s/o Harold Camping: persecution

[kchara]

In my experiences, people make jabs about your religious faith and expect you not to defend it. If you do, you are seen as a religious fanatic. It's completely absurd.

 

:iagree: I am not one easily offended, as has been implied. But when that button is pushed, I have a right, just as anyone else, to defend my position, without my words being twisted and turned. And so does everyone else on this board. I don't go around making jabs and smart alack remarks about the many other faiths on here, and I expect the same respect in return. It's really not all that difficult, and the splitting hairs has gotten tiresome.

[Crissy]

I I have not seen it to be completely fine to mock Christianity.

 

 

I have. Maybe it's my location (the Pacific Northwest is among the areas with the lowest regular church attendance in the nation), but I certainly feel that mocking Christianity is acceptable here.

 

Related to the main topic, I see a clear distinction between mocking and persecution. I feel not one bit of the latter.

[MelanieM]

Going back to your statement about religion, I can see that some religious people would be offended because, in essence, you are implying that their beliefs are false. To take it a step further, you are implying that those who hold those who have faith in this "human construct" are either not all their mentally or not very bright. Anyone ever heard of the "flying spaghetti monster" story?

 

To be clear... it wasn't originally my statement about religion that we're discussing. I was just questioning the reactions to a comment that someone else made.

 

So, based on your comments above, I gather you would agree that there is no way to say certain things about your personal beliefs -- not comments directed at individuals mind you, but comments about your general views on religion -- without offending someone? (This was the point that was made several pages ago. And I agree, because I think there are always people willing to be offended.) Therefore, I can only assume that suggesting people phrase their comments in a more sensitive way is really a suggestion that they just refrain from saying those things all together.

[kchara]

Therefore, I can only assume that suggesting people phrase their comments in a more sensitive way is really a suggestion that they just refrain from saying those things all together.

 

Or, it could be that it was just a very insensitive thing to say, and the same idea could've been gotten across with more sensitivity. I don't think that everyone should refrain from giving their opinions. I do think that it should be done in a respectful manner.

[SailorMom]

I'm starting to understand the saying "Never discuss politics and religion in polite company". :D

 

I think maybe the problem with both is that people tend to invest so much of themselves in both religion and politics - that any rejection of those is taken (maybe subconciously) as a rejection of who they are.

 

Just a thought......

[Haiku]

"Never discuss politics and religion in polite company".

 

Wait, are we considered polite company around here?? Rawk!! :D

 

Tara

[MelanieM]

Or, it could be that it was just a very insensitive thing to say, and the same idea could've been gotten across with more sensitivity. I don't think that everyone should refrain from giving their opinions. I do think that it should be done in a respectful manner.

 

In this specific situation, the poster stated her opinion on the May 21st situation and then added a sort of 'take that for what it's worth, because I believe religion is a man-made construct anyway' comment to further expand on her thoughts. That's either an offensive belief that people think shouldn't be stated, or there was a word here or there in the phrasing that could have been put differently. If people think it's never ok to say such a thing, then fine, that's an opinion that can be stated. But I really don't see how anyone could re-phrase that particular sentiment in a way that wouldn't alter it past the point of it no longer being the same comment.

 

Honestly, I think people just want to read motives into things that may or may not be there. And if that's the case, then fine, but let's call it like it is and say the real issue is an assumption about what we think is meant by the words, not the actual words themselves. And if someone says "no, that's not what I meant" then for goodness sake, let's take them at face value and believe it. Benefit of the doubt and all that jazz.

[Hedgehog]

I have. Maybe it's my location (the Pacific Northwest is among the areas with the lowest regular church attendance in the nation), but I certainly feel that mocking Christianity is acceptable here.

 

Sadly, it appears to be socially acceptable to mock Christianity in the UK also. And has been for some time now.

[kchara]

Actually, the quotes were,

 

"No sane person jumps on that band wagon, but then again the second coming and organized religion is a contrived idea to control people...but that's just me."

 

and

 

"Opiate of the masses, indeed..."

 

Was there a more sensitive way to say to get your point across? Absolutely. Calling people's sanity into play who believe in the Second Coming, or any other fundamental belief of their faith, is offensive. It's just as offensive as calling someone's sanity into play who is homosexual, or transgender, or Pagan, or Buddhist, or atheist, or anything else. The fact that this particular statement was made about Christianity doesn't mean it's any less offensive.

 

Neither I, nor anyone else, was reading into motives. They're pretty plainly stated.

[OnTheBrink]

Actually, the quotes were,

 

"No sane person jumps on that band wagon, but then again the second coming and organized religion is a contrived idea to control people...but that's just me."

 

and

 

"Opiate of the masses, indeed..."

 

Was there a more sensitive way to say to get your point across? Absolutely. Calling people's sanity into play who believe in the Second Coming, or any other fundamental belief of their faith, is offensive. It's just as offensive as calling someone's sanity into play who is homosexual, or transgender, or Pagan, or Buddhist, or atheist, or anything else. The fact that this particular statement was made about Christianity doesn't mean it's any less offensive.

 

Neither I, nor anyone else, was reading into motives. They're pretty plainly stated.

 

:iagree:

[MelanieM]

Actually, the quotes were,

 

"No sane person jumps on that band wagon, but then again the second coming and organized religion is a contrived idea to control people...but that's just me."

 

and

 

"Opiate of the masses, indeed..."

 

Was there a more sensitive way to say to get your point across? Absolutely. Calling people's sanity into play who believe in the Second Coming, or any other fundamental belief of their faith, is offensive. It's just as offensive as calling someone's sanity into play who is homosexual, or transgender, or Pagan, or Buddhist, or atheist, or anything else. The fact that this particular statement was made about Christianity doesn't mean it's any less offensive.

 

Neither I, nor anyone else, was reading into motives. They're pretty plainly stated.

 

Ok, I read the first part of that statement to be about questioning the sanity of the people following HC regarding the whole May 21 thing, and it's not that different from what many others said (including some Christians). The second part I took to mean that it was her personal opinion that oranized religion was contrived to control the masses. Perhaps not the best written sentence in the world, and maybe I just tend to read people in the best light my brain can come up with. But in any case, I didn't take away that she was calling Christians insane. And didn't she actually clarify that wasn't her intent?

[kchara]

That wasn't even the point. You might want to actually read the post.

 

However, you did make my point quite clearly. Thank you.

[justamouse]

We have a different view of free speech here in Canada. Basically, your right to express your opinion ends where my right to live a life without your harrassment begins. Personally, I greatly prefer how we do it here to how our US neighbours handle this stuff. People are much more free to be who they are here, and a lack of ability to spread hatred doesn't seem to hinder that. We also seem to have *more* freedom to speak out about things like our government... for example, it would be laughable to most Canadians that someone here might be the target of a big uproar because they spoke out against our Prime Minister, whereas in the US, something like that can ruin a career or cause a person to be in fear of retaliation from their neighbours.

 

So yeah... totally different ballgame in Canada and the US and while many might see it as a lack of freedom, it actually seems to help create a more tolerant and peaceful environment overall.

 

That would be extremely beneficial for diffusing the stupidity that takes up the airwaves on slow news days.

[Crissy]

This is debatable. There have even been scientific studies on it also. There are those that have it in their theology, doctrine, scriptures that infants, particularly certain ones believe in/know God while in the womb.

 

Do you happen to have links to share on either the studies or the doctrine?

I really am curious how a study could show what a non-communicative person believes.

[kchara]

You can google the question and come up with a whole host of links. I just did. There's fascinating evidence on both sides of the table, but, realistically, it's all just theory. No one knows for sure. There are studies contradicting studies contradicting studies.

 

BUT.... That wasn't the point. To get back on topic, the point was that attacking one's sanity over a belief system/lifestyle choice/non-choice/ WHATEVER is offensive.

[kchara]

Do you happen to have links to share on either the studies or the doctrine?

I really am curious how a study could show what a non-communicative person believes.

 

The story of John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, comes to mind. In the Christian tradition, he (John) recognized diety (Jesus), while both were in the womb. I'm sure there are more, I think some in the Psalms. I'll look them up after lunch.

[MelanieM]

BUT.... That wasn't the point. To get back on topic, the point was that attacking one's sanity over a belief system/lifestyle choice/non-choice/ WHATEVER is offensive.

 

You know, I think *I* missed the whole point... I thought the discussion (at least on this thread) was about whether or not it's possible to say that you feel religion is man-made and contrived to control the masses without it being deemed offensive, not about whether or not people would be ok with being labeled insane. So if that's the angle you're coming from, then I think we aren't even having the same conversation! (I am not surprised that someone would get miffed at feeling they are being called insane.)

[kchara]

This discussion is a spin off of the other post, so, it kind of goes hand in hand. My point is, I don't think it's crying persecution, and I don't think it's being overly sensitive, for a Christian to say they're offended, when offensive things are posted. I DO think there's a double standard. I've seen time and again on this board where people have been jumped on for being offensive (and, in many cases, rightly so). But when a *Christian* gets offended, it starts spin offs of persecution complexes. That's a double standard. No one said that one can't disagree with Christianity, or not believe in it, or whatever. What we are saying is, please be respectful of us while you're doing it. We (at least I, and others I know on here, as well) try to be respectful of you (being a general term ;)).

[SonshineLearner]

North Korea... giving someone a Bible.... getting shot (this happened to a woman within about the last year...) Her husband and child being sent to a place to "re-educate them".... That's serious "persecution".... (Or China... where there are serious consequences...)

 

I do see that Christians (who hold what are thought of as conservative beliefs) ,in America, are slighted against on many levels... But, we are the most free of anywhere that I'm aware of....

[mommaduck]

Do you happen to have links to share on either the studies or the doctrine?

I really am curious how a study could show what a non-communicative person believes.

 

None specifically, as I remember reading about it in papers, magazines, and tv rather than the web...though I'm sure you could look it up. It was along the lines of "are we wired for faith" (aka, how certain peoples brains are hooked up, genetics, etc). The theology would have to do with predestination in certain groups and John the Baptist and Mary in other groups. Still other groups believe the soul/spirit exists before conception and they might (they would have to be willing to jump in and say or correct me) believe that faith may exist before birth (just seems a logical jump with other parts of their faith, imo).

[Crissy]

None specifically, as I remember reading about it in papers, magazines, and tv rather than the web...though I'm sure you could look it up. It was along the lines of "are we wired for faith" (aka, how certain peoples brains are hooked up, genetics, etc). The theology would have to do with predestination in certain groups and John the Baptist and Mary in other groups. Still other groups believe the soul/spirit exists before conception and they might (they would have to be willing to jump in and say or correct me) believe that faith may exist before birth (just seems a logical jump with other parts of their faith, imo).

 

Thank you.

[mommaduck]

Thank you.

 

No problem :) My point is that, despite being so called "technologically advanced" in the sciences, there is still, always, so much more that we don't know and may or may not be "provable". And then, do we buy the proof. And again, what if there is conflicting studies, etc...people tend to choose the study that best suits their, preconceived, belief.

[MelanieM]

This discussion is a spin off of the other post, so, it kind of goes hand in hand. My point is, I don't think it's crying persecution, and I don't think it's being overly sensitive, for a Christian to say they're offended, when offensive things are posted. I DO think there's a double standard. I've seen time and again on this board where people have been jumped on for being offensive (and, in many cases, rightly so). But when a *Christian* gets offended, it starts spin offs of persecution complexes. That's a double standard. No one said that one can't disagree with Christianity, or not believe in it, or whatever. What we are saying is, please be respectful of us while you're doing it. We (at least I, and others I know on here, as well) try to be respectful of you (being a general term ;)).

 

Well, I think you're well within your rights to tell someone not to call you insane. But I also think it's a bit of a leap to go from "you questioned my sanity!" to "I'm being persecuted!"

 

Also, I think this thread was a genuine attempt to dig into what persecution really means, and if it's a valid complaint from Christians living in North America today. I don't think it fair to suggest that people are accusing Christians of having a persecution complex when Christians are the ones stating they're being persecuted.

[mommaduck]

Just throwing this out there, but I think some of the "persecuted" cries are more out of looking at areas in the rest of the world and being fearful that we could end up there someday. So they see these little things as something that could snowball.

 

Just saying.

[Guest]

For the 10 millionth time, people are BORN homosexual. No one is born believing in your Sky Daddy. Science has proven this time and time again but then again, Sky Daddy's book says that's not so. It's really hard to have a factual argument with someone who refuses to actually get a grip on.the.scientific.facts.

 

WOW. Just wow.

 

I don't understand the hatred you feel to make you say such horrible things to other people. :confused:

 

:001_huh:

 

Do you have scientific proof that God doesn't exist, then?

 

Exactly.

 

That wasn't even the point. You might want to actually read the post.

 

However, you did make my point quite clearly. Thank you.

 

LOL, yup!

 

This is debatable. There have even been scientific studies on it also. There are those that have it in their theology, doctrine, scriptures that infants, particularly certain ones believe in/know God while in the womb.

 

Not sure why you want to go on the attack with the "sky daddy" remark (let alone it's an extremely inaccurate representation).

 

Exactly.

[MelanieM]

Just throwing this out there, but I think some of the "persecuted" cries are more out of looking at areas in the rest of the world and being fearful that we could end up there someday. So they see these little things as something that could snowball.

 

Just saying.

 

Interesting. I guess if you take Bible quotes that tell you that you will be persecuted and have some fear around it based on what you see happening to others of your faith persuasion, then it would make sense that it is a sensitive area and a real fear for some people.

[kchara]

Well, I think you're well within your rights to tell someone not to call you insane. But I also think it's a bit of a leap to go from "you questioned my sanity!" to "I'm being persecuted!"

 

Also, I think this thread was a genuine attempt to dig into what persecution really means, and if it's a valid complaint from Christians living in North America today. I don't think it fair to suggest that people are accusing Christians of having a persecution complex when Christians are the ones stating they're being persecuted.

 

Nobody said we were being persecuted on the other thread. At least, I didn't see it, if it was there. I could go back and reread, but I don't remember it. And this thread did start off with good intentions, I think, but it snowballed into something else (as usually happens). I never said we were being persecuted in the US, I don't believe we are (although I do agree with what MommaDuck just wrote). But that doesn't mean I don't see a double standard and discrimination when it comes to Christians, and that's just as wrong as a double standard and discrimination when it comes to any other group, but for some reason, it's accepted by society when it happens to Christians. It can be quite frustrating.

[Guest]

Well, I think you're well within your rights to tell someone not to call you insane. But I also think it's a bit of a leap to go from "you questioned my sanity!" to "I'm being persecuted!"

 

Also, I think this thread was a genuine attempt to dig into what persecution really means, and if it's a valid complaint from Christians living in North America today. I don't think it fair to suggest that people are accusing Christians of having a persecution complex when Christians are the ones stating they're being persecuted.

 

 

Again, here it is:

 

–verb (used with object), -cut·ed, -cut·ing.

1.

to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

2.

to annoy or trouble persistently.

 

Is this definition from dictionary.com wrong?

[mommaduck]

Interesting. I guess if you take Bible quotes that tell you that you will be persecuted and have some fear around it based on what you see happening to others of your faith persuasion, then it would make sense that it is a sensitive area and a real fear for some people.

 

In a lot of fundamentalist and non-denominational churches (even with my Nazarene stepgrandmother) that I have been in, this is exactly it.

[Guest]

Nobody said we were being persecuted on the other thread. At least, I didn't see it, if it was there. I could go back and reread, but I don't remember it. And this thread did start off with good intentions, I think, but it snowballed into something else (as usually happens). I never said we were being persecuted in the US, I don't believe we are (although I do agree with what MommaDuck just wrote). But that doesn't mean I don't see a double standard and discrimination when it comes to Christians, and that's just as wrong as a double standard and discrimination when it comes to any other group, but for some reason, it's accepted by society when it happens to Christians. It can be quite frustrating.

 

Christians in the USA may not be persecuted to the same extent as they are in other countries, but the pageant story was definitely persecution, along with the harassment from non-believers. It is a complete double standard. If anyone else would have been treated this way, I think the people you are arguing with would be the first to label it persecution.

[MelanieM]

Again, here it is:

 

–verb (used with object), -cut·ed, -cut·ing.

1.

to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

2.

to annoy or trouble persistently.

 

Is this definition from dictionary.com wrong?

 

Do you really feel that Christians in North America, or even here on this board, are being continually harassed or opressed because of their faith? I won't discount that some individuals experience harassment, or even that some groups experience it in certain areas, but I just can't see where it's a widespread issue that warrants the assertion that Christians are being persecuted. Heck, by this definition I'd challenge you to find me a religious group of any sort that couldn't cry persecution in some form in some part of NA.

 

Also, go ahead and claim persecution for yourself if you will, but I have to say that if people start saying they're being persectured for what often amounts to minor issues (i.e. someone on a message board thinks you are crazy) then it detracts from what your brothers and sisters in Christ who experience really awful things are going through. I don't think that using what amounts to a heavy label to describe some pretty horrible situations as a catch-all for any type of insult whatsoever is doing your faith a good service. (I really don't intend that to be preachy at all... just trying to share how it looks from the outside.)

[Guest]

Do you really feel that Christians in North America, or even here on this board, are being continually harassed or opressed because of their faith? I won't discount that some individuals experience harassment, or even that some groups experience it in certain areas, but I just can't see where it's a widespread issue that warrants the assertion that Christians are being persecuted. Heck, by this definition I'd challenge you to find me a religious group of any sort that couldn't cry persecution in some form in some part of NA.

 

Also, go ahead and claim persecution for yourself if you will, but I have to say that if people start saying they're being persectured for what often amounts to minor issues (i.e. someone on a message board thinks you are crazy) then it detracts from what your brothers and sisters in Christ who experience really awful things are going through. I don't think that using what amounts to a heavy label to describe some pretty horrible situations as a catch-all for any type of insult whatsoever is doing your faith a good service. (I really don't intend that to be preachy at all... just trying to share how it looks from the outside.)

 

I think that some have been continually harassed and some haven't. I, personally, have felt that sometimes it would be easier if I just kept my mouth shut to avoid the trouble that is caused by defending my faith. In the end, I do defend my faith, but the thoughts that it would be easier not to have come. Why should I be made to feel that way? What about the people that are not able to handle the meanness that descends? They have to keep their mouths closed?

 

An earlier poster pointed out that there are degrees of persecution. Some don't experience it nearly as bad as others, but that doesn't mean it isn't persecution.

 

I'm sure you have noticed that anytime there is a thread with Christian Content, it quickly gets like this very thread. Insults thrown around from non-believers, sanity questioned, etc. It makes it hard for the Christian to discuss what they should be free to discuss. Some softer skinned believers may be so discouraged that they stop discussing Christian matters altogether. They are silenced. That isn't right.

 

I'm not claiming persecution the way you are thinking. I'm looking at the bigger picture.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Jinnah

[nmoira]

Nobody said we were being persecuted on the other thread.

In that thread, not explicitly, though I have seen it stated explicitly on these forums (hence my reference to other threads in the original post). However, in the Camping thread Bible verses were quoted that said hate and persecution were things to be expected. I've seen these particular verses quoted before (not always here), often (though not always) in response to little more than a disagreement. I find it that context to be dismissive and an impediment to discussion. Hence my question there about hate and persecution (which remained unanswered). Why trot out these verses (in that thread or any other conversation) if it wasn't what was meant?

 

I am interested to know what people consider to rise to the level of hate and persecution. I'm not convinced that a relatively modern watered down idea of persecution as harassment was the definition the translators of the English Bible(s) had in mind. FWIW, I consider what happened to this family to be extreme persecution: Disability hate crime could lead to more suicides like Fiona Pilkington. And the state was complicit if not directly responsible.

[MelanieM]

I think that some have been continually harassed and some haven't. I, personally, have felt that sometimes it would be easier if I just kept my mouth shut to avoid the trouble that is caused by defending my faith. In the end, I do defend my faith, but the thoughts that it would be easier not to have come. Why should I be made to feel that way? What about the people that are not able to handle the meanness that descends? They have to keep their mouths closed?

 

An earlier poster pointed out that there are degrees of persecution. Some don't experience it nearly as bad as others, but that doesn't mean it isn't persecution.

 

I'm sure you have noticed that anytime there is a thread with Christian Content, it quickly gets like this very thread. Insults thrown around from non-believers, sanity questioned, etc. It makes it hard for the Christian to discuss what they should be free to discuss. Some softer skinned believers may be so discouraged that they stop discussing Christian matters altogether. They are silenced. That isn't right.

 

I'm not claiming persecution the way you are thinking. I'm looking at the bigger picture.

 

Gosh Jinnah, I have to be honest and tell you that I feel like we are reading different forums! I sometimes pop in on Christian threads because I find them interesting, but I don't usually see a lot of Christian bashing from non-believers. In fact, if there's criticism it more often seems to be from one group of Christians to another. But of course, I'm not really looking for or super sensitive to it, so if it's happening I could easily miss it. By contrast, I mentioned earlier how I've seen lots of mention about how non-believers (or believers that don't believe a certain way) are destined for hell, and other such comments, and someone expressed that they have never seen such a thing here. So, again, I see how it's possible for people to have vastly different experiences posting/reading here.

 

Maybe a lot of this is about managing expectations. Experience has shown me that if I walk into a thread that talks about Pagan beliefs, I shouldn't be surprised to find a Christian on there trying to show me the way, or somehow butting in with how their particular brand of Christianity views what's being said. Maybe some Christians feel they are experiencing similar things on Christian threads. I think that's just something that happens on diverse forums on the Internet. If I want to avoid such things, or am seeking out opinions that more closely align with my views, then I don't choose to post in places that are as vast or diverse as this one.

 

I think, with the Internet, we need to decide how much we want to expose ourselves to and accept that it's not really anyone else's responsibility to completely temper their opinions to make us feel better. For example, as a witch, I can choose to read threads that talk about avoiding Harry Potter because being exposed to witches is evil, or I can choose to avoid those threads if I think they will upset me. If my choice is to step into the conversation and defend myself as a witch, I think I need to understand that the opinions I'm reading and responses to my comments might not all feel wonderful and great to me. (Though truth be told, I find all of that stuff more amusing than offensive; I really do tend to have a pretty thick skin.)