Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[Credo in Deum]

I hear what your saying, so don't watch t.v and movies if you don't wan't to be persecuted, stand against it, be one whom is in the world but not of the world. And sin has always been an excepted part of the mainstream, part of the humans, there never was no eutopia, though there may have been in some minorities to varying degrees at different times, such as the holy roman catholic church.  Though this is not hopeless, on our own strength it is actually hopeless, but with the grace of GOD it is not.

 

All glory to GOD.

 

Onward christian souls.

 

While not listening to the radio or watching the t.v will help you from being offended, it will not save you from being discriminated against.  Once again, the focus of the media is the turn the populace against Christian values, which will then result in the populace turning against those who still hold those Christian values.  You're only seeing one aspect and not the bigger picture.  Also no, it is a fallacy to say that sin was mainstream.  This has only been true in the US for probably 60-70 years or so.  Also I'm not saying we had a utopia.  What I am saying is sin was not mainstream and was not presented as "normal".  The things that are being shown in mainstream media today, used to be things you did in secret and talked about in secret. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Secret perhaps in the christian circles/ taboo. But also the media is not delibrately trying to turn people against christianity unless the theory is correct that the free masons hold a large chunk of popular media, lets say at least 40% including entertainment. It is entertainment and people outside of christianity have always been entertained by sin in the theatre, dating back eons, it eases there conscience.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Norseman82]

Back to the original question:  if you are looking for a recent example, look at Willock v. Elane Photography, the NM case in which the photographer refused to do a same-sex "wedding" or whatever the ceremony was called.  The NM Supreme Court ruling refused to recognize the photographer's

religious freedom argument, stating something to the effect that compromising one's actions against one's religious beliefs "is the price of citizenship". 

 

http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20140131_NewMexicoElanePhoto.pdf

 

Add to that how Catholic Charities in New York and California were forced to cover contraceptives back in the mid-2000s on the basis that they did not qualify as religious organizations, it makes you wonder if by the end of the decade the first amendment will be worth the paper it's written on.

[4588686]

lol.

Yes, you, a member of the cultural majority, are a victim of otherization.

the irony is so delicious I can barely stand it.

why do all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria CrossCuT?
Shame on them. They should stop "othering" the majority!

you can't know what its like to be a faithful Catholic today anymore than I can know what its like to be black.

I try not to share with black folk what I "know" about whether they have it hard.

Cuz self-awareness, and stuff.

Ummmmm....what? The cultural majority of this country is Christian. Now, that culture may not be fervent or orthodox enough to meet your standards but it is still Christian.

[4588686]

I wasn't accusing the homosexual minority of othering me.
If anything I could accuse the pro-gay marriage/lifestyle majority of othering me.
But in fact I was only calling attention to your ludicrous assertion (below) that I, a member of a cultural minority group, am somehow "othering" you.

Cuz somehow I "othered" you when I expressed irritation that you, a member of the majority, shamelessly tell minorities that their struggle is, in your words, "kind of annoying."

Is this the twilight zone or does kumbaya sauce have a nasty kick at the end. You tell me.

And this is the problem with critical theory. It basically has devolved into a methodology for people at highly elite institutions to discover the various ways that the system which they are highly immeshed in and will benefit from materially and socially actually gives them not only those advantages but also a lovely persecution complex. It's like when my friends who went to Wellesley and are being supported by their families as they complete their fourth unpaid internship while living in an expensive studio apartment in the heart of DC explain the various ways that they're oppressed.

The issue isn't that the examples that they cite are illegitimate. The issue is somebody whining about relatively minor instances of alienation they experience while simultaneously immeshing themselves to benefit immensely in economic and social prestige from the very system that made then feel marginally alienated.

[4588686]

Crosscut your point is taken, but at the same time the question is not whether persecution exists at the countrywide, group wide or de jure level but whether it exists at all. Simply because our laws are (mainly) just with regard to this issue does not mean people are just. And they become less just all the time.

It often the "personal" level persecution which eventually turns into harsher systemic persecution as many groups have experienced. The OP should use these examples, and in fact the Arizona law is a good example of that happening. Cardinal George famously said "I expect to die in bed, I expect my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr." He is not a stupid man! The persecution we experience now as individuals needs to be resisted and called out if we are to avoid catastrophe.

I guess that this call has a hallow ring when most of these instances of persecution center around the legal attempts to rectify the injustices and violent persecution that gay people have experienced systemically in Christian majority countries for over 1,000 years.

"Hey, I no longer get to throw somebody in jail or deny them service in my public business because they are gay. Microaggression!!!!!!!!"

[4588686]

I really enjoyed that speech Obama gave where he expressed how wonderful atheism is and how glad he is that there is no existent god to extend any sort of blessing to America.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

But I really don't want to imply that my objection to your structural claims is intended to diminish how shitty I'm sure plenty of people in the Cambridge area are to somebody who doesn't fit within their niche of social disposition.

[4588686]

My objections are unsophisticated and half formed. Lilllabettt rebuttal to make me question my assumptions plz

[Maggyie]

I guess that this call has a hallow ring when most of these instances of persecution center around the legal attempts to rectify the injustices and violent persecution that gay people have experienced systemically in Christian majority countries for over 1,000 years.

"Hey, I no longer get to throw somebody in jail or deny them service in my public business because they are gay. Microaggression!!!!!!!!"

Come on. Please show me the Christianist propaganda where they throw a pity party about not being able to throw ghey peeps in jail.

Also your point about your friends with the unpaid internships: they are quite possibly oppressed, in fact I'm pretty sure you would agree all the women who attended Wellesley, Vassar etc in the past were extraordinarily oppressed - after all that's where the women's movement came from. Society cared in general less about them being economically secure college graduates and more about the fact they had uteruses. We all have many social roles and being empowered in one of them does not translate to empowerment in all.

It's always annoying to other groups when people are educated into awareness of the system's shortcomings. And the annoyance can express itself in attempts to reassert control. Accusing people of hypocrisy is a time worn tactic, after all someone who has benefited from the prestige of the system and then uses that foothold to effectively criticize it is the ultimate betrayal and can not be tolerated.

Who is authorized to categorize instances of prejudice as "minor" or harmless for instance? Why not the people who actually experience them? It's another common tactic to try to undermine the minority's status as an accurate reporter of their own experiences. Only the oppressor is objective enough to decide what "counts."

I don't mean you're an oppressor by the way, just your class.

[Lilllabettt]

Ummmmm....what? The cultural majority of this country is Christian. Now, that culture may not be fervent or orthodox enough to meet your standards but it is still Christian.

 

 

The cultural majority I am referring to is the cultural majority which supports the issuing of state-sponsored marriage licenses to couples of the same gender.

 

The majority of the people you would categorize as Christian support that idea. And a sizeable percentage of them think any opposition to the idea is rooted in hatred of gay people.

 

The irony never dawns on them that this way of thinking is in fact, bigoted.

 

 

big·ot·ed

ˈbigətid/

adjective  1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

 

 

For example, I could say you must support abortion rights because you hate babies. There is no other possible motive for supporting abortion rights apart from baby hatred. You're just pure evil. The end. <------ this would be me being a bigot.

 

Instead I could say "Idk why Hasan is acting dumb and supporting abortion rights. He probably thinks its important for women's health. Or he's a libertarian or something."  <----- this is me not being a bigot.

[Fidei Defensor]

I find whiny gays to be quite annoying.  If you really think about it, in this country, gay people have it quite good in comparison to other places. And yes, that comes off as very condescending. But I'm gay and I've never experienced this so called oppression. But I also live in a more tolerant area of the country.

 

Same sex couples will never be able to marry, sacramentally. Its just a fact.  Issue civil unions, I don't care. I believe same sex couples can form upstanding families. However, sacramental matrimony between same sexes can never occur no matter how hard one tries.

[cartermia]

I said this was going to turn into a debate didn't I? :p

 

 

Great stuff though, lots of things I can argue now!

[4588686]

The cultural majority I am referring to is the cultural majority which supports the issuing of state-sponsored marriage licenses to couples of the same gender.

The majority of the people you would categorize as Christian support that idea. And a sizeable percentage of them think any opposition to the idea is rooted in hatred of gay people.

The irony never dawns on them that this way of thinking is in fact, bigoted.




For example, I could say you must support abortion rights because you hate babies. There is no other possible motive for supporting abortion rights apart from baby hatred. You're just pure evil. The end. <------ this would be me being a bigot.

Instead I could say "Idk why Hasan is acting dumb and supporting abortion rights. He probably thinks its important for women's health. Or he's a libertarian or something." <----- this is me not being a bigot.

I don't think that you hate gay people. However I would say that your views of the place that gay people should be able to occupy in the public space is deeply homophobic.

I mean your point is perfectly fair that one can oppose civil rights for gay people while not having any subjective antipathy towards any individual gay person. I guess I don't see why that's a significant fact. Lots of white Southerners had great relationships with members of the black community. That doesn't mean that there views about the public space that black Americans should be able to occupy as an aggregate wasn't deploy racist. The same could be said about sexism of Afghanistan in the 90s. The constitution of the Taliban began it's discussion of the place of women in Afghan society by announcing the special dignity that (their version of) Islam affords women.

[4588686]

I am at a bar and super drunk right now. I'm actually proud of myself

[ClemensBruno]

I hope Im not the only one that sees the irony.

You're not, CrossCuT. I see it as well.

[John Ryan]

I do not really agree with the idea that valid secular policy is equal to discrimination. So, for example, the contraception mandate is not a secular policy that was crafted with the specific intent of discriminating against those who believe contraception is immoral. The policy was created to insure that women have access to contraceptives. I think it is absurd to cry "discrimination" every time the Government passes a law which you do not agree with. I am personally against the foreign wars the Government has used taxpayer dollars for in the last 14 years. Should that give me the right not to have to pay taxes? Am I discriminated against if I have to pay my taxes?

[Lilllabettt]

So, for example, the contraception mandate is not a secular policy that was crafted with the specific intent of discriminating against those who believe contraception is immoral. The policy was created to insure that women have access to contraceptives.

 

You're right. Who cares if a new law makes people choose between their cherished religious traditions and loyal citizenship? The intention behind the law is good.

 

Hail Hydra.

[Lilllabettt]

I do not really agree with the idea that valid secular policy is equal to discrimination. So, for example, the contraception mandate is not a secular policy that was crafted with the specific intent of discriminating against those who believe contraception is immoral. The policy was created to insure that women have access to contraceptives. I think it is absurd to cry "discrimination" every time the Government passes a law which you do not agree with. I am personally against the foreign wars the Government has used taxpayer dollars for in the last 14 years. Should that give me the right not to have to pay taxes? Am I discriminated against if I have to pay my taxes?

 

Also, lol. You realize that you have a conscience exemption from participating in war, right? Kind of standard. You check the appropriate box when you register for the draft. If its a particular war you don't like you can get out of that one too.

 

President Obama has a long track record of stripping conscience exemptions, for objectors on both the left and right.

 

So don't worry. They'll be coming for you next.

[John Ryan]

Also, lol. You realize that you have a conscience exemption from participating in war, right? Kind of standard. You check the appropriate box when you register for the draft. If its a particular war you don't like you can get out of that one too.

 

President Obama has a long track record of stripping conscience exemptions, for objectors on both the left and right.

 

You are deforming the analogy to suit your own purposes. The issue was never about personal participation with one's own body. The issue was always over the participation of one's money. Nobody is being forced to personally use contraceptives on their bodies. My analogy was not about being drafted into war, but about my money (tax dollars) being used for tyrannous wars abroad. I do not want my money being used to fuel a 600 billion dollar ministration of Death. It is a part of my cherished religious tradition to be anti-war. Why does nobody stand up and defend my right not to pay taxes for the ministration of Death?