Interesting article came out just today on the matter at hand:

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...imes+-+Commentary%29

I've never said that opression is justified in any case, I am simply saying that representing Christianity as the most persecuted or as more persecuted than ever is a massive misrepresentation of the facts.
Yes Christians have been killed for their religion, and I do not say that this is a good thing or justified. However they are not alone. Jews, Pagans, and Muslims are also killed for their beliefs, along with Buddhists, Hindus and in a few rare cases atheists. People are also killed, right here in the US *by* Christian fanatics for reasons such as their sexuality or political bumper stickers. *None* of it is justified but the places I hear the most hype about Christians being persecuted are teh same churches where they have a member behind bars for a hate crime of their own.
I have also been places where the indiginous cultures are very hostiel to Christians because of acts of missionaries, some going back 200 years or more, in destroying their local culture and in some cases killing members of their families.
I am not suggesting that opression of christianity is a good thing, just saying there is some context needed before the whole 'oh woe that Christians are so persecuted' justifies 'wipe out the evil heathens/pagans persecuting us'.

Final note: if you don't think being christian gives you any kind of assistance making a living in the US then you are living with your head in the sand. In my case my parents keep pressuring me to go to church and convert to Christianity because they are certain nobody in the midwest can make what tehy consider a decent living if they don't go to church and meet the right people. I know of at least one local company (Coleman) which has a policy of letting anyone go who is not Christian.

In reply to silveroak (msg #44):

Ummmm... m'kay?

First of all, where do I say that Christians are the MOST persecuted?  I just pointed out that they are persecuted in a great many places around the world.  This is a fact.

Second, where do I say that they alone are persecuted?  In fact, I believe I state that others ARE persecuted and that this persecution is unjust.

The rest of your post seems to say that it is okay to persecute on the basis that bad things happened at the hands of Christians as far back as 200 years.  Does this justifies walking into a Christian church and gunning people down?

Let's look at it this way.  You see that Christians have repressed others in their long history.  They have.  Can you, in good conscience, justify murderous acts against people who had no part in that?  Take a look here:

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/c...-follower-for-murder

Am I justified in stereotyping all Wiccans as amoral and murderous?  I don't believe I am.  Oppressing Wiccans is as unjust as oppressing Christians.  I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it.



I see that you are not saying it is good.  I also see that you think it is justified and that pointing it out is akin to saying that wiping out Pagans and Heathens is justified.  By all means, please point out where I say that Christians are justified in persecuting others.  They most certainly are not.

Go back far enough and everyone has a history they are not proud of.  I have said numerous times that I am an Atheist but I am also a logical creature and the fact remains that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They are not the only ones but my original post was a response to the claim that they are not.

They are and that is a fact.  Dispute that fact if you wish and supply sources that prove that Christian persecution is not occuring.

Mere insults do not prove what you say.  Please provide some kind of evidence to support this because my life dissproves your point on so many levels.  I see wealthy and well to do professional Buddists, Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists every day.  I certainly have no problem stating my stance on religion and have suffered no ill effects at all.  In fact, I have been quite successful.  As the saying goes, the only color that matters is green.  If you provide a valuable service then your employer won't care if you howl at the full moon.



Considering I live in the Midwest as well and can safely say that being a Christian means nothing if you prove that you are a solid, productive worker.  As I said above, there is wide variety of beliefs to be found in the Midwest.  Your perceptions do not equal fact.

As a parent I can say that, perhaps, your parents are looking out for your best interests.  You might not like their view but I would bet that it comes from concern for you.  This is not a judgement, this is the opinion of a father.



I can't seem to find a single lawsuit against Coleman for discrimination.  Please point me to one since I am pretty sure that such a termination would bring down a lawsuit in record time.  Never, in all my years, has any employer, even in the Midwest, taken an interest in my religion so color me skeptical of this claim.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:10, Thu 16 Dec 2010.

I don't think anyone else has said that Christianity is the most persecuted. Someone did say that Christians are more persecuted than ever before, but that's raw population numbers, not per capita. I would fully expect there are more Christians persecuted than ever before - there are more Christians!

I think you're responding a bit strongly for something that seemed an off-the-cuff comment.



But here's the thing - if we campaign against people being persecuted, be they Christians, Pagans, homosexuals or whatever, by virtue of saying that persecution is not an acceptable behavior, we are acting to reduce persecution against EVERY group. I will give you, there are individuals (I've met some!) who rally against persecuting Christians, but turn around and actively persecute people based on their faith or culture. But people have a keen nose for hypocrisy, and that behavior will be recognized for what it is.

I don't think there's a real choice in the 21st century regarding 'persecuting this group and not that group'. We aren't sufficiently homogenous for that any more. The choice is, 'is persecution a standard part of life', or isn't it? If we don't want persecution to be acceptable behavior, we need to speak out against it every time we see it, whether it's against our enemies or our friends. Because if we fail to, if we accept persecution, then sooner or later, they won't be the targets, we will.



I don't think anyone has said this either (and if they did, you'd be absolutely right). I'd like think we can all agree on some basic premises - that people should be permitted to worship who they like, as they like (within reason), and that they should be able to tell others about their beliefs, all without suffering penalties like prison, injury or death. If people are violating that, we should be aware of that, and use civil methods to fight that behavior, and show that it is not acceptable (killing other people is not civil, although putting someone in prison for killing someone else probably is).

1) Tlaloc: I have *never* said that persecution or murders of Christians was justified. I have in fact explicitly stated the oposite- your attacks against me personally are slanderous and inappropriate.
2) I didn't say that anyone *here* has suggested we move on to killing teh evil pagans. I am explaining why this is something of a hot button issue for me- exageration of persecution is a consistant method of justification for future persecution of others, especially when it is done by people in power.
3) specific examples? Well several temp firms who have done hiring for Coleman company have stated that Colemen expressly states tehy would really prefer to hire Christians, and everyone they have placed who was not Christian has been let go. Do you have any idea how many people Coleman employs?
4) Arround the year 2000 (I'm trying to re-locate more specific information but my browser is being slow this morning) a suit was filed alleging religious discrimination against an individual for being wiccan. teh suit was dismissed in Kansas by teh appeals court after being tried successfully in court on the basis that 'there are no wiccan churches in the state of Kansas'. The same year a Christian minister convicted of money laundering was released because teh same appeals court found he was teh victim of entrapment, although others caught in the same sting were not, because he was a Christian minister and therefore obviously had been set up.

But nothing was exaggerated.  It may be a hot button issue with you but no one hit that button.  It is a fact that Christians are persecuted.  Do Christians sometimes persecute?  Absolutely.  In the end it would seem that we agree on more aspects of this argument than we disagree.



Expressly states?  Well then, I am sure you will be coming into quite a bit of money soon since, if I were you, I would be suing the pants off of Coleman for religious discrmination.  It should be quite easy to do if it is so blatant.  I am quite surprised no one has beat you to it.



Well that sucks and I am sure such injustices can be found far and wide.  Now how does this relate to the fact that Christians are persecuted world wide?

Not to belabor the point but no one here said that discrimination against Wiccans, Pagans, or any other religion is ever justified.  The scenario you describe is unjust and I would oppose such injustice in the same manner that I am opposing injustice done to Christians.

As I said before, it seems you and I agree on more than we disagree.  Oh well.

Silveroak, I don't think anyone is attacking you. However, since we don't share your experience, and don't know what you don't say, some of your statements have, for me at least, seemed to come out of left field.

Unfortunately the Kansas court has pulled the same against disability cases as well, but that’s another matter.  Unfortunately, under the law of many states, unrecognized religions, by this I mean those unrepresented by major dominations, are not subject to the same rights as recognized ones.  For instance, a case was brought before the  a company in Alabama by a group claiming to be Quakers, and since that sect of Christianity is not represented as a formal christen sect, the case was thrown out.  The same holds for any American Indian religious view not practiced on a reservation.  But, and this is an important one, that is a byproduct of judicial issues, not an issue of Christians themselves.  As a Christian, I do understand some of the points that silveroak is making.  Christianity among some communities is simply used as a “club” to join and get to know people.  This is not however, something against Christianity itself, but how it is practiced.    Note, I have not listened to this thread in its entirety, if some of my points are somewhat off the mark, for the spirit of the thread, bare with me.  I’ll go back and listen to the whole thing later.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:07, Thu 16 Dec 2010.

Yes, I would be coming into a lot of money, as would all kinds of other people, except, as I already noted before, the circuit court for Kansas has held that <insert religion here that isn't christian> can't claim discrimination because it sin;t a real religion, and at teh same time Kansas is a right to work state, where they don't have to give a reason to let you go, teh conversation is mouth to mouth and undocumented and they certainly are not going to say it in court even if everybody knows it is going on.

Somewhere in here we have a real lack of cohesion as to what thsi conversation is even about- there *have* been some people arguing about hwo Christians are more persecuted now than ever before (which I would assert is an exageration- in fact this assertion has been more or less my solitary and central point) and/or are the most persecuted religion in the world (same point, ch. 2)
Whenever I point out that yes pagans are also discriminated against while Christians have it comparatively easilly within my own location in Kansas, and that some forms of 'persecution' against christians might be grounded in past actions of missionaries, I have been attacked as if by suggesting that perhaps people whose grandparents were abducted as children and placed into orphanages to force them to convert to Christianity might not want to see giant crosses funded by new overseas missionaries any more than a typical American familly wants to see someone's 'junk waving all over the place' on a camping trip (because appearently bears wear pants in the woods so we should too), that this somehow means I am endorsing the murder of christians.
But of course, nobody else here is over-reacting.
And if I point out that religious discrimination does exist in America and is more liekly to be directed against non christians than christians, then I must be delusional, a liar, and attacking christianity.
Even though I never said that christianity caused teh problem, only that it benefited from it.
I would say I am definitely not the only one with issues on this topic, but I am kind of wondering where everyone else's issues came from.
Has anyone else here been fired from a job because of their religion while other people on the job were talking about their own attendance of religious services?
Has anyone else here had a familly member ask them not to wear religious symbols arround their house?
Has anyone else here been physically assaulted by a used car salesman for not accepting his religiously based political diatribe?
Has anyone else here had friends cut and pepper sprayed and their hoems vandalized for not being part of the mainstream religion?
Is anyone else here who has had these things happen a christian?
Because if not I would appreciate teh rest of you stop complaining to me about how persecuted christians are and how I must be so ignorant not be be appologetic for their suffering.
Because this thread is an excelent example of why non-christians have so much trouble taking the idea of 'christian charity' and 'christian charity' seriously.

In reply to silveroak (msg #53):

Amazing.  All those employees and no whistleblowers.  I am also in a right to work state and have never encountered that.  I am sure that the ACLU could do good there if they took a break from removing Nativity scenes.

In reply to silveroak (msg #54):

So since you have been discriminated against and victimized by Christians you don't have to acknowledge the fact that Christians are discriminated against and victimized in other parts of the world?

You have made this about you and it is most definitely not about you Silveroak.



Then by all means prove your point.  I have trotted out sources and examples of Christian persecution in other countries.  All you have to offer is that Christians are persecuting you and that is not the point nor does it prove that Christian persecution doesn't exist.  On a side note I find what has been done to you equally repulsive and unjust.



Being an Atheist I really can't understand what point, if any, you are making with this little barb.  If you believe we are beating up on you because you are a Pagan then you have completely missed the point even after several of us have tried to clarify the point to you multiple times.

I don't see why this statement would be a problem, nor do I see why it should be false. There are more Christians than ever before. 'More oppressed' is, to a degree, just a function of population growth. No one complained there is more oppression per capita.



If someone said this, I agree, I would probably have issues with it. But I don't believe anyone has.

Your past few posts have come off as very confrontational. When I was reading them, I understood you to be denying that Christians are being persecuted, suggesting that maybe they deserved it, and that many (or all?) Christians are hypocrites because Christians engage in persecution as well. I may have misread your sentiments, but, judging from the other posts here, I'm not alone. Regardless as to your intent, that's how you're coming off, and those sorts of posts aren't very helpful.

I think had you said, 'pagans are also being discriminated against' and gone into that without letting it come off as competitively as it did, there wouldn't be any ruckus.

I don't think the issue is with your message. It's with your presentation.

Since you asked, I’ve experienced all that, and lots, lots more.  As for why some people can’t take Christian charity seriously, all I can do is shrug.  I know lots of none Christians around here that are greatful for any charity they can get.  I’m not attempting to down play what happened to you in anyway, but as near as I can tell, you have taken personally that which isn’t intended to be taken personally.  If one of these people here disagreed with something I said, I’d listen and see if I’ve conveyed something wrong, or whatever, but I wouldn’t see it as a personal attack.

If I am reacting hostily it is because people like Tlaloc are being outright hostile. If this were f2f this is the point I would have to walk away to avoid hurting someone. It would appear to me that the rules of this discussion group have been put through the shredder for this thread- one action was taken to ask one post to be edited and after that it became a free for all.

As for one example- West Memphis 3. off the top of my head. Convicted of murder, one on death row, and the only evidence brought to trial was their religion.

If you have a specific post you think break the rules, please send it to me in PM.

If you feel the thread is getting hostile, then perhaps we should all take a bit to put it down and walk away. I don't think there's anything here which, by its nature, has to be hostile, but people read first posts with their own slant, and everyone seems to have a strong impression of what this conversation is 'about'. Giving it some space may let us mentally reset that and try again a little more proactively.

There are a few things I shall say in response to this.  It is known from the bible, both from the gospel of Mathew and Mark, that Jesus didn’t start his ministry until the age of 30, which is important.  He was the son of a carpenter, Joseph.  Who unlike his mother is never mentioned later in Jesus’ life?  The language in fact, if read in the Hebrew, indicates that Joseph is dead and given that Jesus was Joseph’s first born son, it would have been his responsibility for ensuring for her welfare.  It is highly likely that this was what he was doing all those years, meeting his social duty that she was provided for.  The indication was that she had sufficient resources, that he had fulfilled his duties in this regard.  There are sections in the bible that support this.   Now, let us note something, of the apostles, we only know with any certainty that two were married, Mathew, a tax collector, and Paul, a member of the religious hierarchy.  Mathew’s position allowed him to more than likely have sufficient funds to support his family already in place before he met Jesus.  He is said in the Gospel of Mark to have “fine raiment” a sign of prosperity.  Paul, on the other hand took his profession with him, keep in mind, in those days the temple did not support the Priests, they had to obtain funds through more direct means.  Paul, we know, was a tent maker.  We have from the writings of Tybertus that he “reasoned with any that came near to buy his goods… when the day was finished he emptied his stall and went to reason with those in the Temple” (Abbet, 1977).  It should be noted, that Jesus did not require this off all, such as those that herd him speak, or the woman at the well.  Now, leaving your responsibilities, this goes against one thing that Jesus never broke, the violation of an oath.  Jesus never broke an oath with anyone, when he said he would do something, he did it.  He obeyed them perfectly.  Now, you might say, wait, he worked on the Sabbath, which god said one should treat as holy.  This is a good point, the interpretation of that one should rest on the Sabbath is not in the directions given to Moses, treating the day as holy is, the act of healing a man was equally considered a holy act, as it improves the man.  (See Estia, on the first five, for more info).  In short, you would be violating an oath you made to your wife and children that you would be there for them, and provide for them.  If however, you have already set aside funds, so that your family would be taken care of, by this I mean the meeting of their needs, and then if you quit your job and gave your life over to charity would be fine.  Note, most people believe that many things that are a necessity, are in fact, not.



There might be some confusion over this, and some translations don’t help, such as the King James.  A scribe has just come to Jesus and said that he would follow him.  When Jesus tells him what was required, he responds with my father is dead.  To which Jesus responds with let the dead Barry the dead.  This was a common phrase in those days, which is the equivalent to don’t put off to tomorrow what you can do today.  The language utilized by both parties is that the man was willing to follow under certain circumstances, but was doing it more for show.   Now for the sons of Zamadies, of whom you mention, they were already acquainted with John the Baptist.  It is likely then that they were already were planning to leave with him.  Note, the gospels don’t indicate that they just simply dropped everything and went with him.  The exact language is Jesus, “Terchra Kesrta Dehillum Farta.”  “come with me and I shall make you fishers of men. This language is in the present tense, where as the response to this is in the past tense.  Most interesting the word “Baragda” is the important part.  It’s a past tense word that means that some time has past.  In short, the text should read, “and after a time they followed him.”  It’s a tricky word, and some of the older bibles had it that way, but at some point the translation got changed.    In answer to your question though, as what is above might not convey it properly.  One can live a quiet stable life, while still serving God and giving to the poor, Christ did not require that all his followers, he had more than just the twelve, give up everything and follow him.   Mathew didn’t give up his wealth; he just stopped being a Tax collector.  What Christ wanted is that people to love God and treat their neighbors well, but he never mandated that the Christians should become poor in the process.

Personally I would say that it is impossible for something to be both mainstream and massively opressed. Haveing 5 members of a group of a million assaulted for tehir beliefs really does not compare with, for example, the Roman empire's campaign to eiminate all who (from the Roman perspective) refeused to do their civic duty and offer public sacrifices to teh Gods. The opression inn that case was severe enough to not only kill off more than 10% of teh believers but als to keep down the numbers as it emphasised the danger of joining the religion. To me persecusion isn't about what the total numbers of people are, but whether or not it creates an environemnt of fear and stifles the ability of a religion to grow and express itself.
That being said I do believe that *some* *mild* opression of christianity in some parts of the world is justified- when it comes to regulating public speach with a fine or deportation for example in a country where people are still upset about past attrocities committed in teh name of Christianity I think it is a prudent measure. certainly not anything more severe than that, such as dragging Christians into the streets or executing them.
As to numbers I do not know of a single source which keeps track, a lot of people executed for Witchcraft are never reported- however a few sites:
http://africarising2010.blogsp...-joke-in-africa.html


and

at http://www.hrw.org/en/news/200...d-sorcery-cases-rise



http://womennewsnetwork.net/20...witchcraft-india-89/
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr1.htm

from http://www.thehindu.com/news/article533407.ece

I don't know that I would disagree with you. However, being mainstream on average doesn't mean it's mainstream in particular cases. Christians are still specifically targeted throughout the Middle East, East Asia, and East Africa.

Are Wiccans targeted too? Definitely. So are homosexuals, women, people of dark skin color, people of light skin color, people of middle skin color, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews...

Someone might ask which is worse, an oppressed Christian or an oppressed Wiccan. The one that is more similar to you is the most emotionally poignant - that is not anyone's fault, that's just psychology. But objectively, they are both bad, and should both be stopped.

If I were to go onto a limb, I would probably guess that, per capita, homosexuals are probably among the most persecuted, followed by Pagans. Regardless as to your beliefs, I think we can all agree that killing or assaulting people because of these things is always tragic.

I disagree with this statement.  Christians are mainstream in the US and Europe to be sure but definitely are not in many other places in the world.

I also disagree that kinder, gentler forms of discrimination are justified against Christians for the actions of those long dead or the actions of the Catholic Church.  Many Christian missionaries are not members of the Catholic Church which I believe is the sect of Christians you are referring to when one speaks of past atrocities.  I am sure that other Christians have behaved in equally horrible fashion but the Catholic Church is the leader in that kind of behavior.  These actions, however, give no one the right to oppress, however nicely, Christians who are merely practicing their faiths and peacefully speaking what they believe.

I do agree that imprisoning, torturing, and murdering others because of the charge of witchcraft is wrong and unjust.  But could not one say that Africans and Middle Easterners know far more about the practices of Witches and perhaps that justifies their violent reaction to Witchcraft?  I mean there are stories galore of the evils that Witches and Sorcerers inflict on the masses.  Just asking for clarification.

It should also be mentioned that it is a sure-fire way to remove a neighbor or enemy by accusing them of witchcraft and it does happen all the time.  Meaning that many of these oppressed witches are not even practicing Witches or Pagans at all.  They merely pissed someone off enough for them to accuse them of it or someone had a string of bad luck and needed someone to blame.

This is not to say that Shamans and Pagans do not suffer at the hands of other religions and governments.  They do.  I was just pointing out the huge problem of false witchcraft accusations in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Middle Eastern countries.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:35, Mon 20 Dec 2010.

I'm pretty sure that, historically speaking, the Catholic Church is not the 'leader' in oppressive behavior. Not sure where you're picking that up from.



I'll also ask for clarification here - are you suggesting that in the Middle East there are witches who are perhaps actually turning people into goats or eating babies, and thusly it's justified to put them in jail? Are you railing specifically against the behavior of turning people into goats and eating babies (i.e., the malignant practice of witchcraft), or are you saying that witches in general should be put in jail because some of them are believed to engage in immoral behavior? Or is there another interpretation I'm missing? I ask because I don't think what I'm reading is the message you are trying to convey.

In reply to katisara (msg #66):

I am going by sects of Christianity that have oppressed others through the centuries.  The list is quite long.  The Crusades which is still used by anti-Christian Islamists in the Middle East.  Columbus bringing disease and other poxes, not to mention the Catholic Church, to the New World.  The Conquistadors in South America and Mexico.  The Catholics in Viet Nam and Cardinal Spellman calling US soldiers there the "Soldiers of Christ".  There is some talk, I don't know how valid, of Catholic clergy turning over Tutsis to the Hutus in Rwanda.

I have done extensive research of the Catholic Church so that is what I am basing my statement on.  They have been involved in, if not initating, oppresive bahavior all over the world.  But hey, I could be wrong.

If you think I was referring to overall oppression then you are right.  I was looking at the different types of Christians.  I would agree that the Catholics are leagues behind the true leaders of oppression.



You should read the line I wrote before it:



I clearly am not "railing" and yes, you did miss the point.  As you have asked, I shall clarify.

In the parts of the world where witchcraft is a punishable crime there is a whole mythology and storytelling thread that goes with witchcraft.  Children are born knowing that there are individuals out there who can inflict suffering upon them through their workings in the Invisible World.  Check out African stories and tales.  They are full of such imagery and every Elder and parent has a story about when they were somehow affected by the power of a witch.  Pointing the Bone, the Evil Eye, rites by the light of certain ill-omened moons, etc.  In such places people still consult diviners and perform rituals to pacify the spirits of ancestors and ward off the working of witches.  For them the tales of those who use such powers for evil and misfortune are very, very real.

Now, knowing how many societies view witches and witchcraft, and using silveroak's reasoning for justified discrimination, would not these nations be justified in passing laws against witchcraft just as nations that have felt the oppression of Christians are justified in passing laws against practicing Christianity?

Living where I do I have no fear of witches and witchcraft.  In fact, the Wiccans down the street throw one hell of a Halloween party and all the kids make sure to hit their house.  Anyway, in other parts of the world Witches have caused damage to them and their ancestors and, in their minds, they deserve to be wiped out.

Now that I have put this into cultural context, let me repeat that they have no right to oppress others just as other cultures have no right to oppress Christians.