doubt most citizens even considered themselves communist, they just had no choice in the matter.

For all its faults, Capitalism is just more compatible with human nature and it also is more free. Maybe on a small island somewhere a group of like minded people can make communism work but it seems anywhere else it will result in oppression.

Russia was not plundered by any capitalist nations, they were plundered by their monarchy. Lenin took over because of a weak and unpopular monarchy and because Germany funded his revolt to get Russia out of the war.

Who exactly was Vietnam plundered by and why did the communists murder the southern residents who did not wish to embrace communism?

Communism was certainly inspired by widespread mistreatment of workers under some laissez-faire economic citizens, but lets not blame capitalism or capitalist countries as a whole now. Most countries did not embrace capitalism, they had it thrust upon them through revolution or soviet expansion. Then the communist leaders had to deal with that annoying little aspect of humanity known as free will and liberty. Religion, especially one based on morals such as Christianity, encourages the individual to live his life as ethically and morally as possible; but one ultimately chooses their own path. Communism forced its "citizens" to behave the way they wanted. Communist citizens did not become hostile to Christianity or other religions and I doubt most citizens even considered themselves communist, they just had no choice in the matter.

For all its faults, Capitalism is just more compatible with human nature and it also is more free. Maybe on a small island somewhere a group of like minded people can make communism work but it seems anywhere else it will result in oppression.

when the hell did this turn in to rant against Stalinism (and not communism as such set down by marx, probaly a moot point but hey)?

For someone that keeps claiming that “I” am the one that projects my expectations onto communism, that I am the one that argues communism is what I THINK it is, it sure seems as if it’s YOU who doesn’t really know what communism says and preaches. You project the reason you anticipate Marx would be against religion, but it appears you haven’t actually read what Marx himself wrote about it because your reasons and his reasons aren’t the same…

The communist believes in removing the institutions of family and religion, the communist ideals are the replacement of many previous (supposedly primitive), societal traditions… Marx claimed that communism is not an evolution of the ideas of religion, morality and philosophy etc., but that it overthrows them entirely and does away with them once and for all.

“When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Additionally, as religions encourage family and sexual morality, the communist manifest clearly attacks it…and in its place puts in public prostitution (and incidentally, but not in the quote below, places children in the charge of the state).

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
(link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc) to communist manifest by Marx)

Your idea that Marx simply saw religion as a competing product is not exactly right. The philosophy of Communism necessitates the removal of both religion and family.

Someone doesn't recognize the difference between Marxism and Communism. Sad, really. The site you linked to appears to no the difference. Perhaps that's why it's MARXISTS.org.

At that point they locked the doors, turned off the lights.... Oh, and did anyone else think this was a lawsuit waiting to happen had the slightest thing gone wrong?

No, you should choose to recognize what she recognizes and adjust accordingly.
Why?


She noticed what almost everyone notices. That you preach atheism and you ignore all evidence that doesn't support your argument as if it doesn't exist.
But I don't, since there isn't any.

Now then, you're obviously another of the mass who has nothing to offer me.

Why?



But I don't, since there isn't any.

Now then, you're obviously another of the mass who has nothing to offer me.

Uh-huh. It's all of us who are the problem. The arrogance of this one. The whole world is just a mass of people who just aren't as wonderful as you. Lucky you to have figured it out at such a young age. Now you can just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as an idiot. The problem isn't your hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. It's clearly that we all have nothing to offer you. Yet, you continue to show up and make arguments to that same mass that has nothing to offer you.

False confidence is sad. We have nothing to offer you yet you make such an effort to interact with us, never miss a chance to reply, to throw a shot across our bow, to try an impress us with your 'wit'. Yes, it's quite clear that you truly believe we have nothing to offer you. So, father, what's the next lesson in your sermon?

Uh-huh. It's all of us who are the problem.
Now you're understanding, grasshopper.

The problem isn't with me--it's with people who don't think through a position and who think that we all must "respect each other's beliefs".

Now you're understanding, grasshopper.

The problem isn't with me--it's with people who don't think through a position and who think that we all must "respect each other's beliefs".

do you actually have a postition outside of "nope", "prove it", "liar", and "you are not smart enough to talk to me"?

if so please state it.

and don't pull that "I already did" crap, I know that's your MO...

Someone doesn't recognize the difference between Marxism and Communism. Sad, really. The site you linked to appears to no the difference. Perhaps that's why it's MARXISTS.org.

For crying out loud... You know, it's not like I didn't actually QUOTE the post I was talking to, it's not like you would have gone very far to see what I was talking about.... You could at least be bothered enough to actually read the post I was responding to since it was IN the post of mine that you quoted, with a link to the top of the same page where GnI’s post was/is....

But here, I'll post it again and BOLD the relevant part for you since you can’t be bothered…

That isn't even true.

A number of big players in the 'communist' field have insisted on non-religious governments, but most of the actual 'communists', one imagines, have done what all people have always done - and carried on about their business as much as they could, no matetr who was on 'the throne'.

Marxist communism opposes religion NOT because it has anything really against the idea of faith, but because it has something against the idea of CONTROL, by an alleged higher-power that is not answerable to any 'common' body.

Also - Marxist communism often uses the 'toolbox' of religion, repackaged in party colours. This is easier if you are not selling your product in a marketplace full of similar merchandise.
…snip….

You should comprehend a post argument and position before you embarrass yourself by responding not to it but to your own imaginary arguments and find yourself shadow boxing with thin air, like you have here. You proved beyond doubt that you didn’t even read the actual argument in your eagerness to try and dismiss it.

For crying out loud... You know, it's not like I didn't actually QUOTE the post I was talking to, it's not like you would have gone very far to see what I was talking about.... You could at least be bothered enough to actually read the post I was responding to since it was IN the post of mine that you quoted, with a link to the top of the same page where GnI’s post was/is....

But here, I'll post it again and BOLD the relevant part for you since you can’t be bothered…



You should comprehend a post argument and position before you embarrass yourself by responding not to it but to your own imaginary arguments and find yourself shadow boxing with thin air, like you have here. You proved beyond doubt that you didn’t even read the actual argument in your eagerness to try and dismiss it.

I did read his post. You posted evidence to confirm his exact argument. But then, you knew that since you read so carefully. See Marx said that they contradict and that is why one abolishes the other. That's pretty much the definition of a competing product. So your entire post was simply wrong. Not as if it's the first time.

Meanwhile, that post doesn't exist in isolation. It is part of a line of posts where you completely fail to recognize that Marx defined Marxism, not the only and specific ideologies of communism. The link further represents that you've been talking about Marxism all along. So I pointed it out. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to someone who reads so carefully. Next time I will drop a trail of bread crumbs so you can find your way to the point. One who was reading your post might just notice that you intentionally and deceptively write communism and not Marxism because you are trying to make Marx's view and communist definitions one and the same. But hey, prove me wrong. Instead of quoting GnI, point to where in that post you said MARXIST Communism. I'll wait. Oh, wait, you didn't. Once again you're caught trying to play your little games. Don't get mad at me because you got caught. Your post is not difference to replying to a comment someone made about Catholics with a long list of comments that replaced the word Catholics with Christians, saying things like "Christianity requires that one take communion and follow the Law as interpreted by the Pope". If you said such a thing even in reply to a comment about Catholicism, I would point out that you don't know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Similarly I'll point out that you appear to not know the difference between Communism and Marxism. Your arguments evidence this. Your terminology evidences this. If you do know the difference, then here's a thing you might try - actually write it properly and stop saying something that isn't true by substitution Communism for Marxism.

Now you're understanding, grasshopper.

The problem isn't with me--it's with people who don't think through a position and who think that we all must "respect each other's beliefs".

Uh-huh. The problem is with you. You've admitted that you are unwilling to consider other evidence. That's the very essence of not 'thinking through a position." The irony of you making such a claim isn't lost on me.

Who exactly was Vietnam plundered by and why did the communists murder the southern residents who did not wish to embrace communism?


France Look up French Indo-China.

And the South was never a domain of freedom or capitalism. It was a dictatorship, but it was a US dictatorship.

The same was true for S Korea for many years. They had a dictatorship until a few years ago also.

I did read his post. You posted evidence to confirm his exact argument. But then, you knew that since you read so carefully. See Marx said that they contradict and that is why one abolishes the other. That's pretty much the definition of a competing product. So your entire post was simply wrong. Not as if it's the first time.

Meanwhile, that post doesn't exist in isolation. It is part of a line of posts where you completely fail to recognize that Marx defined Marxism, not the only and specific ideologies of communism. The link further represents that you've been talking about Marxism all along. So I pointed it out. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to someone who reads so carefully. Next time I will drop a trail of bread crumbs so you can find your way to the point. One who was reading your post might just notice that you intentionally and deceptively write communism and not Marxism because you are trying to make Marx's view and communist definitions one and the same. But hey, prove me wrong. Instead of quoting GnI, point to where in that post you said MARXIST Communism. I'll wait. Oh, wait, you didn't. Once again you're caught trying to play your little games. Don't get mad at me because you got caught. Your post is not difference to replying to a comment someone made about Catholics with a long list of comments that replaced the word Catholics with Christians, saying things like "Christianity requires that one take communion and follow the Law as interpreted by the Pope". If you said such a thing even in reply to a comment about Catholicism, I would point out that you don't know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Similarly I'll point out that you appear to not know the difference between Communism and Marxism. Your arguments evidence this. Your terminology evidences this. If you do know the difference, then here's a thing you might try - actually write it properly and stop saying something that isn't true by substitution Communism for Marxism.

Right, right, right, right, right, :rolleyes:

Marxism isn’t Communism? Really? You should have told that to the publishers of the manifesto then in the mid-nineteenth century…

What it says about itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc

What happened for its release in the world and why we know the word Communism in today’s world…
The Communist Manifesto, taken back to Germany in March and April 1848 by the returning members if the league, exerted no massive influence during the revolution. In the year of the revolution it had gone through two editions of several thousand copies and was published in partially in newspapers, so it was discussed in workers' associations. It provided the basis for the reorganization of the League of Communists between 1849 and 1852 and even after the league's dissolution it remained the most important source for communication and understanding among members of the league. The Manifesto stated that it would be published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish languages. The first translation was in Swedish in 1848; it was followed in 1850 by a partial translation into English in which, as in the reprint of the third section in the last volume of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung - Politisch-ökonomische Revue, the names of Marx and Engels were for the first time mentioned as the authors of the book. In 1869 a Russian translation and in 1872 a French translation were published. Only with the development of proletarian mass parties in several countries was it possible for the Manifesto to reach its great impact in the last third of the 19th century. With some thousand copies printed up to 1871, the new edition by the Zurich edition of the Sozialdemokrat reached twenty thousand. In 1890 Engels described the Manifesto as the "most widely distributed, the most international product of the entire socialist literature." Since then it has been published in some thousand editions and in more than a hundred languages.
~ Walter Schmidt
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/commat.htm *bolding by me to catch your attention...

Perhaps you are mistaking Marxism with Stalinism? Whereas, Marxism IS Communism, Stalinism is not.

In as much as Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, he did so under the directive of the delegates of the States. And in the same way that The Declaration of Independence belongs to all Americans, not just Jeffersonians, the Communist Manifesto of 1847 written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels belongs to all Communists, not just Marxists. The Communist League delegated them (authorized them) and then approved and published and sponsored the publication of the document in the European countries already outlined above. The Multilanguage release of the document was the production of the Communist League (not the Marxist League), they sponsored and released the their Communist Manifesto. Every modern communist party left in the world owes it’s allegiance to the document YOU call Marxism.

You want to re-invent what Communism means? Then you should choose a name not currently in use.

Someone doesn't recognize the difference between Marxism and Communism.
There really isn't any major difference--just some minor window trimmings and such different.

It's sad that communist apologists have to lie and say that marxism and communism are different.

Uh-huh. The problem is with you.
Nope.


You've admitted that you are unwilling to consider other evidence.
Liar.

So--got anything valid?

do you actually have a postition outside of "nope", "prove it", "liar", and "you are not smart enough to talk to me"?
Yes. But when idiots make unsupported assertions and repeat blantant lies, I have no reason to provide a page-length dissertation to rebut such nonsense. When people provide some measure of actual support to their claims, rather than just saying "well, god is self-evident" or things along that line, I'll delve into their statements more. But I'm not going to waste my time writing a long response when a short one is warranted.

Is that clear enough for you now, or do I have to use crayon?

Yes. But when idiots make unsupported assertions and repeat blantant lies, I have no reason to provide a page-length dissertation to rebut such nonsense. When people provide some measure of actual support to their claims, rather than just saying "well, god is self-evident" or things along that line, I'll delve into their statements more. But I'm not going to waste my time writing a long response when a short one is warranted.

Is that clear enough for you now, or do I have to use crayon?

that's an excuse, what I was looking for is your specific opinion.

I think you don't have one.

that's an excuse,
No, it's not.


what I was looking for is your specific opinion.
You got it.

For someone that keeps claiming that “I” am the one that projects my expectations onto communism, that I am the one that argues communism is what I THINK it is, it sure seems as if it’s YOU who doesn’t really know what communism says and preaches. You project the reason you anticipate Marx would be against religion, but it appears you haven’t actually read what Marx himself wrote about it because your reasons and his reasons aren’t the same…

The communist believes in removing the institutions of family and religion, the communist ideals are the replacement of many previous (supposedly primitive), societal traditions… Marx claimed that communism is not an evolution of the ideas of religion, morality and philosophy etc., but that it overthrows them entirely and does away with them once and for all.

“When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Additionally, as religions encourage family and sexual morality, the communist manifest clearly attacks it…and in its place puts in public prostitution (and incidentally, but not in the quote below, places children in the charge of the state).

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
(link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc) to communist manifest by Marx)

Your idea that Marx simply saw religion as a competing product is not exactly right. The philosophy of Communism necessitates the removal of both religion and family.

You confuse what I suggest Marx might have been doing, with what he might have been saying.

Indeed, Marxism, especially the ideas that come from "each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is based on the New Testament.

Oh, I do not disagree - but you might have just made yourself unpopular, in some quarters. :)

No, it's not.
yes it is.



You got it.
your specific opinion on every subject on the NS General forum is that we are all idiots? yep, you are a troll. Not a very good one either.

There really isn't any major difference--just some minor window trimmings and such different.

It's sad that communist apologists have to lie and say that marxism and communism are different.

That's your whole argument?

What is your offering on the eurocommunist concept?

Marx was an important figure in the evolution of communism, no argument. But he doesn't define what 'communism' is - only his vision.

Right, right, right, right, right, :rolleyes:

Marxism isn’t Communism? Really? You should have told that to the publishers of the manifesto then in the mid-nineteenth century…

What it says about itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.doc

What happened for its release in the world and why we know the word Communism in today’s world…
The Communist Manifesto, taken back to Germany in March and April 1848 by the returning members if the league, exerted no massive influence during the revolution. In the year of the revolution it had gone through two editions of several thousand copies and was published in partially in newspapers, so it was discussed in workers' associations. It provided the basis for the reorganization of the League of Communists between 1849 and 1852 and even after the league's dissolution it remained the most important source for communication and understanding among members of the league. The Manifesto stated that it would be published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish languages. The first translation was in Swedish in 1848; it was followed in 1850 by a partial translation into English in which, as in the reprint of the third section in the last volume of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung - Politisch-ökonomische Revue, the names of Marx and Engels were for the first time mentioned as the authors of the book. In 1869 a Russian translation and in 1872 a French translation were published. Only with the development of proletarian mass parties in several countries was it possible for the Manifesto to reach its great impact in the last third of the 19th century. With some thousand copies printed up to 1871, the new edition by the Zurich edition of the Sozialdemokrat reached twenty thousand. In 1890 Engels described the Manifesto as the "most widely distributed, the most international product of the entire socialist literature." Since then it has been published in some thousand editions and in more than a hundred languages.
~ Walter Schmidt
http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/commat.htm *bolding by me to catch your attention...

Perhaps you are mistaking Marxism with Stalinism? Whereas, Marxism IS Communism, Stalinism is not.

In as much as Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, he did so under the directive of the delegates of the States. And in the same way that The Declaration of Independence belongs to all Americans, not just Jeffersonians, the Communist Manifesto of 1847 written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels belongs to all Communists, not just Marxists. The Communist League delegated them (authorized them) and then approved and published and sponsored the publication of the document in the European countries already outlined above. The Multilanguage release of the document was the production of the Communist League (not the Marxist League), they sponsored and released the their Communist Manifesto. Every modern communist party left in the world owes it’s allegiance to the document YOU call Marxism.

You want to re-invent what Communism means? Then you should choose a name not currently in use.

Again - we run into your failure to step outside and look....

"A" is a letter of the alphabet. It is the first letter.

By your logic, making these assumptions 'true', ALL letters of the alphabet MUST be "A". You do not allow for the possibility even of "a", let alone such an outlandish concept as "b". And "Z" is right out.


Marxism is NOT Stalinism. You are right. Both are 'variants' of communist thought, both embrace certain aspects of communist ideology. But both also make their own visions of what it 'means'. Marx envisioned a 'communism' that expanded far beyond the economic model, and Stalin envisioned a road to despotism.

Both have something to say to communism... but neither utterly defines it.

yes it is.
Then you can demonstrate that it is.

Remember that bit I said about unsupported assertions? And see how you have no support for your contention? Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you for support, mkay.


your specific opinion on every subject on the NS General forum is that we are all idiots?
That's only my opinion if, like you, a person is either a liar or illiterate. Which are you?

Then you can demonstrate that it is.

Remember that bit I said about unsupported assertions? And see how you have no support for your contention? Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you for support, mkay.
you are the master of unsupported assertions.



That's only my opinion if, like you, a person is either a liar or illiterate. Which are you?
more intelligent than you and nicer too. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but it's really not working.

That's only my opinion if, like you, a person is either a liar or illiterate. Which are you?

I wonder how you think this kind of material has any worth.

Perhaps, suicide-by-Mod, is high on your to-do list?

more intelligent than you and nicer too. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but it's really not working.

Theoretically, Baawa-thingy is on 'my side'.

For this, I apologise.

I wonder how you think this kind of material has any worth.

Perhaps, suicide-by-Mod, is high on your to-do list?

he has been like this forever, his original nation (that got deleted) was like this too.

I think he suffers from some sort of a sociopathic personality disorder... that would be my diagnosis if he were my patient, maybe Narcissistic Personality Disorder, yep, that sounds about right.

you are the master of unsupported assertions.
Evasion.


more intelligent than you and nicer too.
The evidence does not support that claim. Please try again.


I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but it's really not working.
Because you're not intelligent.

he has been like this forever, his original nation (that got deleted) was like this too.

I think he suffers from some sort of a sociopathic personality disorder... that would be my diagnosis if he were my patient, maybe Narcissistic Personality Disorder, yep, that sounds about right.
I do so love piss-poor pop psychology. It makes me laugh to think that there are so many psychologists online. Because, as we all know, using the internet makes one a psychologist. Proven fact. Promise.

I wonder how you think this kind of material has any worth.
So says the person who tried to bully me by threatening me with mod action because I disagreed with you. Now THAT was really worthwhile. Yeah. "You don't believe me, so I'm gonna tell the mod on you! That will make you believe me!"

Evasion.
just playing your own game, thought you would like it.

The evidence does not support that claim. Please try again.
oh, well, until you tell me otherwise that's what I have decided.

Because you're not intelligent.
of course I am. I even figured out what's wrong with you.

he has been like this forever, his original nation (that got deleted) was like this too.

I think he suffers from some sort of a sociopathic personality disorder... that would be my diagnosis if he were my patient, maybe Narcissistic Personality Disorder, yep, that sounds about right.

Oh, well I remember a previous incarnation of this poster, and my apparent inability to find any common ground with him, her or it. I have never managed to get my head around the idea of people entering a 'debate' forum, to preach - no matter WHICH side of the aisle (whichever aisle) they sit.

Which is, of course, why I so appreciate those like yourself, Jocabia and Dempublicents, with whom I have fundamental differences of conception... but with whom such matters can be discussed and explored - perhaps for the benfit of all involved.

Because you're not intelligent.

I question your authority.

just playing your own game,
You're not, and there is no game.


of course I am. I even figured out what's wrong with you.
Because everyone is a psychologist on the internet, right?

I do so love piss-poor pop psychology. It makes me laugh to think that there are so many psychologists online. Because, as we all know, using the internet makes one a psychologist. Proven fact. Promise.

I am not a psychologist, I am a counselor. There is a difference, an intelligent person would know that.

I am not a psychologist,
Then don't act like you know what you're talking about. An intelligent person wouldn't try to be a poseur as you're trying to do.

So says the person who tried to bully me by threatening me with mod action because I disagreed with you. Now THAT was really worthwhile. Yeah. "You don't believe me, so I'm gonna tell the mod on you! That will make you believe me!"

I believe this to be a fabrication.

Perpetuate your mythology if you wish, but count me out.

If I have mentioned Mod actions in conversation with you before (possible, I've debated on-and-off for a while, now), it was probably because you were engaging in activity that either WAS in breach of the TOS, or was close to breach of the TOS.

Which, judging by your actions in the last page or so (Smunkee is either illiterate or a liar?), does not seem unlikely.

Then don't act like you know what you're talking about. An intelligent person wouldn't try to be a poseur as you're trying to do.

Is this made of Iron?

Then don't act like you know what you're talking about. An intelligent person wouldn't try to be a poseur as you're trying to do.

you are just angry because you know that I know what is wrong with you.

I believe this to be a fabrication.
Too bad for you that it's not.

you are just angry because you know that I know what is wrong with you.

I'd say leave it, Smunkee. There are better uses of your time, and I - for one - would hate to see you get caught up in the shitstorm if Baawa manages to incite the Hand of Mod.

I'll agree not to indulge our friend further, if you will. Deal?

I'd say leave it, Smunkee. There are better uses of your time, and I - for one - would hate to see you get caught up in the shitstorm if Baawa manages to incite the Hand of Mod.

I'll agree not to indulge our friend further, if you will. Deal?

deal.

OT you have a TG...
(or will shortly)

you are just angry because you know that I know what is wrong with you.
There you go again--trying to be something you're not and trying to claim knowledge that you don't have.

I could, of course, return the favor and tell you that you're just angry because I won't let anything unsupported go and that I don't believe the crap you spew because you simply haven't any standing with me. How would you like it if I analyzed you in that manner, hmmm? Just curious.

deal.

OT you have a TG...
(or will shortly)

I had a reply 'pending', which I have now deleted. Don't hold it against me. :)

Checking TG....

There you go again--trying to be something you're not and trying to claim knowledge that you don't have.

I could, of course, return the favor and tell you that you're just angry because I won't let anything unsupported go and that I don't believe the crap you spew because you simply haven't any standing with me. How would you like it if I analyzed you in that manner, hmmm? Just curious.


Ohhhohhh what did I miss, and I'm too lazy to read the whole lot, tell meeee telll meee know!?!?!?

ROFLMAO the last pages are so funny, you both are guilty of what you are accusing the other one of, smukee and bawa lol.
either way, good show, good show please continue I need a good laugh.

ROFLMAO the last pages are so funny, you both are guilty of what you are accusing the other one of, smukee and bawa lol.
either way, good show, good show please continue I need a good laugh.

the last few pages when I was playing his game? yeah.

the last few pages when I was playing his game? yeah.

whatever. just don't stop :D

the last few pages when I was playing his game? yeah.
Problem is: there is no game.

But, I expect nothing else from an Internet Psychologist.

Problem is: there is no game.

But, I expect nothing else from an Internet Psychologist.

Damn man, it's all a game!:eek:

keep on rollin' rollin' rollin' ....

Then don't act like you know what you're talking about. An intelligent person wouldn't try to be a poseur as you're trying to do.
Evasion.
The evidence does not support that claim. Please try again.
Because you're not intelligent.
Then you can demonstrate that it is.

Remember that bit I said about unsupported assertions? And see how you have no support for your contention? Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you for support, mkay.
That's only my opinion if, like you, a person is either a liar or illiterate. Which are you?



he has been like this forever, his original nation (that got deleted) was like this too.

I think he suffers from some sort of a sociopathic personality disorder... that would be my diagnosis if he were my patient, maybe Narcissistic Personality Disorder, yep, that sounds about right.
the last few pages when I was playing his game? yeah.


Both of you (and on the side Grave n Idle) need to cut out the snide personal comments. You want to argue the argument or lack thereof on either side? Fine. But don't delve off into the personal dissection/insulting. Smunkee, *don't* "play his game". If you think something is wrong and reportable, report it, don't engage in the same behavior.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

Both of you (and on the side Grave n Idle) need to cut out the snide personal comments. You want to argue the argument or lack thereof on either side? Fine. But don't delve off into the personal dissection/insulting. Smunkee, *don't* "play his game". If you think something is wrong and reportable, report it, don't engage in the same behavior.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

thank you, I will take that advice to heart. I am sorry.

I was saying that you both were doing the same thing. atleast you smukee are man (or woman) enough to admit wrong.

(still funny, either way. ;))

Oh yeah, you really overcame that imaginary situation...kudos to you. You are exactly like those Christians practicing their faith underground...at threat of beatings, imprisonment, possibly murder...oh wait...you're not actually like that at all.

It's like an anarchist being welcomed to a right-wing meeting, being listened to and thanked for coming...and then walking out feeling all 'repressed'. I guess if you need a persecution complex, or need to feel persecuted as some sort of middle-class angst-in-solidarity, go hard.

haha. I wonder, by the way, if the person who started this expected for there to be almost 100 pages of discussion about it.

I think it was more along the lines of those who sleep outside in a box overnight to understand the life of homeless people. None of the people that do that think for a moment that even that experience helps them to totally relate - as they still have a house to come back to when they're finished. But they might be able to learn a bit more.

It would also be interesting to have that pastor post here. I'm just speculating but I would guess he would probably post something like, "Geez gang! It was an educational tool, but in hind sight what you're all saying is true - maybe I wouldn't do that again." I don't know exactly what he'd say, but I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "I wonder how I can be underhanded because I'm a Christian leader and that's what Christian leaders are supposed to do." lol.

haha. I wonder, by the way, if the person who started this expected for there to be almost 100 pages of discussion about it.

I think it was more along the lines of those who sleep outside in a box overnight to understand the life of homeless people. None of the people that do that think for a moment that even that experience helps them to totally relate - as they still have a house to come back to when they're finished. But they might be able to learn a bit more.

It would also be interesting to have that pastor post here. I'm just speculating but I would guess he would probably post something like, "Geez gang! It was an educational tool, but in hind sight what you're all saying is true - maybe I wouldn't do that again." I don't know exactly what he'd say, but I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "I wonder how I can be underhanded because I'm a Christian leader and that's what Christian leaders are supposed to do." lol.

He'd probably tell us we're all going to hell.

... but I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "I wonder how I can be underhanded because I'm a Christian leader and that's what Christian leaders are supposed to do."

Hah hah or would he!?!?:D

I don't know exactly what he'd say, but I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "I wonder how I can be underhanded because I'm a Christian leader and that's what Christian leaders are supposed to do." lol.

why not? I think that's EXACTLY what he thought.

(damn peepelonia you beat me to it)

why not? I think that's EXACTLY what he thought.

(damn peepelonia you beat me to it)

I thought that was apparent that some people thought that way. I just wanted to document on this thread for anyone reading it the extreme view being presented by some and you just made it easier for me :)

Most ministers have the skill sets to make a whole lot more money than they do. But they sacrifice that for something they believe is more significant. To think that a Christian minister would violate their beliefs - well, I suppose that happens from time to time as we all fall short of our ideals from time to time - I just believe Christian ministers are good people for the most part who try to live authentically to what they teach.

haha. I wonder, by the way, if the person who started this expected for there to be almost 100 pages of discussion about it.

I think it was more along the lines of those who sleep outside in a box overnight to understand the life of homeless people. None of the people that do that think for a moment that even that experience helps them to totally relate - as they still have a house to come back to when they're finished. But they might be able to learn a bit more.
Well, that's true, but I tend to sympathize with the actual homeless who find that sort of "educational experience" insulting, as if their miserable lives are some kind of intellectual exercise that more fortunate people can use vicariously to improve themselves. I can't help it -- I just think there is something fundamentally stomach-turning about a well-off person saying to their friends at the spa, "I slept the whole night in a refrigerator box on my lawn, and it was so uncomfortable! Now I understand what it must be like to be so poor. Something really should be done about it." It seems almost like something Marie Antoinette might have done.

It would also be interesting to have that pastor post here. I'm just speculating but I would guess he would probably post something like, "Geez gang! It was an educational tool, but in hind sight what you're all saying is true - maybe I wouldn't do that again."
If he, or any of his congregation would say that, I would think it the best possible outcome, but so far few have said such things. Rather, people have defended it with an "ends justify the means" argument. And a few have actually insisted that his lie reflects how Christians are really treated in the US, which is patently ridiculous.

I don't know exactly what he'd say, but I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "I wonder how I can be underhanded because I'm a Christian leader and that's what Christian leaders are supposed to do." lol.
And here it seems that you, too, are buying into a little of the martyrdom fad by characterizing criticism of this one pastor into an attack on all Christian leaders.

You cannot deny that this pastor lied in order to manipulate the feelings of his congregation. You cannot characterize that as anything but an underhanded thing to do because that is the inherent of character of lies in general and of manipulative lies in particular. As I have said earlier, you may choose to excuse his underhandedness under these circumstances, but you cannot deny that it was underhanded. This applies only to this action by this man. I have not seen anything here (outside of the postings of a few trolls) that suggests this is the standard procedure for all Christian pastors.

I would, however, point out that the unfounded assumption that people think that way about Christians is part of the martyrdom fantasy that this pastor was promoting by the lie he told. Even if he did not mean to promote such a fantasy, his lie did precisely that among people inclined towards it in the first place. You can see that by the posters here who have insisted that Christians are being persecuted in Christian-majority USA.

I thought that was apparent that some people thought that way. I just wanted to document on this thread for anyone reading it the extreme view being presented by some and you just made it easier for me :)

Most ministers have the skill sets to make a whole lot more money than they do. But they sacrifice that for something they believe is more significant. To think that a Christian minister would violate their beliefs - well, I suppose that happens from time to time as we all fall short of our ideals from time to time - I just believe Christian ministers are good people for the most part who try to live authentically to what they teach.

yeah probaly the fire and brimstone part ;)

I thought that was apparent that some people thought that way. I just wanted to document on this thread for anyone reading it the extreme view being presented by some and you just made it easier for me :)

Most ministers have the skill sets to make a whole lot more money than they do. But they sacrifice that for something they believe is more significant. To think that a Christian minister would violate their beliefs - well, I suppose that happens from time to time as we all fall short of our ideals from time to time - I just believe Christian ministers are good people for the most part who try to live authentically to what they teach.

Yes, because you obviously know them all on a personal level. Every single one of them.

You can see that by the posters here who have insisted that Christians are being persecuted in Christian-majority USA.


A majority can be persecuted. And just becuase a larger amount of the population was born into or baptized into Christianity does not mean they are practicing Christians.

Persecuted is too strong a word but I do feel the word targeted is appropriate. The fact is, I think it is perfectly believable to think the school would ask a prayer service to keep it down or shut down in order to not offend a secular activist. I would not put it past the college administrations of today.

though this is just a simple case of two people seeing the world differently.

Yes, because you obviously know them all on a personal level. Every single one of them.

What?

I do know many, and from my experiences, this is true. And from that my statement was "I believe..." not "I know..."

Yes, because you obviously know them all on a personal level. Every single one of them.


why the sarcasm? He said that is what he believes, not that it was an absolute truth.

yeah probaly the fire and brimstone part ;)

Have you heard a sermon since 1900 or so?

A majority can be persecuted. And just becuase a larger amount of the population was born into or baptized into Christianity does not mean they are practicing Christians.

Persecuted is too strong a word but I do feel the word targeted is appropriate. The fact is, I think it is perfectly believable to think the school would ask a prayer service to keep it down or shut down in order to not offend a secular activist. I would not put it past the college administrations of today.

though this is just a simple case of two people seeing the world differently.

No, it's quite such just a simple case of you not understanding the constitution.

why the sarcasm? He said that is what he believes, not that it was an absolute truth.

If you believe it, there's gotta be a reason. Unless he's just going on blind ignorance and hope, then he knows them all personally.

I'm shocked this is still alive.

In any event, the pastor here is wrong on account that he lied to his congregation. Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts. But on the other hand, so what? Ordained people are still normal people regardless of all that seminary schooling, and as a result quite a few of them are douchebags. As an example: I'm a fat guy and my dad died in 2001. A methodist pastor who my grandparents dispatched to my house for grief counseling made the comment that my dad dying isn't all bad, on account of the fact the stress might cause me to lose weight.

Religious leaders are just normal people, and as such have all the flaws of normal people. And on occasion, some of them are out-in-out assholes.

No, it's quite such just a simple case of you not understanding the constitution.

A young girl in Junior High School was seen reading the Bible during her lunch hour. She was asked by the Principal to stop reading becuase that book had no place on school grounds.

There was no magical "Constitution Man" superhero that jumped out and said to the principal, "hey you can't do that!"

She had to listen to what the Principal said and later file a lawsuit or a complaint. After filing her complaint, it was then decided her Constitutional rights were violated, but they were still violated in the first place because there are many people who think like that Principal.

Just because someone's rights are protected by the constitution does not mean they are not targeted in some way or another.

"Constitution Man" is not out there rescuing people on a daily basis who decide not to file a complaint or lawsuit.

Have you heard a sermon since 1900 or so?

nope btw, I was kidding hence smiley.

I thought that was apparent that some people thought that way. I just wanted to document on this thread for anyone reading it the extreme view being presented by some and you just made it easier for me :)

Most ministers have the skill sets to make a whole lot more money than they do. But they sacrifice that for something they believe is more significant. To think that a Christian minister would violate their beliefs - well, I suppose that happens from time to time as we all fall short of our ideals from time to time - I just believe Christian ministers are good people for the most part who try to live authentically to what they teach.


Ahhh pistol whip you shame me.

Yes of course the majority of clergy(well at least the ones I know) are fine, kind, and quite loverly people. So I shall in future mark any generlised/sterotypeical remarks thusly: *joke* (If I can remeber, that is)

For the record, I have many problems with the Christain church, not those who practice the Christain faith. So I may make light of the heiericy, this does not mean I feel the same about people who share the faith.

No, it's quite such just a simple case of you not understanding the constitution.

From the documented stories I've read, it's not him ... it's some of the universities that don't understand the constitution. I doubt you would, but if you'd like to get a book filled with possibly a hundred examples of such stuff really happening try picking up a copy of David Limbaugh's book Persecution

http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Liberals-Waging-Against-Christianity/dp/0895261111

If you believe it, there's gotta be a reason. Unless he's just going on blind ignorance and hope, then he knows them all personally.


So he does not have a right to form an opinion? Even though his opinion is based on his personal experiences and his language makes it quite clear it is just his opinion...he is not entitled to have it?

gotcha.

So he does not have a right to form an opinion? Even though his opinion is based on his personal experiences and his language makes it quite clear it is just his opinion...he is not entitled to have it?

gotcha.

You must've been reading a different post. I said he's perfectly able to have his own opinion, and that that opinion had to have come from somewhere, and through logic it has to come from one of the two places I gave as an example.

Ahhh pistol whip you shame me.

Yes of course the majority of clergy(well at least the ones I know) are fine, kind, and quite loverly people. So I shall in future mark any generlised/sterotypeical remarks thusly: *joke* (If I can remeber, that is)

For the record, I have many problems with the Christain church, not those who practice the Christain faith. So I may make light of the heiericy, this does not mean I feel the same about people who share the faith.

Thanks Peep. I go to a church that doesn't have any hierarchy (not sure if I spelled that correctly either), it's an independent church. So if I had been a part of a denominational structure I may or may not feel the same as you.

A majority can be persecuted. And just becuase a larger amount of the population was born into or baptized into Christianity does not mean they are practicing Christians.

Persecuted is too strong a word but I do feel the word targeted is appropriate. The fact is, I think it is perfectly believable to think the school would ask a prayer service to keep it down or shut down in order to not offend a secular activist. I would not put it past the college administrations of today.

though this is just a simple case of two people seeing the world differently.

:rolleyes: Only it didn't happen. How many times does this have to be repeated? The pastor himself stated after the fact that he made the whole thing up.

All you are doing here is superimposing your own fantasies over his. You can imagine this happening. You do not actually post any incidence of it happening, I notice. Nor any incidence of the US legal system failing to protect religious rights of Christians. No one has been able to come up with any such examples because there is no persecution. There is no targeting. Aside from a few self-righteous hardheads who just cannot bring themselves to not bitch about other people's religions, no non-Christian -- NOT ONE -- gives a crap what Christians do or don't do with their own religion. The ONLY thing we care about is when Christians -- or Muslims, or anyone else -- tries to make us conform with their beliefs. That's it. Period.

Now, if you (rhetorical) think that saying that I (rhetorical) don't want to made to conform to the rules of your religion is somehow "targeting" Christianity, then there's really no ground for common discussion, is there? Because such a view simply disallows any other person's view by characterizing any disagreement as an attack. Is that what you intend to do? Because all I see in the US is disagreement, not "targeting."

From the documented stories I've read, it's not him ... it's some of the universities that don't understand the constitution. I doubt you would, but if you'd like to get a book filled with possibly a hundred examples of such stuff really happening try picking up a copy of David Limbaugh's book Persecution

http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Liberals-Waging-Against-Christianity/dp/0895261111

*shrugs* So the girl caved and put her book away. And? That's one girl against a higher authority figure in a school system she can't get around at the time - this is an entire congregation in a church. You would have to be mentally retarded to believe someone had the power to tell you you couldn't worship in church. It's fucking church.

You must've been reading a different post. I said he's perfectly able to have his own opinion, and that that opinion had to have come from somewhere, and through logic it has to come from one of the two places I gave as an example.


logic? According to your logic he must, "know them all on a personal level. Every single one of them."

I believe most Muslims are peaceful and not terrorists. Ofcourse I have not spoken to every single one of them and must be "just going on blind ignorance and hope" because I do not "know them all personally."

Your words. Your "logic".

As far as christains being persecuted, anyone who tries to convince me this is true can just bite my ass.

:rolleyes: Only it didn't happen. How many times does this have to be repeated? The pastor himself stated after the fact that he made the whole thing up.

All you are doing here is superimposing your own fantasies over his. You can imagine this happening. You do not actually post any incidence of it happening, I notice. Nor any incidence of the US legal system failing to protect religious rights of Christians. No one has been able to come up with any such examples because there is no persecution. There is no targeting. Aside from a few self-righteous hardheads who just cannot bring themselves to not bitch about other people's religions, no non-Christian -- NOT ONE -- gives a crap what Christians do or don't do with their own religion. The ONLY thing we care about is when Christians -- or Muslims, or anyone else -- tries to make us conform with their beliefs. That's it. Period.

Now, if you (rhetorical) think that saying that I (rhetorical) don't want to made to conform to the rules of your religion is somehow "targeting" Christianity, then there's really no ground for common discussion, is there? Because such a view simply disallows any other person's view by characterizing any disagreement as an attack. Is that what you intend to do? Because all I see in the US is disagreement, not "targeting."


Who said anything about you conforming?

A young girl in Junior High School was seen reading the Bible during her lunch hour. She was asked by the Principal to stop reading becuase that book had no place on school grounds.

There was no magical "Constitution Man" superhero that jumped out and said to the principal, "hey you can't do that!"

She had to listen to what the Principal said and later file a lawsuit or a complaint. After filing her complaint, it was then decided her Constitutional rights were violated, but they were still violated in the first place because there are many people who think like that Principal.

Just because someone's rights are protected by the constitution does not mean they are not targeted in some way or another.

"Constitution Man" is not out there rescuing people on a daily basis who decide not to file a complaint or lawsuit.
:rolleyes: I see, so in order to do what you think should be done for people who can't be bothered to stand up for themselves, you think it is reasonable to postulate some kind of societal campaign against your religion, even though there is no such thing, and to claim that the Constitution isn't good enough, even though your own example shows that it most certainly is.

The fact that some Christians can't be bothered to assert their own legal rights, you see as proof that Christians are being persecuted.

You try to prove that the Constitution doesn't protect Christians' rights by showing us an example of the Constitution protecting a Christian's rights.

And on this laughable foundation, you want to do -- what, precisely? Declare the Constitution to be anti-Christian, as implied by Zilam's pastor? Proclaim that Christians are persecuted because a few people choose not to fight with the asshats in their neighborhoods?

Or maybe you just want to live in a world where nobody will ever question a Christian about anything they do under any circumstances, whether they are right to do so or wrong to do so. And how do you propose to accomplish that, eh?

logic? According to your logic he must, "know them all on a personal level. Every single one of them."

I believe most Muslims are peaceful and not terrorists. Ofcourse I have not spoken to every single one of them and must be "just going on blind ignorance and hope" because I do not "know them all personally."

Your words. Your "logic".

Yep, that fits pretty well. Though I gave two options, either he's ignorant or he's knowledgable. Most muslims -are- peaceful, and not terrorists, and that's generally accepted, but for the sake of argument and you twisting my words to fit your situation, I'll bite: if you recognize that most muslims are peaceful, while not having actually met every muslim in the world, then you are by definition using blind ignorance to come to your conclusion. You can still be right, but the way through which you came to your conclusion had no concrete evidence for your broad generalization.

Get it?

A majority can be persecuted. And just becuase a larger amount of the population was born into or baptized into Christianity does not mean they are practicing Christians.
Nor does it mean they are not.


Persecuted is too strong a word but I do feel the word targeted is appropriate. The fact is, I think it is perfectly believable to think the school would ask a prayer service to keep it down or shut down in order to not offend a secular activist. I would not put it past the college administrations of today.
That's called "paranoia".

Of course, people may still be out to get you anyway. Perhaps it's the ubiquitous "they" and "them" and "those people".

A young girl in Junior High School was seen reading the Bible during her lunch hour. She was asked by the Principal to stop reading becuase that book had no place on school grounds.
Evidence? Court documents for the supposed case?

Nor does it mean they are not.



That's called "paranoia".

Of course, people may still be out to get you anyway. Perhaps it's the ubiquitous "they" and "them" and "those people".

Hm, this is an odd occurance. About a week ago, me and R0cky agreed on something, and now me and BAAWAKnights agree on something.

Odd indeed. But not unwelcome. =)

Who said anything about you conforming?

I am saying that that is the basis of arguments against state-sponsored religion, against school prayer, against displaying religious texts in federal courthouses, etc. It is the argument behind the separation of church and state. The idea is that allowing the state to sponsor one religion over others, especially when it comes to such things as law and public education, cannot help but force others to conform to that religion. That is the argument and it applies to ALL religions. My religion should be kept the hell out of government, just that same as yours should. There is nothing inherently anti-religion in that, though. Certainly nothing anti-Christian.

Yep, that fits pretty well. Though I gave two options, either he's ignorant or he's knowledgable. Most muslims -are- peaceful, and not terrorists, and that's generally accepted, but for the sake of argument and you twisting my words to fit your situation, I'll bite: if you recognize that most muslims are peaceful, while not having actually met every muslim in the world, then you are by definition using blind ignorance to come to your conclusion. You can still be right, but the way through which you came to your conclusion had no concrete evidence for your broad generalization.
Get it?

Fair enough, as long as you admit that Pistol Whip can also still be right and his belief that most church ministers are good people can not just be dismissed. Especially when he himself is an active Christian leader and has worked with many ministers.

I also don't feel most members of the gay community prey on young children to satisfy some sort of wicked perversion; but since I have not done a thorough, all encompassing poll of the gay community, my opinion has no concrete evidence and is based off of blind ignorance.

As far as christains being persecuted, anyone who tries to convince me this is true can just bite my ass.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/223.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

I believe (based off reporting around the world) more Christians are persecuted around the world today than ever before. As far as Christians being "persecuted" in the United States, I guess it depends on your definition of "Persecution." It would probably be more correct to state Christian's rights are sometimes infringed upon. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of recent U.S. cases surrounding this.

I also don't feel most members of the gay community prey on young children to satisfy some sort of wicked perversion; but since I have not done a thorough, all encompassing poll of the gay community, my opinion has no concrete evidence and is based off of blind ignorance.

Didn't you already try this strategy before?
Once you try it once, it doesn't work, y'know.

Fair enough, as long as you admit that Pistol Whip can also still be right and his belief that most church ministers are good people can not just be dismissed. Especially when he himself is an active Christian leader and has worked with many ministers.

I also don't feel most members of the gay community prey on young children to satisfy some sort of wicked perversion; but since I have not done a thorough, all encompassing poll of the gay community, my opinion has no concrete evidence and is based off of blind ignorance.

Now you're getting it.


Though if you want, you could toss in the idea of "logical assumption" - that would tilt the scales one way or the other, and make it so you're not being ignorant, but simply assuming on a logical basis using evidence provided to you so that you don't have to go through every priest in the world. Logical assumption will mostly always be wrong to some level because of its sweeping generalizations, because there's always an exception to the norm. The vast majority of gays have no interest in little boys, using logical assumption via the evidence of what most gays find attractive, seen through couples walking together and surveys taken - but - there's always the exception, i.e. when a closet homosexual, say, a priest, having a combination of warped views of homosexuality and hidden desires he never allowed himself to indulge in, lashes out at young boys in an attempt to quell the part of himself that he considers sinful and bad.

See? Logic is fun.

:rolleyes: I see, so in order to do what you think should be done for people who can't be bothered to stand up for themselves, you think it is reasonable to postulate some kind of societal campaign against your religion, even though there is no such thing, and to claim that the Constitution isn't good enough, even though your own example shows that it most certainly is.

The fact that some Christians can't be bothered to assert their own legal rights, you see as proof that Christians are being persecuted.

You try to prove that the Constitution doesn't protect Christians' rights by showing us an example of the Constitution protecting a Christian's rights.

And on this laughable foundation, you want to do -- what, precisely? Declare the Constitution to be anti-Christian, as implied by Zilam's pastor? Proclaim that Christians are persecuted because a few people choose not to fight with the asshats in their neighborhoods?

Or maybe you just want to live in a world where nobody will ever question a Christian about anything they do under any circumstances, whether they are right to do so or wrong to do so. And how do you propose to accomplish that, eh?


the rolling of the eyes was unnecessary. And in the example I gave, she was a young girl. And she did stand up for her rights in the end. but when an authority figure is the one trampling on your rights, many people don't react right away.

look at all the cases of people whose rights were violated in some form or another by authority figures or otherwise. Sometimes it is more complicated than just "can't be bothered" to stand up for their rights.

and "asserting legal rights" usually occurs after the fact. A Judge or board of directors has to slap down the authority figure in question.

However, in the example given by the OP, they did exactly what the Pastor intended them to do, they asserted their legal rights and did not despair. And you may disagree, but I see scenarios such as the one suggested by the pastor in the OP a very real possibility on todays college campuses. I ask that you disagree respectfully though.


The fact that some Christians can't be bothered to assert their own legal rights, you see as proof that Christians are being persecuted.

The fact that they are put in a position at all where they must assert their own legal rights is what is troubling.

I am saying that that is the basis of arguments against state-sponsored religion, against school prayer, against displaying religious texts in federal courthouses, etc. It is the argument behind the separation of church and state. The idea is that allowing the state to sponsor one religion over others, especially when it comes to such things as law and public education, cannot help but force others to conform to that religion. That is the argument and it applies to ALL religions. My religion should be kept the hell out of government, just that same as yours should. There is nothing inherently anti-religion in that, though. Certainly nothing anti-Christian.

Since my first post I have stated I do not support a state sponsored religion. That would not only hurt members of the other faiths out there but the state sponsored faith as well. Religion flourishes when not under the influence of government and government functions better when not under the influence of a particular religion.

Muravyets, I am pretty sure we have gone into this discussion before. We disagree on certain details and have different points of view but as far as the bigger picture goes, we are not far apart.

The fact that they are put in a position at all where they must assert their own legal rights is what is troubling.

Whereas, you do not see it as 'troubling' when Christians attempt to IMPOSE their beliefs over the legal rights of others?

Two situations:

A) A girl is not allowed to lead a prayer at a mandatory, multi-faith event, because it does not attempt to reflect the religious freedoms of ALL present.

B) Homosexuals are not allowed to get married, because some Christians think they should be allowed to decide what the word 'married' means.

Can you see how these things are not equivalent?

Now you're getting it.


Though if you want, you could toss in the idea of "logical assumption" - that would tilt the scales one way or the other, and make it so you're not being ignorant, but simply assuming on a logical basis using evidence provided to you so that you don't have to go through every priest in the world. Logical assumption will mostly always be wrong to some level because of its sweeping generalizations, because there's always an exception to the norm. The vast majority of gays have no interest in little boys, using logical assumption via the evidence of what most gays find attractive, seen through couples walking together and surveys taken - but - there's always the exception, i.e. when a closet homosexual, say, a priest, having a combination of warped views of homosexuality and hidden desires he never allowed himself to indulge in, lashes out at young boys in an attempt to quell the part of himself that he considers sinful and bad.

See? Logic is fun.


And Pistol Whip used logical assumption to come to his belief that most Christian ministers are good people.

The fact that they are put in a position at all where they must assert their own legal rights is what is troubling.
As when a mormon family and catholic family filed suit in San Antonio (I believe) to have baptist prayers before a football game stopped.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/223.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

I believe (based off reporting around the world) more Christians are persecuted around the world today than ever before. As far as Christians being "persecuted" in the United States, I guess it depends on your definition of "Persecution." It would probably be more correct to state Christian's rights are sometimes infringed upon. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of recent U.S. cases surrounding this.

US cases such as...?

US cases such as...?
Like the one I referenced above, where one sect was oppressing other sects.

Whereas, you do not see it as 'troubling' when Christians attempt to IMPOSE their beliefs over the legal rights of others?

Two situations:

A) A girl is not allowed to lead a prayer at a mandatory, multi-faith event, because it does not attempt to reflect the religious freedoms of ALL present.

B) Homosexuals are not allowed to get married, because some Christians think they should be allowed to decide what the word 'married' means.

Can you see how these things are not equivalent?

Honestly, how can you come to the conclusion that I do not find those violations of ones rights equally as offensive? How did you come to that conclusion? Are you labeling me as some sort of fundamentalist? I would hope not.

The issue of gay marriage is debateable and is for another thread. Since when is marriage a right? I always thought it a priveledge. But again...not in this thread.

You know, I really try to be civil and reasonable here but I am starting to learn that on these boards, there is alot of the "us" and "them" mentality.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/223.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

I believe (based off reporting around the world) more Christians are persecuted around the world today than ever before. As far as Christians being "persecuted" in the United States, I guess it depends on your definition of "Persecution." It would probably be more correct to state Christian's rights are sometimes infringed upon. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of recent U.S. cases surrounding this.

Nothing in either of those two links says anything about the U.S. persecuting christians.

Here's some stuff from the wiki about persecution of atheists:
In the United States, some State Constitutions require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office. For instance The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution provides that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Similarly, North Carolina, South Carolina & Tennessee all have mandatory disqualifications in their State Constitutions from public office for those who deny God. However, these restrictions have not been enforced in recent times, and are likely invalid due to the Federal Constitution.
Some more links here:
Persecution of Pagans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Heathens)
Persecution of Wiccans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Discrimination_and_persecution_of_Wiccans)
Persecution of Mormons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Mormons#Modern_anti-Mormonism)(Yes, I realize Mormons are technically Christian, but they certaintly aren't what you normally think of as Christian, so I'm including them here)
And finally, Persecution BY christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Contemporary).

And Pistol Whip used logical assumption to come to his belief that most Christian ministers are good people.

*shrugs* I suppose that's a possibility, but who's to say? It's hard to make a sweeping generalization in the first place, but it's easier when it's based off of faith or sexual orientation, rather than what job you have. Now before you say anything, realize that I'm not entirely convinced that all priests are actually religious. I know that more than a few of them take advantage of the position and profit greatly from it. Keeping that in mind, I do agree with him in that most priests are good - what they're good at, that's another story. They could be good priests, which is a vague statement if I've ever seen one, they could be good people, in which you couldn't use the word "most" to describe them, seeing as how "most" tends to stick best to statistics of 90% or higher (and I've seen many-a-person who claimed to be religious but were indeed horrible people - like Kormanthor, from the "The Missing Link..." thread) or they could just be good at tennis. I don't know.

Point is, there's a glaring vagueness in my mind when I think of "good" and "religious" being in the same frame of reference.

You know, I really try to be civil and reasonable here but I am starting to learn that on these boards, there is alot of the "us" and "them" mentality.

Hehe of course there is but put that down to human nature and it's want to tribalise(stick with those like us) don't take it personaly, give as good as you get, and for Gods sake(umm or fuck's sake for those Godless heathens out there) try to make some friends from the 'Them' side.

Honestly, how can you come to the conclusion that I do not find those violations of ones rights equally as offensive? How did you come to that conclusion? Are you labeling me as some sort of fundamentalist? I would hope not.

The issue of gay marriage is debateable and is for another thread. Since when is marriage a right? I always thought it a priveledge. But again...not in this thread.

You know, I really try to be civil and reasonable here but I am starting to learn that on these boards, there is alot of the "us" and "them" mentality.

No - the issue here is that you seem to be arguing that Christians ARE persecuted, are having their rights infringed.

Considering the balance of power, and the scope of the rights that are being infringed by different groups... the Christian majority are losing almost nothing except a little of their ability to dominate, while some people are having REAL issues with infringement of rights.

Arguing that Christians are persecuted, her and now, is like arguing a few decades back, that female suffrage was persecution of the male voter.

Since my first post I have stated I do not support a state sponsored religion. That would not only hurt members of the other faiths out there but the state sponsored faith as well. Religion flourishes when not under the influence of government and government functions better when not under the influence of a particular religion.

Muravyets, I am pretty sure we have gone into this discussion before. We disagree on certain details and have different points of view but as far as the bigger picture goes, we are not far apart.

Close to each other on state-sponsored religion, but seemingly of opposite viewpoints about the status of Christians in the US.

I cannot gloss over "persecution talk" as if it is nothing more than a desire to raise the consciousness of a complacent minority, not when there is a very non-complacent minority that does seek to enshrine Christianity as the official religion of the US and uses this exact kind of talk to push their agenda.

So far, the only "proofs" of anything that have been offered are of a few anecdotal and isolated incidents for which there is little corroboration. No one has shown any evidence to suggest that Christians are a persecuted or targeted group in the US or that US law does not protect the rights of Christians equal to everyone else. I cannot ignore that and allow rhetoric that so easily turns inflammatory to pass unchallenged.

the rolling of the eyes was unnecessary. And in the example I gave, she was a young girl. And she did stand up for her rights in the end. but when an authority figure is the one trampling on your rights, many people don't react right away.

look at all the cases of people whose rights were violated in some form or another by authority figures or otherwise. Sometimes it is more complicated than just "can't be bothered" to stand up for their rights.

and "asserting legal rights" usually occurs after the fact. A Judge or board of directors has to slap down the authority figure in question.

However, in the example given by the OP, they did exactly what the Pastor intended them to do, they asserted their legal rights and did not despair. And you may disagree, but I see scenarios such as the one suggested by the pastor in the OP a very real possibility on todays college campuses. I ask that you disagree respectfully though.




The fact that they are put in a position at all where they must assert their own legal rights is what is troubling.
The rolling of eyes was expressive. It expressed my frustration with "persecution talk" that comes from people who are not being persecuted. Having to stand up for yourself when confronted by a self-righteous asshole or just an ignorant fool does NOT equal persecution. Take this from someone who has had to do this on a regular basis for decades.

I have to admit that it gets on my nerves a bit to have to dredge up an argument I posted over 90 pages ago, but here is my original statement on the matter:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11726385&postcount=48

My point here is that the Constitution is the very thing that stops people from being targeted or persecuted even when there are others who might want to do that to them. As long as those laws are in place, groups and individuals have everything they need to use their own power to prevent persecutions.

In the US, the people take care of themselves and use the law to protect their own rights. Your argument sounds, frankly, like a complaint about having to do that, about not having YOUR rights handed to you, giftwrapped, on a platter with nice chocolates. I think you should be grateful to live in a country where you have the legal means to prevent real persecution, unlike what people face in some other places.

US cases such as...?

All of these are just a few examples from the David Limbaugh's book Persecution I mentioned earlier:

A fourth-grade student named Raymond Raines was in the habit of thanking God for his food before meals. While in his school cafeteria, he bowed his head to pray. A teacher publicly humiliated Raymond in front of the other students by ordering him to get out of his seat and go to the principal’s office. The principal ordered Raymond not to pray again. This happened three times. This 10-year-old boy was publicly ridiculed for his religious beliefs, subjected to school discipline because of them, and was eventually put in detention for a week. His family sued the school and the principal. Finally, the school board decided to allow students to pray at school as long as it is not "disruptive." (David Limbaugh, "Persecution," pages 21-22)

A kindergarten student named Kayla Broadus was used to saying grace out loud before meals. She said: “God is great. God is good. And we thank Him for this food.” Her school ordered her to stop praying. Her parents sued the school, and she was finally allowed to pray again.

These children and their parents had the courage to stand their ground. The children kept praying and their parents took the matter to court. How many other children have caved in and stopped praying? How many other parents were not willing to sacrifice the time and money that are required to sue a school?

Two middle-school students (sisters) carried their Bibles to school. Their teacher confiscated the Bibles and took the girls to the principal’s office. She contacted the girls’ mother, and threatened to call Child Protective Services. In other words, she accused the mother of child abuse because her daughters took Bibles to school. When the mother came to the school, the teacher waved the Bibles and said: “This is garbage!” Then the teacher threw the Bibles into the trash can. (Persecution, page 45)

Three middle school students had school books with the Ten Commandments on their book covers. School officials threw the covers in the trash. They said that the Ten Commandments are “hate speech.” (Persecution, page 45)

A federal judge in Texas ruled that students are forbidden to say the word “Jesus” during their school’s graduation ceremonies. He said that a U.S. marshal would attend the graduation. Any student who said “Jesus” would be arrested and sent to jail. Students would face up to six months in jail. (Persecution, pages 5-6)

In Vermont, a child in kindergarten was forbidden to say that God is not dead. He was told that such talk is not allowed. In a Kentucky public school, administrators told a student that he was not allowed to pray or to talk about God. In Florida, a teacher told two elementary school students that they were not allowed to talk about Jesus while they were in school. (“Persecution,” page 6) In Connecticut, police officers told a man that they would arrest him if they had evidence that he gave religious tracts to a student. They said that giving such literature to a student constitutes “corrupting the morals of a minor.” (Persecution, page 6)


There are many more examples. But I think this would effectively establish that just because rights are guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't mean they are enforced equally everywhere all the time.

Some more examples:

A survey was made of college professors in 1988. Nearly a third of them said that Evangelical Christians are a “threat to democracy.” Many philosophy teachers advocate atheism. Some students say that their religion was ridiculed during class. One biology professor refused to recommend students for medical school unless they believed in evolution. (Understanding it was not sufficient. They had to say that they believed it.) College professors have lost their jobs because they told students that there are some flaws in the theory of evolution. (Persecution, pages 111-118)

One teacher had educational material that included publications saying that Christians and conservatives are subjected to censorship and intimidation in the education establishment. This material was available, but students were not required to read it. The professor made a point of telling them that it was optional. His school administration demonstrated that his educational material made accurate statements. They forced him to stop using those materials. In other words, they censored the conservative viewpoint. Evidently, “tolerance” is a one-way street. It is not used when dealing with Christians and conservatives. (Persecution, pages 118-119)

In 1999, a student at Temple University learned that the play “Corpus Christi” was going to be performed. That play portrays Jesus as a homosexual who is sexually involved with his disciples. The student decided to organize a Christian event as an alternative. It included gospel singers and “Final Destiny” (a play about the life of Jesus). The university allowed “Corpus Christi” but refused to allow “Final Destiny.” (Persecution, pages 121-122)

Ron Brown was assistant football coach at Stanford University. He was denied the head coaching job because of his Christian beliefs. School administrators openly told him that he was not acceptable because of his beliefs. A Christian student received a scholarship. However, when the college learned that he planned to major in religion and philosophy, he was told that scholarship grants are not given to religion students. (Persecution, pages 122-124)

Christian clubs have been denied permission to meet on school grounds because of their religious beliefs. At Rutgers University, a Christian group was told that it was guilty of discrimination because it required its officers to be Christians. At Tufts University, a Christian club was punished because it wouldn’t allow a bisexual to be a leader in the Christian club. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill sent threatening letters to 17 Christian groups, threatening to cut off financial support for them unless they did things that compromised their Christian beliefs. (Persecution, pages 124-126)

Most universities have speech codes. There are hundreds of cases where professors or students were punished by university authorities for expressing views that were deemed to be politically incorrect. Sometimes they were punished for not saying anything at all. In one case, a residential advisor was fired for not wearing a pink triangle during “gay and lesbian training.” (The pink triangle symbolizes the gay lifestyle.) (Persecution, pages 133-134)

Just the tip of the iceburg, many, many, many more incidents can be cited if you wish - this kind of stuff happens all the time.

First of all, I'll say I don't quite trust anything said by a who has the same name as, and who is possibly related to, Rush Limbaugh(wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Limbaugh)).

Second, I am firmly convinced that the guy is heavily biased toward the same basic political philosophy as Rush.
His website (http://davidlimbaugh.com/)
Blurb for the book
(http://www.regnery.com/regnery/031001_pers.html)
Blurbs for his other two books:
Book 1 (http://www.regnery.com/books/bankrupt.html)
Book 2 (http://www.regnery.com/regnery/010309_absolute.html)
I think I've made my point as well as I can without actually having the book.

First of all, I'll say I don't quite trust anything said by a who has the same name as, and who is possibly related to, Rush Limbaugh(wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Limbaugh)).

Second, I am firmly convinced that the guy is heavily biased toward the same basic political philosophy as Rush.
His website (http://davidlimbaugh.com/)
Blurb for the book
(http://www.regnery.com/regnery/031001_pers.html)
Blurbs for his other two books:
Book 1 (http://www.regnery.com/books/bankrupt.html)
Book 2 (http://www.regnery.com/regnery/010309_absolute.html)
I think I've made my point as well as I can without actually having the book.

Haha! Yes, you've made your point. Damn the facts if you don't like who quotes them. That makes sense.

All of these are just a few examples from the David Limbaugh's book Persecution I mentioned earlier:

A fourth-grade student named Raymond Raines was in the habit of thanking God for his food before meals. While in his school cafeteria, he bowed his head to pray. A teacher publicly humiliated Raymond in front of the other students by ordering him to get out of his seat and go to the principal’s office. The principal ordered Raymond not to pray again. This happened three times. This 10-year-old boy was publicly ridiculed for his religious beliefs, subjected to school discipline because of them, and was eventually put in detention for a week. His family sued the school and the principal. Finally, the school board decided to allow students to pray at school as long as it is not "disruptive." (David Limbaugh, "Persecution," pages 21-22)
So US law as shaped by the First Amendment of the Constitution did protect these Christians' rights.

A kindergarten student named Kayla Broadus was used to saying grace out loud before meals. She said: “God is great. God is good. And we thank Him for this food.” Her school ordered her to stop praying. Her parents sued the school, and she was finally allowed to pray again.
So US law as shaped by the First Amendment of the Constitution did protect these Christians' rights.

These children and their parents had the courage to stand their ground. The children kept praying and their parents took the matter to court. How many other children have caved in and stopped praying? How many other parents were not willing to sacrifice the time and money that are required to sue a school?
Not that many, it seems, seeing as how there are no laws in the US restricting the right of Christians to freely practice their religion.

Or are you suggesting that occasionally having to deal with prejudiced individuals during your life equates to being a persecuted group in the US? Well, welcome to my world. You'll get used to eventually and, hopefully, then you'll regain your sense of perspective. American Christians are not being persecuted and are in no danger of being persecuted, thanks to the laws of the USA.

Btw, I notice that you don't know how many other Christians have been too afraid to open their mouths to their local school boards. That book gave you no statistics to work with? So, what, are you just speculatively extrapolating based on a few isolated anecdotes, just as some others have been doing through this whole thread?

Two middle-school students (sisters) carried their Bibles to school. Their teacher confiscated the Bibles and took the girls to the principal’s office. She contacted the girls’ mother, and threatened to call Child Protective Services. In other words, she accused the mother of child abuse because her daughters took Bibles to school. When the mother came to the school, the teacher waved the Bibles and said: “This is garbage!” Then the teacher threw the Bibles into the trash can. (Persecution, page 45)

Three middle school students had school books with the Ten Commandments on their book covers. School officials threw the covers in the trash. They said that the Ten Commandments are “hate speech.” (Persecution, page 45)

A federal judge in Texas ruled that students are forbidden to say the word “Jesus” during their school’s graduation ceremonies. He said that a U.S. marshal would attend the graduation. Any student who said “Jesus” would be arrested and sent to jail. Students would face up to six months in jail. (Persecution, pages 5-6)

In Vermont, a child in kindergarten was forbidden to say that God is not dead. He was told that such talk is not allowed. In a Kentucky public school, administrators told a student that he was not allowed to pray or to talk about God. In Florida, a teacher told two elementary school students that they were not allowed to talk about Jesus while they were in school. (“Persecution,” page 6) In Connecticut, police officers told a man that they would arrest him if they had evidence that he gave religious tracts to a student. They said that giving such literature to a student constitutes “corrupting the morals of a minor.” (Persecution, page 6)
Kindly expand your quotes from the book.

Where, more precisely, and when did these incidents occur? Are schools named, are towns named?

What action, if any, was taken by the parents, by the school boards, by local courts or politicians?

Were these stories culled from news sources? Are there citations that other researchers could look up for themselves?

What was the outcome of these stories? You seem to be implying that people got away with being bigoted towards these Christians, but how do we know that from these stories that are so lacking in checkable data that they could easily be apocryphal?

Give us more, please.

There are many more examples. But I think this would effectively establish that just because rights are guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't mean they are enforced equally everywhere all the time.
What part do you not get about it being YOUR responsibility to stand up for YOUR rights? The laws are there for you to use. The Constitution gives YOU that power; it does not designate a Captain America to leap into action any time someone tries to push you around. Every American is Captain America when it comes to preserving our civil rights. Maybe you don't understand this because you don't actually have to fight for your rights, not the way people who have faced real persecution have had to do.

Two blatant examples of Christian persecution in the United States few could deny:

On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher, and wounded 23 other people. They also killed themselves. They asked three Christian girls if they believed in God, and killed them when they said “Yes”. The girls were Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, and Valeen Schnurr. Rachel had shared her Christian faith with the boys several weeks earlier. Some classmates overheard the conversation. The boys made a video in which they cursed Jesus Christ and cursed Christians. They singled Rachel Scott out for an insulting tirade, mocking her by name.


On September 15, 1999, there was a rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. A gunman entered the church and methodically shot Christians who were attending the service, and then shot himself. Seven people died and others were critically wounded. The gunman was shouting, cursing Christianity and cursing the Christians for believing it. The FBI found anti-Christian writings in his home.

A federal judge in Texas ruled that students are forbidden to say the word “Jesus” during their school’s graduation ceremonies. He said that a U.S. marshal would attend the graduation. Any student who said “Jesus” would be arrested and sent to jail. Students would face up to six months in jail. (Persecution, pages 5-6)


Any federal judge worth his salt would know that this is unconstitutional, and not to mention, stupid.
It's also doing something that a judge isn't allowed to do, namely making up a new law.(Not overturning an old one, like they have before. They're allowed to do that. They're not allowed to make up new rules based on their own opinions.)

Haha! Yes, you've made your point. Damn the facts if you don't like who quotes them. That makes sense.
Excuse the Godwin, but:
Do you call Mein Kampf fact?
If not, you'll understand why I'll need to see some proof of these things BESIDES that one book.

Two blatant examples of Christian persecution in the United States few could deny:

On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher, and wounded 23 other people. They also killed themselves. They asked three Christian girls if they believed in God, and killed them when they said “Yes”. The girls were Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, and Valeen Schnurr. Rachel had shared her Christian faith with the boys several weeks earlier. Some classmates overheard the conversation. The boys made a video in which they cursed Jesus Christ and cursed Christians. They singled Rachel Scott out for an insulting tirade, mocking her by name.


On September 15, 1999, there was a rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. A gunman entered the church and methodically shot Christians who were attending the service, and then shot himself. Seven people died and others were critically wounded. The gunman was shouting, cursing Christianity and cursing the Christians for believing it. The FBI found anti-Christian writings in his home.

These two are obviously insane, and so can be dismissed.

By the way, I'm not implying Christians in the U.S. face persecution in the same sense that Christians around the world face it. I'm only suggesting examples that would make it plausible for people to believe the story that started this thread. Not that the rights couldn't be eventually be worked out through courts. That's what is great about the country we live in.

Still, there are some in positions of power who misunderstand what "Separation of church and state" means and actually use that to discriminate against Christians as evidenced by cases over and over in recent years. Yes, many of them are worked out over time, but it sure is a major nuisance in the short term.

Two blatant examples of Christian persecution in the United States few could deny:
Actually, it can easily be denied that these are evidence of persecution against Christians.

On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher, and wounded 23 other people. They also killed themselves. They asked three Christian girls if they believed in God, and killed them when they said “Yes”. The girls were Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, and Valeen Schnurr. Rachel had shared her Christian faith with the boys several weeks earlier. Some classmates overheard the conversation. The boys made a video in which they cursed Jesus Christ and cursed Christians. They singled Rachel Scott out for an insulting tirade, mocking her by name.
They shot three girls after asking thm if they believed in God. How many of their other victims did they ask whether they believed in God? None or all? How many non-believers did they choose not to shoot? None or all?

The fact that the killers had singled out those three girls in advance indicates that they had a particular grudge against those three girls, not that they had a grudge against Christians, or else they would have ascertained the religion of all their victims, wouldn't they?

Also, any anti-Christian rantings must first be understood in the context of three extremely disturbed boys. We must also consider it in the light of the lack of religious targeting in their choice of victims. No matter what their views on religion, their crime was obviously not targeting just one group.

On September 15, 1999, there was a rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. A gunman entered the church and methodically shot Christians who were attending the service, and then shot himself. Seven people died and others were critically wounded. The gunman was shouting, cursing Christianity and cursing the Christians for believing it. The FBI found anti-Christian writings in his home.
As I recall, the FBI also found evidence that that man suffered mental illness. A lone lunatic does not a persecution make.

Let's compare it to a real persecution -- the persecution of blacks in the segregated south before the 1960s. The men who bombed black churches and committed lynchings in places like Alabama were not disturbed or disgruntled or mentally ill. They were racists seeking to persecute a hated group and willing to kill people to do it. And they had the law and the police and jurors culled from a bigoted society all on their side until the federal government finally stepped in. That is what persecution looks like, and that is not what Christians are dealing with in the US.

No - the issue here is that you seem to be arguing that Christians ARE persecuted, are having their rights infringed.

Considering the balance of power, and the scope of the rights that are being infringed by different groups... the Christian majority are losing almost nothing except a little of their ability to dominate, while some people are having REAL issues with infringement of rights.

Arguing that Christians are persecuted, her and now, is like arguing a few decades back, that female suffrage was persecution of the male voter.


Persecuted? I would hope not. Treated unfairly when compared with other groups or looked upon as some sort of all pervasive super majority who can "take it" when their rights are infringed, yes I do feel the left leaning secular intelluctual crowd does this.

Allowing Pat Robertson to force school prayer on non-Christians is not something I support. Neither is suing the city of Los Angeles because it has a tiny little historical cross on it's city seal or kicking a Christian student group off campus because they do not allow those who do not accept the dvinity of Christ (the core belief of their religion) to join their group.

You fear the Fundamentalist Right but you seem to forget that there is also a Fundamentalist Left who wish to dominate as well. To many people Liberalism seems to be treated as a religion in its own right instead of a philosophy or an ideology. A godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.

By the way, I'm not implying Christians in the U.S. face persecution in the same sense that Christians around the world face it. I'm only suggesting examples that would make it plausible for people to believe the story that started this thread. Not that the rights couldn't be eventually be worked out through courts. That's what is great about the country we live in.

Still, there are some in positions of power who misunderstand what "Separation of church and state" means and actually use that to discriminate against Christians as evidenced by cases over and over in recent years. Yes, many of them are worked out over time, but it sure is a major nuisance in the short term.

Being annoyed and being persecuted are far from the same thing, and shame on you for even comparing the two.

I'll concede that the OP's situation was "believable", in the right context, meaning they didn't actually consider themselves being PERSECUTED, rather, experiencing a minor annoyance that would very shortly be resolved, in which case I fail to see how being annoyed would bolster anyone's faith in the slightest.

Stopping Pat Robertson from forcing school prayer on non-Christians is not something I support.

I really, really hope you phrased that wrong.

By the way, I'm not implying Christians in the U.S. face persecution in the same sense that Christians around the world face it. I'm only suggesting examples that would make it plausible for people to believe the story that started this thread. Not that the rights couldn't be eventually be worked out through courts. That's what is great about the country we live in.
To my mind, misperceptions based on faulty information should be corrected, not allowed to stand.

Still, there are some in positions of power who misunderstand what "Separation of church and state" means and actually use that to discriminate against Christians as evidenced by cases over and over in recent years. Yes, many of them are worked out over time, but it sure is a major nuisance in the short term.
Short term nuisance =/= persecution.

Persecuted? I would hope not. Treated unfairly when compared with other groups or looked upon as some sort of all pervasive super majority who can "take it" when their rights are infringed, yes I do feel the left leaning secular intelluctual crowd does this.

Stopping Pat Robertson from forcing school prayer on non-Christians is not something I support. Neither is suing the city of Los Angeles because it has a tiny little historical cross on it's city seal or kicking a Christian student group off campus because they do not allow those who do not accept the dvinity of Christ (the core belief of their religion).

You fear the Fundamentalist Right but you seem to forget that there is also a Fundamentalist Left who wish to dominate as well. To many people, Liberalism semms to be treated as a religion in its own right instead of a philosophy or an ideology. A godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.

People are treated badly by other people, regardless. Get over it. Christians have it easy compared to other people. Athiests are the most distrusted group in the country, with muslims and gays contending for the title.

Being annoyed and being persecuted are far from the same thing, and shame on you for even comparing the two.

I'll concede that the OP's situation was "believable", in the right context, meaning they didn't actually consider themselves being PERSECUTED, rather, experiencing a minor annoyance that would very shortly be resolved, in which case I fail to see how being annoyed would bolster anyone's faith in the slightest.

No shame here for you misunderstanding what I said. I thought I had made myself clear that I didn't identify the many examples cited as equivalent to "persecution." If I didn't make myself clear, understand that is what I was trying to establish.

In the US, the people take care of themselves and use the law to protect their own rights. Your argument sounds, frankly, like a complaint about having to do that, about not having YOUR rights handed to you, giftwrapped, on a platter with nice chocolates. I think you should be grateful to live in a country where you have the legal means to prevent real persecution, unlike what people face in some other places.

All I said was that though the Constitution does protect people's rights, it does not mean it prevents violations from happening before they happen and it does not create an automatic shield around American citizens who may face hostility in one form or another. Violation of people's rights happens, Christian or not, and this is an observation and recognition of reality, not a complaint.

I am grateful to live in this country. You sound like a flag waving conservative when saying "you should be grateful to..." live in this country. Interesting.

But the law can be interpreted in many ways if the judge is an activist. I am sure you would not want Pat Robertson nominating Judges to sit on our nations benches just as I would not want the ACLU nominating judges like the ones sitting on the 9th circuit court of appeals, their favorite "go to" court.

All I said was that though the Constitution does protect people's rights, it does not mean it prevents violations from happening before they happen and it does not create an automatic shield around American citizens who may face hostility in one form or another. Violation of people's rights happens, Christian or not, and this is an observation and recognition of reality, not a complaint.

I am grateful to live in this country. You sound like a flag waving conservative when saying "you should be grateful to..." live in this country. Interesting.

But the law can be interpreted in many ways if the judge is an activist. I am sure you would not want Pat Robertson nominating Judges to sit on our nations benches just as I would not want the ACLU nominating judges like the ones sitting on the 9th circuit court of appeals, their favorite "go to" court.

The liberal judges are known to use the constitution as-is, while the conservative christians in house insist on overting the whole "judiciary branch" thing and just giving the executive branch ultimate power in whatever they want to do.

Excuse the Godwin, but:
Do you call Mein Kampf fact?
If not, you'll understand why I'll need to see some proof of these things BESIDES that one book.

geez, you're implying Limbaugh is like Hitler. You realize you are fitting right into the stereotype of a liberal (not sure if you are one) where if you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist (or hitler).

Leave that sort of rhetoric out of this. Limbaugh is not Hitler, Franken is not Stalin. and Bill O'reilly nor George Soros are the anti-Christ. Yes I have heard both referred to as such and said with a straight face.

[QUOTE=Szanth;11793599]The liberal judges are known to use the constitution as-is *snip*QUOTE]

Roe v. Wade

All I said was that though the Constitution does protect people's rights, it does not mean it prevents violations from happening before they happen and it does not create an automatic shield around American citizens who may face hostility in one form or another. Violation of people's rights happens, Christian or not, and this is an observation and recognition of reality, not a complaint.
And I said that it is YOUR responsibility to use the law to protect yourself and others. It is not the job of the law to go patrolling around, safeguarding your interests against your neighbors. If it did that, we'd have people bitching about living in an overbearing nanny state.

I also said that some people failing to stand up for themselves does not amount to a persecution of Christians. I have yet to be shown any evidence to the contrary.

I am grateful to live in this country. You sound like a flag waving conservative when saying "you should be grateful to..." live in this country. Interesting.
Well, if you feel like slapping ironic labels around, you sound like a "PC liberal" when saying that the law isn't proactive enough to prevent people from acting like jerks to each other. Interesting.

Also interesting that you imply there is some kind of political partisanship involved in supporting the law, and that you seem to think it is something I would feel negatively about.

But the law can be interpreted in many ways if the judge is an activist.
That's why there is more than one judge and more than one level of court. It's also why I am upset with the current imbalance in the Supreme Court. Interestingly (my, how interesting we're getting), it's not an imbalance that favors my religion over Christianity.

I am sure you would not want Pat Robertson nominating Judges to sit on our nations benches just as I would not want the ACLU nominating judges like the ones sitting on the 9th circuit court of appeals, their favorite "go to" court.
Good thing for both of us that they don't, eh?

No shame here for you misunderstanding what I said. I thought I had made myself clear that I didn't identify the many examples cited as equivalent to "persecution." If I didn't make myself clear, understand that is what I was trying to establish.
You did not make yourself clear, and you still don't. If you do not think those examples show persecution, why did you post them?

I really, really hope you phrased that wrong.

Yikes, I did...fixing it....immediately...

People are treated badly by other people, regardless. Get over it. Christians have it easy compared to other people. Athiests are the most distrusted group in the country, with muslims and gays contending for the title.


LOL. Come on now.

You did not make yourself clear, and you still don't. If you do not think those examples show persecution, why did you post them?

*sigh* to show how the case that started out this thread could be understood by those that were in service at that campus church that day.

geez, you're implying Limbaugh is like Hitler. You realize you are fitting right into the stereotype of a liberal (not sure if you are one) where if you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist (or hitler).

Leave that sort of rhetoric out of this. Limbaugh is not Hitler, Franken is not Stalin. and Bill O'reilly nor George Soros are the anti-Christ. Yes I have heard both referred to as such and said with a straight face.

Granted, he really isn't Hitler, but you must admit Limbaugh is a bastard liar who talks out of his ass on a daily basis. Honestly, you can't trust a word he says. Even when he cites sources, they're misrepresented or nonexistant entirely. He's a shock radio host who talks for ratings and that's it. He doesn't care about truth, justice, or christianity.

*sigh* to show how the case that started out this thread could be understood by those that were in service at that campus church that day.

Well, it's nice that you made the effort, but this was already covered on one of the previous 90+ pages, and it just brings us back to my point that a misperception should be corrected, not treated as fact.

Two blatant examples of Christian persecution in the United States few could deny:

On April 20, 1999,
It's a myth. Valeen said yes and she lived. Please don't use xer urban legends.



On September 15, 1999, there was a rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/kill-s22.shtml

Also:

On SEP-16, the Houston Chronicle reported that Ashbrook was a member of the Phineas Priests, a small, violent group that advocates killing Jews and other minorities. "That organization was outraged at Southern Baptists for their efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. At the time of the church shooting, Baptist churches in Fort Worth, were openly praying for Jewish conversions during the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur." 8 It appears that Ashbrook was specifically targeting Baptists, not Evangelical Christians, Christians or people of faith generally.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm

See what happens when you get the WHOLE story?

LOL. Come on now.

What do you mean? People are jackasses to each other all the time.

Granted, he really isn't Hitler, but you must admit Limbaugh is a bastard liar who talks out of his ass on a daily basis. Honestly, you can't trust a word he says. Even when he cites sources, they're misrepresented or nonexistant entirely. He's a shock radio host who talks for ratings and that's it. He doesn't care about truth, justice, or christianity.
Rush Limbaugh is a political version of Howard Stern. A shockjock, as you say, and worth what any obnoxious clown is worth.

Granted, he really isn't Hitler, but you must admit Limbaugh is a bastard liar who talks out of his ass on a daily basis. Honestly, you can't trust a word he says. Even when he cites sources, they're misrepresented or nonexistant entirely. He's a shock radio host who talks for ratings and that's it. He doesn't care about truth, justice, or christianity.

1. You don't have to like RUSH Limbaugh, but that is not an accurate description. I think he's a bit arrogant, he would say he's an entertainer. Some like him, some don't. Still, his citations are not misrepresented or nonexistant as you say and he's not Howard Stern.

2. More importantly, I was citing David Limbaugh not Rush. David is very, very different from Rush. True that one with very left views would not care much for either one of them. To one that leans more conservative - there is a big difference between the two. The linkage to Rush was made to try to get readers here who automatically think Rush is this big liar to associate with David to discredit the examples.

And I said that it is YOUR responsibility to use the law to protect yourself and others. It is not the job of the law to go patrolling around, safeguarding your interests against your neighbors. If it did that, we'd have people bitching about living in an overbearing nanny state.

I also said that some people failing to stand up for themselves does not amount to a persecution of Christians. I have yet to be shown any evidence to the contrary.


Well, if you feel like slapping ironic labels around, you sound like a "PC liberal" when saying that the law isn't proactive enough to prevent people from acting like jerks to each other. Interesting.

Also interesting that you imply there is some kind of political partisanship involved in supporting the law, and that you seem to think it is something I would feel negatively about.


That's why there is more than one judge and more than one level of court. It's also why I am upset with the current imbalance in the Supreme Court. Interestingly (my, how interesting we're getting), it's not an imbalance that favors my religion over Christianity.


Good thing for both of us that they don't, eh?

And back to my original point, there is a concerted effort, especially among those involved with the world of Academia, to target Christians. The law protects Christians against this right in the end but it still happens. And with a certain judge on the bench, the law will not protect them. This is why what the pastor said to his congregation was believable. You don't see this and shrug it off as a non-issue, I disagree.

And I hardly see how the Supreme Court is imbalanced at this moment considering how they just refused to get involved with the issue of gay rights and that the people and the states should decide for themselves. This is exactly what should happen.

Glad you agree that the ACLU should not be nominating their preferred judges to courts. ;)

The liberal judges are known to use the constitution as-is *snip*
Roe v. Wade
9th Amendment

What do you mean? People are jackasses to each other all the time.


yes but the whole "get over it" statement. He/she can't actually mean that. That expression has been used many times to excuse what start off as minor injustices and then end up as major injustices. And basically he/she said Christians specifically should get over it, whether he/she inteded to or not.

1. You don't have to like RUSH Limbaugh, but that is not an accurate description. I think he's a bit arrogant, he would say he's an entertainer. Some like him, some don't. Still, his citations are not misrepresented or nonexistant as you say and he's not Howard Stern.

2. More importantly, I was citing David Limbaugh not Rush. David is very, very different from Rush. True that one with very left views would not care much for either one of them. To one that leans more conservative - there is a big difference between the two. The linkage to Rush was made to try to get readers here who automatically think Rush is this big liar to associate with David to discredit the examples.

It's a very accurate description. I suggest you check out the book "The Way Things Aren't" from your local library. Small book, but lots and lots of corrections to the bullshit he spews.

Also, if they're brothers, they most likely are similar somewhat, so at the very least unless the man presents sources and crossreferences, he's a dick by association.

yes but the whole "get over it" statement. You don't actually mean that. That expression has been used many times to excuse what start off as minor injustices and then end up as major injustices.

Yes but the point is you have yet to find a situation like that, and for every one you MIGHT find, we could find THREE for any other persecuted group, just in the united states!

And back to my original point, there is a concerted effort, especially among those involved with the world of Academia, to target Christians.
We are repeating ourselves at this point because you have already said this several times and I have already said that none of the examples cited proves any such concerted effort exists. Is there any new evidence to be added at this time? If not, then your claim is not proven.

The law protects Christians against this right in the end but it still happens. And with a certain judge on the bench, the law will not protect them. This is why what the pastor said to his congregation was believable. You don't see this and shrug it off as a non-issue, I disagree.
Try to see it from the point of view of someone who is on the receiving end of such jackassery nearly every day, as a woman, as a pagan, and as a New Yorker living outside of New York.

From such a perspective, your complaints look a lot like a person who enjoys a great deal of freedom and civil liberties and the privileges that come with them, by virtue of being American and being a Christian in America, suddenly getting a brief taste of bigotry and getting all bent out of shape over it as if you are the only one who has to deal with this kind of shit.

Meanwhile, all the rest of us have been complaining about it for decades and getting denounced as PCer's for using the law to protect ourselves.

As I said to Zilam in my first post in this thread -- oh, when was it? page 4, I think -- instead of making this story be all about yourselves and bitching and moaning about how a few morons are proof that the world is out to get you, why can't you use such incidents to learn what it is like to be the minority and what it's like to be persecuted against, and thus realize the common ground between yourselves and them. Instead of demonizing the Constitution as stacked against YOU, why can't you see the value of the Constitution as a protection for EVERYONE?

And I hardly see how the Supreme Court is imbalanced at this moment considering how they just refused to get involved with the issue of gay rights and that the people and the states should decide for themselves. This is exactly what should happen.

Glad you agree that the ACLU should not be nominating their preferred judges to courts. ;)
Did you think I would want them to? Making some assumptions, aren't you? Like the assumption that upholding the law and being grateful for its protection is a "conservative" stance?

yes but the whole "get over it" statement. He/she can't actually mean that. That expression has been used many times to excuse what start off as minor injustices and then end up as major injustices. And basically he/she said Christians specifically should get over it, whether he/she inteded to or not.

May I suggest an alternative statement then? Instead of "get over it," how about "learn to cope," you know, the way everybody else does?

It's a very accurate description. I suggest you check out the book "The Way Things Aren't" from your local library. Small book, but lots and lots of corrections to the bullshit he spews.



He is a political pundit who spends 3 hours a day, 5 days a week talking about political issues and controversies. Any political pundit or editorialist will have a long list of mistatements and screw ups. The main problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is he is a partisan Republican. If he were a true conservative he would criticize the Republican party more for their out of control spending. Besides being a partisan, the only other thing Rush is really guilty of (besides the whole hypocritical drug addiction thing) is cherry picking his facts to support his positions. If you want to win a good argument, you use the "facts" that support it and ignore the ones that do not. Rush is a master at this and is very effective, this is why so many who do not share his views can not stand him.

Rush is not as bad as some others out there though. Michael Savage, a right wing talk show host, is so vicious in his rhetoric that I can not listen to the man. The same goes for certain left wing talk show hosts on Air America and the left wing blog Daily Kos which I refuse to visit anymore.

May I suggest an alternative statement then? Instead of "get over it," how about "learn to cope," you know, the way everybody else does?


Indeed. Atheists should learn to cope with the religous imagery they are surrounded with. I mean, over 90% of the people in this country to believe in some sort of God after all.

Indeed. Atheists should learn to cope with the religous imagery they are surrounded with. I mean, over 90% of the people in this country to believe in some sort of God after all.

They do.
They just don't want their government supporting it,
and by extention insulting them, because all of the religions who have their symbols on buildings call atheists heathens.

He is a political pundit who spends 3 hours a day, 5 days a week talking about political issues and controversies. Any political pundit or editorialist will have a long list of mistatements and screw ups. The main problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is he is a partisan Republican. If he were a true conservative he would criticize the Republican party more for their out of control spending. Besides being a partisan, the only other thing Rush is really guilty of (besides the whole hypocritical drug addiction thing) is cherry picking his facts to support his positions. If you want to win a good argument, you use the "facts" that support it and ignore the ones that do not. Rush is a master at this and is very effective, this is why so many who do not share his views can not stand him.

Rush is not as bad as some others out there though. Michael Savage, a right wing talk show host, is so vicious in his rhetoric that I can not listen to the man. The same goes for certain left wing talk show hosts on Air America and the left wing blog Daily Kos which I refuse to visit anymore.

No, he does much more than just make "mistatemets and screw ups", he flat-out lies, and then uses those lies to insult people.

Just because he's 'not as bad' doesn't mean he's not bad to begin with. There's no excuse for his kind of shitpickle bastardness.

<snip>
Rush is not as bad as some others out there though. Michael Savage, a right wing talk show host, is so vicious in his rhetoric that I can not listen to the man. The same goes for certain left wing talk show hosts on Air America and the left wing blog Daily Kos which I refuse to visit anymore.

I will have to give you this one. Rush Limbaugh is not as bad as Michael Savage. And he's positively positive compared to a lunatic like Anne Coulter. But that does not make him a reliable analyst of world events or political policies. I stand by my description of him as a political Howard Stern.

geez, you're implying Limbaugh is like Hitler. You realize you are fitting right into the stereotype of a liberal (not sure if you are one) where if you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist (or hitler).

Leave that sort of rhetoric out of this. Limbaugh is not Hitler, Franken is not Stalin. and Bill O'reilly nor George Soros are the anti-Christ. Yes I have heard both referred to as such and said with a straight face.

Wasn't saying he was.
I just needed someone with a strong political bias toward themselves.

Indeed. Atheists should learn to cope with the religous imagery they are surrounded with. I mean, over 90% of the people in this country to believe in some sort of God after all.

There's a slight difference between 'religious imagery' and 'in god we trust' on our money.

There's a slight difference between 'religious imagery' and 'in god we trust' on our money.
Indeed. I am quite able to 'cope' with people putting superstitious graffiti on their personal property. What I am not okay with is when my tax dollars are used to scrawl such tripe across public property.

We are repeating ourselves at this point because you have already said this several times and I have already said that none of the examples cited proves any such concerted effort exists. Is there any new evidence to be added at this time? If not, then your claim is not proven.


Try to see it from the point of view of someone who is on the receiving end of such jackassery nearly every day, as a woman, as a pagan, and as a New Yorker living outside of New York.

From such a perspective, your complaints look a lot like a person who enjoys a great deal of freedom and civil liberties and the privileges that come with them, by virtue of being American and being a Christian in America, suddenly getting a brief taste of bigotry and getting all bent out of shape over it as if you are the only one who has to deal with this kind of shit.

Meanwhile, all the rest of us have been complaining about it for decades and getting denounced as PCer's for using the law to protect ourselves.

As I said to Zilam in my first post in this thread -- oh, when was it? page 4, I think -- instead of making this story be all about yourselves and bitching and moaning about how a few morons are proof that the world is out to get you, why can't you use such incidents to learn what it is like to be the minority and what it's like to be persecuted against, and thus realize the common ground between yourselves and them. Instead of demonizing the Constitution as stacked against YOU, why can't you see the value of the Constitution as a protection for EVERYONE?


Did you think I would want them to? Making some assumptions, aren't you? Like the assumption that upholding the law and being grateful for its protection is a "conservative" stance?

Nobody is demonizing the constitution, at least I was not and the OP was not, nor was the pastor in his congregation. But Christianity is looked at by a vocal number of people, heavily concentrated in the academic world, as some sort of cancer. That Christians are superstitous, intolerant of other faiths, shove their morals down others' throats and wish to dominate this government and land. It is an organized effort as well with institutions like the ACLU...but yes I am repeating myself.

I just want it to be clear where I am coming from. There are people who seek to cut Christianity out of the equation and are happy to see the number of church goers fall and wish to downplay or trivialize whatever historical relevance the religion had to the formation or ideals of this country, hoping whatever influence it has weakens.

It is possible to believe in separation of Church and state and also believe that Christianity and spirituality in general has a positive influence on this country.

Indeed. I am quite able to 'cope' with people putting superstitious graffiti on their personal property. What I am not okay with is when my tax dollars are used to scrawl such tripe across public property.

and Atheists wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion?

I will have to give you this one. Rush Limbaugh is not as bad as Michael Savage. And he's positively positive compared to a lunatic like Anne Coulter. But that does not make him a reliable analyst of world events or political policies. I stand by my description of him as a political Howard Stern.

He is a shock jock of a different breed, yes. He is entertaining as well in my opinion and does put forth rational viewpoints when not sticking to his true ideals. Howard was entertaining too, but his show lost its appeal. He became too obsessed wth pornstars while Rush became too obsessed with party loyalty.

Muravyets, are there any left wing pundits you are willing to criticize? I noticed you did not comment on Air America or Daily Kos.

Indeed. Atheists should learn to cope with the religous imagery they are surrounded with. I mean, over 90% of the people in this country to believe in some sort of God after all.
I feel like I'm trapped in that Abbott & Costello "Who's On First" routine. We go round and round and we always end up right back at third base, without making any progress.

1) Atheists or anyone who bitches about displays of religious imagery on private property or any mention of religion whatsoever in education, or politicians talking about their own private religious beliefs = WRONG. Such expressions are not in violation of the separation of church and state, and efforts to stop them are violations of religious people's civil rights.

2) Atheists or anyone who bitches about school prayer, "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, religious texts displayed as representing the law in federal courthouses, and other forms of imposed religiosity = RIGHT. Such things do impose a single religious belief system onto a multi-religion society and imply a function for Christianity in the US government, which the US government is NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to assume.

3) Regardless of what some people seem to think, American democracy DOES NOT EQUAL majority rule. The Constitution and, especially, the Amendments of the Bill of Rights specifically protect the rights of the minority against the governmental power wielded by the majority by limiting what the government is allowed to do to individuals, even if the majority wants it to. So, the fact that the majority of Americans believe in some kind of religion DOES NOT mean that atheists don't get to have their views heard. It is up to each of us to decide, case by case, whether any given view expressed has merit or not. But you don't get to silence them all together.

4) Disagreement =/= persecution. The existence of alternative viewpoints =/= persecution of your viewpoint. Laws that make room for alternative viewpoints and treat all views as equal =/= persecution of your viewpoint. Laws that remove ALL religions from the functioning of government =/= persecution of YOUR religion. The existence of bigots in a society =/= a campaign of persecution by that society.

By coming back at me with that "atheists should learn to cope" remark, you just make yourself sound like your idea of freedom of religion is for everybody else to keep quiet while Christians get to do whatever they like.

I am talking about learning to cope with the existence of bigots. Just like atheists have to cope with bigots and women need to cope with misogynists, and immigrants need to cope with xenophobes, and so one. And guess what we Americans have to help us do that? That's right, the frigging Constitution, which guarantees even atheists the right to tell others not to shove their religion down everybody's throat, and guarantees you the right to tell said atheists to get off your private lawn.

That =/= persecution.

and Atheists wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion?

It's the definition of superstition, Dae. Don't act stupid.

and Atheists wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion?
1) I'm not an atheist.

2) Atheists, agnostics, and other godless sorts do not wonder why they are looked upon negatively. We know exactly why we aren't trusted or respected. We know exactly why our beliefs are marginalized and insulted. Doesn't stop us. :D

Nobody is demonizing the constitution, at least I was not and the OP was not, nor was the pastor in his congregation. But Christianity is looked at by a vocal number of people, heavily concentrated in the academic world, as some sort of cancer. That Christians are superstitous, intolerant of other faiths, shove their morals down others' throats and wish to dominate this government and land. It is an organized effort as well with institutions like the ACLU...but yes I am repeating myself.
Yet the ACLU has defended xers many times, and has offered to represent Fred Phelps. I hardly think that qualifies the ACLU for what you are claiming.

It's the definition of superstition, Dae. Don't act stupid.

Just in case anyone was wondering:
superstition

–noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

All of those defintions fit religion well.