War on Christians

[elliotfc]

Celebrated by the school, or by the other students? University is where many things in the mainstream are rebelled against and ridiculed. To be on that list is almost proof that you've got the upper hand in society.

Can you give examples here as well? The devil is in the details, as it were.

I'm not going to defend the sentiment that there is a war against Christians/Christmas, since I don't share that sentiment.

Is there an organized effort in some quarters to limit the influence of Christians/Christmas? Of course. Here are a few links.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/war_against_christmas_2001.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article2.html
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824

In all the anecdotes, the common thread I see is a few people in a position of some power and authority deciding for others how something will be celebrated or discussed or proclaimed. Again, that's not warfare to me, that's more like secular conditioning.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If Newdow hadn't been such a jackass, perhaps we might have seen the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its intended wording. That might have been a better battle, and a smarter one.

True dat. -Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

are you saying that private companies should not be allowed to enforce uniform standards in their employees?

No, I'm just saying that there are reasons for people to be of the opinion that there is some sort of organized agenda against Christians is all.

Again, Christians are the majority, if they think this piece of employment law is wrong, they should change the laws. Would they also support a worker who was sacked fro wearing a "Darwin fish" to work? Do these people want equal treatment for Christians, or do they want special treatment?

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of complainers meself.

-Elliot

 

[brodski]

No, I'm just saying that there are reasons for people to be of the opinion that there is some sort of organized agenda against Christians is all.

and there is reason to believe that homeopathy works, as some people who use it get better, however once you look at the evidence in an objective manner, you can see that in the USA there is no organized "war on Christianity" and that Homeopathy doesn't help people to get better.

 

[gnome]

I'm not going to defend the sentiment that there is a war against Christians/Christmas, since I don't share that sentiment.

Is there an organized effort in some quarters to limit the influence of Christians/Christmas? Of course. Here are a few links.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/war_against_christmas_2001.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article2.html
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824

In all the anecdotes, the common thread I see is a few people in a position of some power and authority deciding for others how something will be celebrated or discussed or proclaimed. Again, that's not warfare to me, that's more like secular conditioning.

-Elliot

First I'd point out that it seems most of these links disagree with you about whether there's a war on christmas. But that's beside the point.

The anecdotes I read didn't seem to have much to do with deciding how someone else will celebrate, as they did ensuring (sometimes overzealously, perhaps) that public resources not be used to promote religion.

There is an excellent standard in law that has been mentioned before. It is quite possible to walk the line between separation and free exercise.

 

[writerdd]

The fundies are just mad that Santa gets more publicity than the baby Jesus.

 

[elliotfc]

and there is reason to believe that homeopathy works, as some people who use it get better, however once you look at the evidence in an objective manner, you can see that in the USA there is no organized "war on Christianity" and that Homeopathy doesn't help people to get better.

Homeopathy could work as a placebo though. -Elliot

 

[brodski]

Homeopathy could work as a placebo though. -Elliot

"Working as a placebo" is a contradiction in terms.
placebo is about how a paitent is subjectively observed, (either by themselves or by someone else measuring their progress) it also covers coincidental heeling.
So whilst a patient may feel that a placebo made them better, and Christan's in the US may feel persecuted, neither position is based in reality.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

First of all, Puritanism is the most famous branch of predeterminism. Puritans were rejected by the VAST majority of Christians of their day (which is why they came to America) and they'd be rejected by 99.9999999% of all Christians today. They don't exist anymore. Their lifespan was quite short, generously 100 years. They changed their name, you know, to the Congregationalists. They rejected themselves in the end.

Using Puritans to defend a Christian perspective is, to me, laughable, whether you are defending from a secularist or religious perspective.

Just my 18 cents. Hypocrisy is irrelevant viz a viz Puritanism.

-Elliot

Not just puritans:

"Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians
Although Christmas wasn't outlawed outside of New England, several denominations, mostly found in the middle colonies, were opposed to the celebration. In 1749, a visitor among the Quakers in Philadelphia noted that: "Christmas Day... The Quakers did not regard this day any more remarkable than other days. Stores were open...There was no more baking of bread for the Christmas festival than for other days; and no Christmas porridge on Christmas Eve!" He went on to observe "...first the Presbyterians did not care much for celebrating Christmas, but when they saw most of their members going to the English Church on that day, they also started to have services." Philip Fithian, a Presbyterian missionary working among the Virginia Scotch-Irish in 1775, remarked that: "Christmas Morning - Not a Gun is heard - Not a Shout - No company or Cabal assembled - To Day is like other Days every Way calme & temperate."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/colonial_america_retired/55832


IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

 

[Scott Haley]

Happy Birthday

Not just puritans:

IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

In midsummer, Middle Eastern shepherds let the sheep sleep outside instead of in their stable. In the New Testament story, shepherds allowed Joseph and Mary to stay in the manger, and she gave birth there. This leads some people to think that Jesus was born in August.

--Scott

 

[ChristineR]

If said human was born at all, he probably wasn't born in a stable or in Bethlehem. The story appears to have been cobbled together from old testament prophecy that originally applied to Israel itself and latter applied to the Messiah.

 

[Tony]

This is probably the most genius work of spin, how else do you convince people that 90% of the population of this country is being persecuted?

They claim that their religious faith is under assault by secularists and atheists/agnostics/secular humanists, for some reason they can't seem to distinguish between those. They blame these groups for prayerless school, creationless school, and ten commandmentless court houses.

Apparantly, they either haven't read or disagree with the establishment clause of the first amendment US constitution. They also make the claim that our country was founded on christian ideals. As a history buff this makes me nuts: freedom of speech, no taxation without representation, free elections, and separation of church and state aren't christian values, they derive from the enlightenment thinkers. Our founding fathers were schooled in enlightenment philosphy and religiously many were deists, Jefferson for one had a profound mistrust of organized religion.

The reason christians can say that they are being persecuted is that they have been the persecuters for so long that they don't know how it feels to be on the other end. Religious persecution is not being forbidden to put religious icons in government buildings It's being refused a job because you are a muslim, it's being forced by law to live in a section of town (called ghettos, yes this is where the term comes from) as Jews were in many areas historically, and it's being forced to convert under threat of torture or death as many indigenous cultures were. Christians in the USA encounter none of these and are 90% of the population, so they have no reason to complain.

It's because they've been playing the victim for 2000 years.

 

[elliotfc]

"Working as a placebo" is a contradiction in terms.
placebo is about how a paitent is subjectively observed, (either by themselves or by someone else measuring their progress) it also covers coincidental heeling.
So whilst a patient may feel that a placebo made them better, and Christan's in the US may feel persecuted, neither position is based in reality.

No. People exist. People's feelings ARE based on reality. If people didn't exist, then I'd agree with you.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

IAC, it is idiotic in the extreme to complain about any perceived effort to take christ out of christmas, since the christ it refers to was almost certainly not born on Dec 25th (although, I suppose there's a 1 in 366 chance that he was, and also working on the assumption that said human was even born at all!).

Be assured that most Christians are aware of this. Christmas is an annual celebration, if it was on a different date it would still be an annual celebration called Christmas.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

It's because they've been playing the victim for 2000 years.

And like Christ we'll triumph in the end! Take that! Biff bam pow! -Elliot

 

[brodski]

No. People exist. People's feelings ARE based on reality. If people didn't exist, then I'd agree with you.

-Elliot

I'm not sure if I understand you here, are you saying that because Christians feel persecuted they are persecuted?
Or are you saying that because a painted is subjectively reported to be feeling better they objectively are better?
Both? Neither?

 

[elliotfc]

I'm not sure if I understand you here, are you saying that because Christians feel persecuted they are persecuted?

You are misunderstanding me. Christians feel persecuted because real-world events, interpreted by said Christians, make them feel as though they were being persecutred.

It's a matter of interpretation. If it is not, then you have to supply an objective standard, which I will subsequently deconstruct and prove to be subejective.

Or are you saying that because a painted is subjectively reported to be feeling better they objectively are better?
Both? Neither?

It depends how you define better. Physically? Psychologically?

-Elliot

 

[brodski]

You are misunderstanding me. Christians feel persecuted because real-world events, interpreted by said Christians, make them feel as though they were being persecutred.

It's a matter of interpretation. If it is not, then you have to supply an objective standard, which I will subsequently deconstruct and prove to be subejective.

In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.

It depends how you define better. Physically? Psychologically?

-Elliot

Physically better.

 

[pgwenthold]

In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.

Of course they aren't _actually_ persecuted, but they apparently "feel" persecuted.

The origin being that they aren't getting special treatment, like they used to get, and that is making them mad. Basically, they are feeling persecuted because they are less and less being allowed to use the government to promote their religious beliefs.

If you are historically allowed to do this and suddenly that priviledge is taken away, it may feel like persecution, despite the fact that from an objective basis, it is not even close.

 

[elliotfc]

In the USA is Christianity treated any less favorably by the government than any other religious grouping? If the answer is no, then they are not being persecuted.

I get your point. As an addendum, if blacks were being treated equally bad by the US government/society as latinos and asians and jews, they could still claim they were being persecuted. That's a stretch of an analogy of course.

Physically better.

Can psychological health translate into physical health or is there a disconnect? -Elliot