s/o Harold Camping: persecution

[SailorMom]

Thanks for your comments here. I just wanted to say though that what I have witnessed does indeed fit into the literal definition posted by a PP of persecution. Just because my family and I were never physically assaulted doesnt mean we were not persecuted. Do I realize that some are dying for their faith? Ofcourse. But I also know that it really wasnt all that long ago when LDS people WERE killed for their faith. Ran from their homes while their homes were on fire.

I do appreciate your supportive comments though. :001_smile:

 

Oh - I know - the history of the LDS church in the US is tragic.

[sassyscrapperinid]

In the United States,

 

 

• Are there "No Christians Need Apply" signs next to the "Help Wanted" signs?

 

 

No? Then Christians in the United States are not persecuted, and any Christian who claims they are either has very thin skin, does not believe in freedom of speech, or has a very shoddy knowledge of history. Or all three.

 

Tara

ummm while there might not be any signs out, my husband and myself have been told we can not be hired due to the fact that we preferred to give sundays to God and not work on sundays. My husband was unemployed for 3 years and finally just had to relent because we really need the money now. But some might say that we just didnt pray hard enough for the right job to come along.

[sassyscrapperinid]

In that case:

 

"During the 1930s and 1940s, some US states passed laws that made it illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to distribute their literature, and children of Jehovah's Witnesses in some states were banned from attending state schools. Mob violence against Jehovah's Witnesses was not uncommon, and some were murdered for their beliefs. Those responsible for these attacks were seldom prosecuted.[Need quotation to verify][69]

After a drawn-out litigation process in state courts and lower federal courts, lawyers for Jehovah's Witnesses convinced the Supreme Court to issue a series of landmark First Amendment rulings that confirmed their right to be excused from military service and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.[citation needed][when?]

The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal to salute the flag became known as the "Flag-Salute Cases".[70] Their refusal to salute the flag became considered as a test of the liberties for which the flag stands, namely the freedom to worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience. It was found that the United States, by making the flag salute compulsory in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), was impinging upon the individual's right to worship as one chooses — a violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause in the constitution. Justice Frankfurter, speaking in behalf of the 8-to-1 majority view against the Witnesses, stated that the interests of "inculcating patriotism was of sufficient importance to justify a relatively minor infringement on religious belief."[71] The result of the ruling was a wave of persecution. Lillian Gobitas, the mother of the schoolchildren involved in the decision said, "It was like open season on Jehovah's Witnesses."[72]

The American Civil Liberties Union reported that by the end of 1940, "more than 1,500 Witnesses in the United States had been victimized in 335 separate attacks."[73] Such attacks included beatings, being tarred and feathered, hanged, shot, maimed, and even castrated, as well as other acts of violence.[74] As reports of these attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses continued, "several justices changed their minds, and in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Court declared that the state could not impinge on the First Amendment by compelling the observance of rituals."[75]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#United_States

 

"With the Missouri extermination order Mormons became the only religious group to have a state of the United States legalize the extermination of their religion. Their forcible expulsion from the state caused the death of hundreds due to exposure, starvation, and resulting illnesses. The Mormons suffered through tarring and feathering, their lands and possessions being repeatedly taken from them, mob attacks, false imprisonments, and the US sending an army to Utah to deal with the "Mormon problem" in the Utah War. A government militia slaughtered Mormons in what is now known as the Haun's Mill massacre. The Founder of the Mormons, Joseph Smith, was killed in Carthage, Illinois by a mob of about 200 men, almost all of whom were members of the Illinois state militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution#Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

Thank you for posting this.

[Haiku]

Sputterduck, the things you talked about are wrong. Of course they are. But a) they do not equate a culture of Christians being persecuted and b) I firmly believe that if such things happened in this country these days, there would be outrage.

 

Bad things happening does not, in my belief, equal an entire class of people being persecuted. By way of example (which I am positive will offend someone or be intentionally misconstrued), police officers being killed by thugs does not mean police are being persecuted. Ugly people will do ugly things. Most people disapprove.

 

I am of a non-Christian-religion. I, my non-Christian friends, AND my Christian friends can cite examples of rude, intolerant, harassing, or even violent/potentially violent things happening to us in the name of religious intolerance. Are we all victims of persecution? If everyone (or the majority of people) faces some sort of discrimination at some point based on their beliefs, is everyone persecuted? If everyone is persecuted, does the word mean anything anymore?

 

We live in a country that has freedom of religion. The courts will back that up. Like everything else about this nation, they have stumbled sometimes on the way. In general, society will too ... both stumble along the way AND back up the idea of religious freedom. We don't generally accept violence or overt hostility toward people because of their religion. News items make the news because they are out of the ordinary and therefore newsworthy.

 

If someone believes they are persecuted because the school can't sanction their sectarian prayer, I'm not sure what I could say to convince that person otherwise except that, in my belief, persecution tends to be culture-wide and state sanctioned. I don't believe either to be the case in the United States today. Regardless of how many people openly refuse to be friends with me/my children because we are non-Christian and therefore amoral and bad influences. I guess in my view, the culture-wide and state sanctioned ideas are what distinguish persecution from rude, idiotic people doing rude, idiotic things.

 

Tara

[WishboneDawn]

 

OR "I don't understand how people could have faith in God."

 

 

That one, along with, "I can't imagine believing/doing/whatevering such-and-such," drives me crazy.

 

All I can ever think is, so? I'm not responsible for your failure of understanding/imagination.

 

But that's a personal and very anal-retentive pet peeve. :D

[Haiku]

ummm while there might not be any signs out, my husband and myself have been told we can not be hired due to the fact that we preferred to give sundays to God and not work on sundays. My husband was unemployed for 3 years and finally just had to relent because we really need the money now. But some might say that we just didnt pray hard enough for the right job to come along.

 

I don't see that as persecution or discrimination. If they need someone to work Sundays and your husband won't, then he's not the right hire for the job.

 

I miss going to the temple because of my work schedule. :001_huh:

 

Tara

Edited May 24, 2011 by TaraTheLiberator
missing word

[mommymilkies]

Didn't read the Camping thread, so I don't know about the persecution angle. (that he's being mocked for being wrong? No surprise there.)

 

I don't see the U.S. as overwhelmingly Christian, any longer. I would think the majority of people who identify themselves as Christian do so because they have been raised in a particular faith, or were married in one. I think those who would be considered churchgoers and/or believers would be in the minority.

Where do you live? Because I would like to move there. Here in the midwest, we have more Churches than restaurants and schools combined. There are 6 churches within a 2 block radius of my house in my tiny little town. It's not "Do you go to church", but "WHERE do you go to church?". There is no other option. Just an hour from here in a "liberal" college town, my family was regularly harassed for being Jewish. There was no alternative besides being Christian if you wanted to keep your job or have friends.

 

There is very little, if any, true persecution in this country. People ridiculing Christianity on a message board, while rude, is in no way persecution. If you have the option of walking away from the ridiculing comments, you're not being persecuted.

:iagree:

 

I look out my living room window and see three different churches. I can go another two blocks and find a few more. There are all DIFFERENT christian denominations. I'm a christian, but don't attend any of these churches. My town has less than 15,000 people and that's not even all of our churches.

 

I can stick a Jesus fish on my car, wear my Jesus t-shirt in public, and say "God bless you" to random people.

 

I can put scripture on my signature line, I can ask for prayer on a message board or on facebook.

 

I am a American Christian and see no persecution of the christian church in this country.

 

I'm sure there are places around the world where I wouldn't feel so open about my faith.

 

Like "American poverty" doesn't necessarily relate to the abject poverty around the world, I think persecution in America is overstated.

 

Whatever faith people hold or don't hold does not sway my faith. I am not bothered by people who openly state their convictions. I respect them as my friends because we have other commonalities.

 

:iagree: Other than me being Christian. On my FB page alone, at least 40% of my friends quote scripture daily. One time, ever, a few days ago I posted a quote about being agnostic. Do you know what happened? :banghead: That's what happened to me after about 30 proselytizing and unwelcome comments were posted to me telling me I was going to He!!.

[Lady Florida.]

Sputterduck, the things you talked about are wrong. Of course they are. But a) they do not equate a culture of Christians being persecuted and b) I firmly believe that if such things happened in this country these days, there would be outrage.

 

Bad things happening does not, in my belief, equal an entire class of people being persecuted. By way of example (which I am positive will offend someone or be intentionally misconstrued), police officers being killed by thugs does not mean police are being persecuted. Ugly people will do ugly things. Most people disapprove.

 

I am of a non-Christian-religion. I, my non-Christian friends, AND my Christian friends can cite examples of rude, intolerant, harassing, or even violent/potentially violent things happening to us in the name of religious intolerance. Are we all victims of persecution? If everyone (or the majority of people) faces some sort of discrimination at some point based on their beliefs, is everyone persecuted? If everyone is persecuted, does the word mean anything anymore?

 

We live in a country that has freedom of religion. The courts will back that up. Like everything else about this nation, they have stumbled sometimes on the way. In general, society will too ... both stumble along the way AND back up the idea of religious freedom. We don't generally accept violence or overt hostility toward people because of their religion. News items make the news because they are out of the ordinary and therefore newsworthy.

 

If someone believes they are persecuted because the school can't sanction their sectarian prayer, I'm not sure what I could say to convince that person otherwise except that, in my belief, persecution tends to be culture-wide and state sanctioned. I don't believe either to be the case in the United States today. Regardless of how many people openly refuse to be friends with me/my children because we are non-Christian and therefore amoral and bad influences. I guess in my view, the culture-wide and state sanctioned ideas are what distinguish persecution from rude, idiotic people doing rude, idiotic things.

 

Tara

 

:hurray:

[SailorMom]

Persecuted (as defined in the Meriian Webster Dictionary):

 

Sufferring grave abuse or injustice at the hands of one in authority.(with synonyms crushed, oppressed, tyrannized)

 

 

Has this happened in the US in the past - yeah. Is it happening now? No. There are always idiots around. My deist faith makes me a black sheep down here in the south - but I'm not persecuted. I have a deist friend who was fired from a preschool teaching job at a church preschool because of her deism. Was that persecution? No.

[DianeW88]

"With the Missouri extermination order Mormons became the only religious group to have a state of the United States legalize the extermination of their religion. Their forcible expulsion from the state caused the death of hundreds due to exposure, starvation, and resulting illnesses. The Mormons suffered through tarring and feathering, their lands and possessions being repeatedly taken from them, mob attacks, false imprisonments, and the US sending an army to Utah to deal with the "Mormon problem" in the Utah War. A government militia slaughtered Mormons in what is now known as the Haun's Mill massacre. The Founder of the Mormons, Joseph Smith, was killed in Carthage, Illinois by a mob of about 200 men, almost all of whom were members of the Illinois state militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution#Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

Yes, it's true we did suffer genuine persecution in the United States. To the point of having to flee its boundaries to escape it. But even though people may disagree with us today, picket our gatherings, shout obscenities when our temples are built, etc......I don't consider it persecution. It's not quite in the same league as having to flee across the West with as many of your personal belongings as you can scrape together, tossed into a handcart with the Federal government hot on your heels. In fact, I would consider it insulting to my pioneer ancestors who did just that if I called the silliness we put up with today "persecution".

 

And I promise, we don't hold a grudge against the state of Missouri either. :lol: Even though the extermination order was only rescinded in 1976. Until then, you could apparently off a Mormon with impunity there. :001_huh: :D

[Wheres Toto]

I don't see that as persecution or discrimination. If they need someone to work Sundays and your husband won't, then he's not the right hire for the job.

 

I miss going to the temple because of my work schedule. :001_huh:

 

Tara

:iagree:

No other religion is practically guaranteed to have their major holidays off from work without even having to ask. (I know some industries do work Christmas but not the majority). If you're Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc. you usually get stuck using personal days or vacation time to take off to celebrate major religious holidays.

 

I worked for one company that, in their manufacturing facility which operated 365 days a year, did not designate any paid holidays except National ones - New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day. Employees working those holidays were paid extra. All employees then had extra personal days that they could use for the holidays of their choice. This was an Indian owned company that had many employees who were Hindu or Muslim.

 

I worked in the offices which were closed for Christmas but they also allowed extra personal days for other holidays.

 

Edited for: really embarassing misspelling.

[sassyscrapperinid]

I don't see that as persecution or discrimination. If they need someone to work Sundays and your husband won't, then he's not the right hire for the job.

 

I miss going to the temple because of my work schedule. :001_huh:

 

Tara

 

well, then I guess we are back to the "point of view" thing. alls I was addressing was that there doesnt have to be a sign out front for it to be happening. when I applied at a craft store to work because my husband was out of work, I was told that everyone had to have open availability. Not everyone gives a crud about working sundays. I think its ridiculous to not be considered for a job because of that. I am talking about more than just one or two interviews here and the sunday availability wasnt mentioned until the end. was it for sure discrimination or persecution? cant say for sure but I still feel it should not be a basis for not hiring someone. especially not in an environment where there are lots of associates available for sundays and the establishment is open 7 days a week.

sorry you are missing going to the temple. ours was open 12 hours a day 5 days a week.

the definition of persecution was given by a previous poster- and it fits what we had witnessed at the pageant. what is there to argue there? ofcourse there are several dictionaries just as there are several versions of scripture.

I think that just because something happened in the past doesnt make it irrelevant. Maybe if it was hundreds and hundreds of years ago- but it is the same persecution that is being dismissed on this board by some that leads to the incidents in the past. If that makes sense. I took some allergy medicine and so I am foggy right now. It is the same mind set that gets you from people shouting at you while you are attending a religious event to where you are grabbing what you can and running with your children from a burning home. Just a wee bit more intense.

[Rivka]

Hasn't the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and other minority Christian faiths primarily been done by other Christians? I was certainly under the impression that that persecution was religious, rather than secular, in nature.

[Wheres Toto]

when I applied at a craft store to work because my husband was out of work, I was told that everyone had to have open availability.

 

This is the norm in retail jobs, at least around here. If for some reason a bunch of people can't come in a certain day, they want to be able to schedule replacements without having to check individual availabilities. Especially a smaller store like a craft store they probably don't have 100's of employees to chose from.

 

They also usually require employees to be available any holidays they are open.

 

I worked for a variety of retail establishments, both full and part time, for a combined total of close to 15 years. The only place that was worse with scheduling was a nursing home that needed to cover 24 hours worth of shifts.

[WishboneDawn]

Hasn't the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and other minority Christian faiths primarily been done by other Christians? I was certainly under the impression that that persecution was religious, rather than secular, in nature.

 

I think it can be secular as well. It's just that us Christian are particularly gifted at doing it to fellow Christians.:)

[Joanne]

I missed all the fun!

 

In our society, it's perfectly fine to be tolerant of everything... except Christianity. It's completely fine in our society to mock Christianity and no one bats an eye. Mock other belief systems or lifestyle choices, and society has a real problem with that.

 

I just don't see this - at all - in the US. Not as a rule or even common, as depicted by these words.

 

There is a huge Christian "overculture" in the US. I have not seen it to be completely fine to mock Christianity.

 

I also see, in this thread, some posts that seem to equate secular with anti-Christian.

[Haiku]

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

 

 

 

Although I agree that there is a Christian overculture, I also think that there is an idea that mocking Christianity is ok. I think that's the price you pay of being in the dominant position or being in the majority. I don't necessarily think it's an anti-Christian thing. I think it's more of an anti-popular/anti-power thing. Anything/one that gains power has to be "kept in check," so to speak. Kinda like a roast: we like you, so we're going to mock you. Some of my Christian friends are the biggest critics/mockers of Christianity I know. I think mockery sometimes provides a less intense avenue to explore crucial ideas.

 

Tara

[Lady Florida.]

No other religion is practically guaranteed to have their major holidays off from work without even having to ask. I know some industries do work Christmas but not the majority). If you're Jew(ish, Hindu, Muslim, etc. you usually get stuck using personal days or vacation time to take off to celebrate major religious holidays.

 

I worked for one company that, in their manufacturing facility which operated 365 days a year, did not designate any paid holidays except National ones - New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day.

 

Christmas is a U.S. federal holiday, and in most cases is also a state holiday. In some cases government employees can take off their own religious holidays without it counting against personal or vacation time, but they have to request it.

[MelanieM]

I think people sometimes confuse persecution with discrimination. I see what I would call religious discrimination between individual groups talked on here all the time. But just because someone sneers at you because of you religion (or lack of it), that doesn't make you a victim of persecution.

 

Also, I think people who are up in arms about what they view as discrimination against their particular group need to consider what types of discrimination they themselve engage in. There seems to be an awful lot of double standard that happens around that subject.

 

As for someone protesting your faith in public and yelling hatred at you for your beliefs... wow. My heart goes out to anyone that has dealt with that. I'm pretty thankful I live in Canada where the authorities would step in and shut that nonsense down real fast. (Or, fellow Canadians, am I living in a bubble? I just can't imagine that happening here due to our laws against hate crimes.)

[WishboneDawn]

Some of my Christian friends are the biggest critics/mockers of Christianity I know.

 

Send them to Ship of Fools. I'm quite sure some Christians might stumble on it and be offended by it thinking it's run by snarky atheists. But no, it's a Christian site. It helps to have a secret love of religious jokes that are wildly offensive.:D

[Lady Florida.]

was it for sure discrimination or persecution?

 

It was not persecution by any definition, and I doubt it was discrimination (though I agree with you that anyone can find the definition they want by trying different sources). Most likely it was a business decision. If they allow people from one religion to have their holy day off then they have to do it for people of all religions and their different holy days, or it is discrimination. It's not an effective way to run a business. Needing to have Sundays off makes it difficult to work in retail or most service professions, but it's neither discrimination nor persecution.

[MSNative]

I think people sometimes confuse persecution with discrimination. I see what I would call religious discrimination between individual groups talked on here all the time. But just because someone sneers at you because of you religion (or lack of it), that doesn't make you a victim of persecution.

 

Also, I think people who are up in arms about what they view as discrimination against their particular group need to consider what types of discrimination they themselve engage in. There seems to be an awful lot of double standard that happens around that subject.

 

As for someone protesting your faith in public and yelling hatred at you for your beliefs... wow. My heart goes out to anyone that has dealt with that. I'm pretty thankful I live in Canada where the authorities would step in and shut that nonsense down real fast. (Or, fellow Canadians, am I living in a bubble? I just can't imagine that happening here due to our laws against hate crimes.)

 

Wasn't a Canadian pastor jailed for speaking out against tax dollars being used to fund homosexuality? (not snarky, legit question. That is what was reported here but our papers could have gotten it wrong.) That is the type of discrimination (I agree with you that it is discrimination, not persecution) that has people concerned.

[sassyscrapperinid]

Should have listened to my original thoughts about posting here before I did. I guess I am not allowed to have my own opinion here because at this point no matter what I say, some one will feel the need to say again that none of what I said constitutes persecution- even by the definition given by a PP. I guess that what I should have said to my then 10 year old dd was "you arent being killed right now so buck up and take it". My opinion is my opinion. I am not trying to change anyones opinion, I was just sharing what I have witnessed- contributing to the conversation only to have other people tell me over and over again what their definition of persecution is. I was just trying to say that "persecution" can happen without a sign on the door. Nevermind that the craft store I worked at is a nationwide chain. I even acknowledged that there are people right now suffering horrific persecution for their faith. I guess not including that what I have witnessed doesnt even remotely come close to that is what I should have added? I think my point is too that its ridiculous that in this day and age that ANYONE feels the need to harass or heckle people for any reason. And because we werent killed there, means it wasnt persecution? Well, tell that to my kids. I dont know geez! I guess I will take a WTM break. Thats why I hardly ever post on these threads. I think its sad that people cant post something without having it shredded to bits or others trying to keep shoving their opinion down the throat of others. My posts arent the only ones this is and has happened to. I have seen it happen on this thread and others. It just continues until the person just goes "wow, I guess I am not allowed to voice my opinion there even though the OP was asking for it". Like I said, I wasnt trying to change anyones opinion. And thats what it is- your opinion. Just like what I have said is mine. I was just trying to share my story like we tend to do around here. So, nevermind. You guys feel free to argue away. :001_smile:

[SailorMom]

Stella - I didn't shred you, and I don't think anyone else did either.

We all agreed that what happened to you and your family was disgraceful, horrible, and ignorant.

I was simply pointing out that there are differences between what many would term persecution vs harrasment.

[LauraGB]

Stella - I didn't shred you, and I don't think anyone else did either.

We all agreed that what happened to you and your family was disgraceful, horrible, and ignorant.

I was simply pointing out that there are differences between what many would term persecution vs harrasment.

 

:iagree: Don't stop posting because of this :grouphug:.

 

Not working on Sundays is a luxury to many of us who might be hungry if we didn't. It's not about religion or politics or anything - it's about necessity. If I own a store that is open for business on Sundays, and it's a busy day because most of my clients have time to come in on that day, I wouldn't be able to hire someone who didn't work on Sundays. It wouldn't be persecution or discrimination - it would be a simple fact of my business.

 

My sister, who is handicapped, lives with my parents. She has very specific hours that she is able to "work". My mother's job has to revolve around her short hours. No one will give my mother a break either - employers need what they need when they need it. She has never considered it anything other than that, and looked and looked until she found a job that worked for her. The difference is that she didn't take offense with the employers, she decided for herself that those were not the places she would consider working, and moved on, dismissing them as choices. It's a matter of perspective.

[sassyscrapperinid]

Hi Kristy-

I wasnt talking about you. Thanks for your support. :001_smile:

[Sputterduck]

Although I agree that there is a Christian overculture, I also think that there is an idea that mocking Christianity is ok. I think that's the price you pay of being in the dominant position or being in the majority. I don't necessarily think it's an anti-Christian thing. I think it's more of an anti-popular/anti-power thing. Anything/one that gains power has to be "kept in check," so to speak. Kinda like a roast: we like you, so we're going to mock you. Some of my Christian friends are the biggest critics/mockers of Christianity I know. I think mockery sometimes provides a less intense avenue to explore crucial ideas.

 

Tara

 

That I can agree with. There is definitely a sense that it's okay to say things about the majority that you would never say about a minority. Because, after all, they are the majority, and what do they have to complain about? I think it's not very nice either way.

 

I don't think it's like a friendly roast, though. It's just okay to be mean-spirited to the majority in a way that is unacceptable to be with the minority in America. In many countries that's reversed and it's okay to be mean to the minorities but not to the majority. It's like that in my area here. You can pick on the migrants, the natives, the protestants, the "chinos", etc. And by "pick on" I mean mock terribly. But it's really rude to say anything about mestizos or Catholics.

 

Maybe we should show respect no matter what? Maybe that would be a better idea.

[kalanamak]

It helps to have a secret love of religious jokes that are wildly offensive.:D

 

:iagree: "Bring me my flats, these spikes are killing me."

 

 

 

My ex, raised a Sikh, loved Sardar jokes, even tho he was a Sardar:

 

http://www.dinesh.com/india_jokes-humor/sardar_jokes.html

[In2why]

Well, my tax dollars do go to things that I find morally objectionable, so, in that regard, it does happen. There was also a case in the UK recently where a foster family was denied taking any more children because of their Christianity. Christians in the US see things like that coming down the pipe for us as well.

 

But, as I said earlier, it's not really a legislative issue, it's a society issue. In our society, it's perfectly fine to be tolerant of everything... except Christianity. It's completely fine in our society to mock Christianity and no one bats an eye. Mock other belief systems or lifestyle choices, and society has a real problem with that. No belief system should be mocked and ridiculed, period. Including Christianity.

 

 

And I find the fact that churches are tax exempt objectionable, especially since the very richest churches are often quite political.

[MelanieM]

Wasn't a Canadian pastor jailed for speaking out against tax dollars being used to fund homosexuality? (not snarky, legit question. That is what was reported here but our papers could have gotten it wrong.) That is the type of discrimination (I agree with you that it is discrimination, not persecution) that has people concerned.

 

My limited knowledge of this situation is that the Pastor was publishing information against homeosexuality in response to an Alberta initiative and a Calgary professor pressed charges citing that his actions went against the Canadian Human Rights Act. I don't know if he was jailed or not.

 

I think this actually goes to my point above though... Here, it is not allowed to publish anything that is considered hate material, regardless of who you are and what you're speaking out against. So if someone published anti-Mormon hate materials or tried to stand around throwing hateful slurs at Mormons, they'd be facing potential legal action. If you want the religious folk protected from such things, then it has to everyone else too, including homosexuals. (Not saying you were suggesting otherwise... but I know some would happily take a double standard on such things.)

Stella - I didn't shred you, and I don't think anyone else did either.

We all agreed that what happened to you and your family was disgraceful, horrible, and ignorant.

I was simply pointing out that there are differences between what many would term persecution vs harrasment.

 

I agree. :grouphug: This is a thread discussing what persecution actually means. Please don't take it as dismissal of your feelings or the horrible situation you faced if people are pointing out that it isn't the same as cultural religious persecution. No matter how it's labeled, I am certain no one here would suggest it ever appropriate treatment of another person. :grouphug:

[leeannpal]

?? I think Dawn was expressing her disagreement with an earlier comment that there is a way to express that specific belief without causing offense.

 

So maybe someone could let us know how it would be possible to express the idea that all religion is a man-made construct and contains no truth that is not offensive to you? Genuine question. Because what I'm reading here is leading me to believe that there are some people that think it is never ok to express such opinions because the belief itself is offensive by its very nature.

 

I think you know the difference.

 

Instead of saying, "I think you are an idiot for believing in a God that you can't prove exists", how about saying, "I, personally, believe that religions are part of the culture and tradition of people, but that there is no god, gods or afterlife." That would allow a constructive conversation.

 

Discussion of religion gets offensive when emotions and personal attacks become involved.

[WishboneDawn]

I think you know the difference.

 

Instead of saying, "I think you are an idiot for believing in a God that you can't prove exists", how about saying, "I, personally, believe that religions are part of the culture and tradition of people, but that there is no god, gods or afterlife." That would allow a constructive conversation.

 

Discussion of religion gets offensive when emotions and personal attacks become involved.

 

There's a huge grey area of replies between those two responses.

[MelanieM]

I think you know the difference.

 

Instead of saying, "I think you are an idiot for believing in a God that you can't prove exists", how about saying, "I, personally, believe that religions are part of the culture and tradition of people, but that there is no god, gods or afterlife." That would allow a constructive conversation.

 

Discussion of religion gets offensive when emotions and personal attacks become involved.

 

I think you've missed something in your reading. First, no one said any such thing as what you've written here. Second, the question was regarding a specific belief -- that religion is a man-made construct -- and how to express that because, apparently, the belief itself is offensive to some. So, if you find that idea offensive, do you have a suggestion for how someone might express it that would not ruffle your feathers?

[MSNative]

My limited knowledge of this situation is that the Pastor was publishing information against homeosexuality in response to an Alberta initiative and a Calgary professor pressed charges citing that his actions went against the Canadian Human Rights Act. I don't know if he was jailed or not.

 

I think this actually goes to my point above though... Here, it is not allowed to publish anything that is considered hate material, regardless of who you are and what you're speaking out against. So if someone published anti-Mormon hate materials or tried to stand around throwing hateful slurs at Mormons, they'd be facing potential legal action. If you want the religious folk protected from such things, then it has to everyone else too, including homosexuals. (Not saying you were suggesting otherwise... but I know some would happily take a double standard on such things.)

:grouphug:

 

But is it hate speech to state what you believe? Should someone be jailed for stating what he believes if what he believes is not inciting violence against another person? (So, a guy preaching against Mormons is protected. A person riling up a group of people to go beat up Mormons is not ok.) IMO, free speech can be ugly and wrong but it is still necessary. So, while I would completely disagree with the guy who published the anti-Mormon lit, I don't think he should be arrested. However, that same right allows me to distribute pro-Mormon lit. Though I don't like people saying hateful, disgusting things, I prefer it to having a government tell me what I am allowed or not allowed to say. Totally agree with you that there ought to be no double standard. Free speech is free speech.

 

Re church tax: I think that is a very interesting point. Lots of groups are very political and tax-exempt (though churches are not supposed to be and could lose their tax exempt status for breaking certain rules). Do you object to churches being tax exempt or any group engaging in politics having tax breaks?

[MelanieM]

But is it hate speech to state what you believe? Should someone be jailed for stating what he believes if what he believes is not inciting violence against another person? (So, a guy preaching against Mormons is protected. A person riling up a group of people to go beat up Mormons is not ok.) IMO, free speech can be ugly and wrong but it is still necessary. So, while I would completely disagree with the guy who published the anti-Mormon lit, I don't think he should be arrested. However, that same right allows me to distribute pro-Mormon lit. Though I don't like people saying hateful, disgusting things, I prefer it to having a government tell me what I am allowed or not allowed to say. Totally agree with you that there ought to be no double standard. Free speech is free speech.

 

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.

[MelanieM]

Oh, and I really don't know the specifics of the situation you mentioned, including what exactly the Pastor said/did, was charged with, or whether or not he was sentenced. If he was simply stating that he didn't support whatever it was that the government was proposing, there wouldn't have been a problem. I would assume it was something more extreme than that to have brought on legal action.

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

I'm on the fence about our hate legislation and especially the provincial human rights tribunals. They often seem to overreach their mandate and powers (as much as I despise Ezra Levant's ranting he did get an unfair drubbing from his provincial HRT I think).

 

But you're right in that they don't seem to have limited discussions too much and there certainly are things we seem more able to discuss. I think it's possibly more because of cultural differences though. We're more secular and our approach to multiculturalism is different.

 

I suspect that over all the US and Canada come out even on the issue of free speech, despite our different hang ups.

 

.

[MelanieM]

I suspect that over all the US and Canada come out even on the issue of free speech, despite our different hang ups.

 

.

 

Yes, you're probably right. I think spending time in online forums where the majority of members are typically from the US, I read a lot of stuff that I just can't imagine happening here, and it skews my view somewhat. It probably comes down a lot to that, and to the cultural differences you mention. Things that are issues for many Americans just don't seem to be a problem for us here, and of course the opposite is also true.

[MSNative]

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.

 

I find this fascinating and appreciate y'all taking the time to discuss this.

 

So what are the limits and who gets to decide what is hate/harassment speech?

 

For example, if a pastor or an Imam is preaching and reads a passage in a holy book that says that homosexuality is a sin - is that hate speech punishable by jail? (Not meaning that specific case as we've already established that we don't know the specifics. Just using it as a jumping off point.) If he reads it and agrees with it and says something along the lines of "we need to pray for these people." No violence. Is that harassment?

 

What about political speech? What if I believe a company is ruining the rain forest so I organize a protest outside the company and start a campaign to inform people about it. Is that harassing the company and the employees?

 

Would restricting the peaceful speech of the religious speaker or the political speaker be a form of harassment, discrimination or persecution?

 

Is there a group that decides what is hate speech? Can anyone appeal their decision?

 

Wow! I sound like my 4 year old. A thousand questions before 9am. However, I think it's so interesting to learn about our neighbours (you and your crazy extra "u"s.) ;)

[MelanieM]

I find this fascinating and appreciate y'all taking the time to discuss this.

 

So what are the limits and who gets to decide what is hate/harassment speech?

 

For example, if a pastor or an Imam is preaching and reads a passage in a holy book that says that homosexuality is a sin - is that hate speech punishable by jail? (Not meaning that specific case as we've already established that we don't know the specifics. Just using it as a jumping off point.) If he reads it and agrees with it and says something along the lines of "we need to pray for these people." No violence. Is that harassment?

 

What about political speech? What if I believe a company is ruining the rain forest so I organize a protest outside the company and start a campaign to inform people about it. Is that harassing the company and the employees?

 

Would restricting the peaceful speech of the religious speaker or the political speaker be a form of harassment, discrimination or persecution?

 

Is there a group that decides what is hate speech? Can anyone appeal their decision?

 

Wow! I sound like my 4 year old. A thousand questions before 9am. However, I think it's so interesting to learn about our neighbours (you and your crazy extra "u"s.) ;)

 

Here's a link to information about hate provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm Basically, it becomes an issue when one is advocating genocide or engaging in public incitement of hatred (statements made in such a way as to bring about a breach of peace).

 

There are actually provisions for statements made to support religious arguments so no, you're not going to face legal action for discussing religious passages that are against homosexuality. (Well, I suppose someone could attempt to have legal action taken against such things (just as you could attempt to sue for anything) but I don't imagine it would result in much more than some media attention and the case being swiftly kicked to the curb.) But if you got up and started saying God is against homosexuals and they should all be sentenced to death by stoning then yeah, you're going to face a little legal trouble.

 

Peaceful protests against corporations are fine. I don't think our corporations have the same sort of protections that they're afforded in the US? Your laws seem to treat corporations like people, legally speaking... no? Honestly, I'm not quite sure of our differences on this front, so I'd need to do some research to speak more about it.

[Haiku]

Do you object to churches being tax exempt or any group engaging in politics having tax breaks?

 

For me, any group engaged in politics should not be tax-exempt.

 

Stella, I am sorry your feelings were hurt. I contained my comments solely to the situation with working on Sundays. I did not address the pageant situation which, if course, is a shameful way for people to treat others.

 

Tara

[mommaduck]

There are actually churches that are against tax exemption and refuse to apply for it...because the strings attached break the church/state issue (the state telling the church what they can and can't do). The Church is supposed to speak out on issues of morality and ethics, even if they are current political issues.

[Haiku]

because the strings attached break the church/state issue (the state telling the church what they can and can't do).

 

I don't think it breaches separation of church and state. Applying for tax-exempt status is a voluntary contract. It would only breach the church/state issue, imo, if it weren't optional and voluntary.

 

Tara

[mommaduck]

I don't think it breaches separation of church and state. Applying for tax-exempt status is a voluntary contract. It would only breach the church/state issue, imo, if it weren't optional and voluntary.

 

Tara

What I'm saying is that those churches are the ones choosing to have the state interfere where the state should not. So yes, I agree in a sense. The tax exemption is like a bribe to interfere...if you agree to not speak on this, this, and this, then you can be tax exempt.

[Haiku]

What I'm saying is that those churches are the ones choosing to have the state interfere where the state should not. So yes, I agree in a sense. The tax exemption is like a bribe to interfere...if you agree to not speak on this, this, and this, then you can be tax exempt.

 

Agreed.

 

Tara

[Guest]

Bolding mine. It isn't about you because I say it isn't about you. Because I started the thread. Because I'm not lying to you. Because as far as I know I'm not delusional (my shunning of Saxon math notwithstanding). Because it's something I've seen here a number of times before (and more explicitly than anything you posted). If you want something to be about you, how about I say "I've heard this and wondered about this a number of times and today was finally the day I was spurred to ask." You were the proverbial straw, if you will, that caused my curiosity about this idea to get the best of me.

 

You can make it about you if you choose, and I can't stop that. But it wasn't my intention; otherwise I would have PM'd you about it before starting a thread about you.

 

Same difference.

[Guest]

Persecuted (as defined in the Meriian Webster Dictionary):

 

Sufferring grave abuse or injustice at the hands of one in authority.(with synonyms crushed, oppressed, tyrannized)

 

 

Has this happened in the US in the past - yeah. Is it happening now? No. There are always idiots around. My deist faith makes me a black sheep down here in the south - but I'm not persecuted. I have a deist friend who was fired from a preschool teaching job at a church preschool because of her deism. Was that persecution? No.

 

Sure that is one definition, but most word have a few (which I posted earlier):

Persecute:

–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.

[Guest]

Should have listened to my original thoughts about posting here before I did. I guess I am not allowed to have my own opinion here because at this point no matter what I say, some one will feel the need to say again that none of what I said constitutes persecution- even by the definition given by a PP. I guess that what I should have said to my then 10 year old dd was "you arent being killed right now so buck up and take it". My opinion is my opinion. I am not trying to change anyones opinion, I was just sharing what I have witnessed- contributing to the conversation only to have other people tell me over and over again what their definition of persecution is. I was just trying to say that "persecution" can happen without a sign on the door. Nevermind that the craft store I worked at is a nationwide chain. I even acknowledged that there are people right now suffering horrific persecution for their faith. I guess not including that what I have witnessed doesnt even remotely come close to that is what I should have added? I think my point is too that its ridiculous that in this day and age that ANYONE feels the need to harass or heckle people for any reason. And because we werent killed there, means it wasnt persecution? Well, tell that to my kids. I dont know geez! I guess I will take a WTM break. Thats why I hardly ever post on these threads. I think its sad that people cant post something without having it shredded to bits or others trying to keep shoving their opinion down the throat of others. My posts arent the only ones this is and has happened to. I have seen it happen on this thread and others. It just continues until the person just goes "wow, I guess I am not allowed to voice my opinion there even though the OP was asking for it". Like I said, I wasnt trying to change anyones opinion. And thats what it is- your opinion. Just like what I have said is mine. I was just trying to share my story like we tend to do around here. So, nevermind. You guys feel free to argue away. :001_smile:

 

Totally agree. People pick out the meaning they want and ignore all the other meanings. Then you don't have an argument. I have taken a break before from TWTM because of all the "silliness" (to put it nicely) that happens on here, and I've been thinking about completely leaving. I belong to other forums where this stuff doesn't happen, and if it does, it's not enough that I've ever noticed it. The only reason I have stuck around this long is because the curriculum board can be quite helpful! I should not have come back into the general board! It just kinda sucks that you can't participate in certain threads without being hounded. I've tried to end conversations before they turn ugly, and then it just gets dragged to another thread (then denied that it was) so I have to continue to defend myself. I was the proverbial straw, but it wasn't started because of me! LOL!!! Anyway, don't let all of this bother you. It's so not worth your time or energy. People just like to argue. 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.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Jinnah

[leeannpal]

I think you've missed something in your reading. First, no one said any such thing as what you've written here. Second, the question was regarding a specific belief -- that religion is a man-made construct -- and how to express that because, apparently, the belief itself is offensive to some. So, if you find that idea offensive, do you have a suggestion for how someone might express it that would not ruffle your feathers?

 

Well,beliefs are highly personal things, and people do often interpret what is implied in a statement in addition to the actual words. For example, if I say that I believe that homeschoolers are not well socialized (which, of course, I don't believe!), most homeschoolers and their parents are going to find that offensive. Now, that may be your opinion, but no matter how you say it, that group would probably be offended. Why? Because the implication is far reaching. Just saying, "homeschoolers aren't well socialized," implies that if you are a homeschooling parent, you aren't doing what is best for the child. He or she won't be "normal."

 

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?

[Haiku]

People just like to argue.

 

Yep.

 

I enjoy a good argument/debate because I find it intellectually stimulating. I sometimes come away from a debate with a different point of view. I sometimes come away with a better understanding of the other side even if I haven't changed my point of view. I sometimes come away shaking my head about other people's views. But I generally view what goes on on discussion boards as academic in nature, not personal. I appreciate the fact that the relative anonymity on discussion boards allows people to really discuss things and make their views known in a way that they might not feel comfortable doing in real life. I really try hard not to take things personally. Sometimes I fail, but I'm really glad that I have a forum (in the general sense) where we can discuss and air our opinions relatively openly. I try to keep that in mind when people say things that grate; to me, the availability of an open forum to air ideas is more important than than worrying about my delicate feelings (and I will be the first to admit that I have thin skin in real life).

 

People just like to argue. Sometimes it stings.

 

Tara