Christians persecuted? In America?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 23 2005, 02:21 PM'] [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=welfare"]Welfare:[/url] 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

[url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=well-being"]Well-being:[/url] the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

Strictly definitionally, abortion IS "for the health and welfare of the people." [/quote]
It's a false sense of health and welfare, [b]burnsspivey[/b]. The same can be said of a child who eats too much junk and fulfills his cravings, thus making him happy. Yet the long term effects can lead to physical health problems, such as obesity.

[argent_paladin]

1. I think this is a bit of a red state/blue state divide. I live in Berkely, California. I lived in Oakland for the past four years, the home of the Black Panthers and the birthplace of Kwanzaa and Ebonics. So, yes, I *have* seen city displays of Kwanzaa, frequently. "Merry Christmas" is a dirty word around here, but is fine to say "Happy Kwanzaa." I don't doubt that Christians are not being persecuted in most of Texas, Nebraska, etc, etc. but you shouldn't doubt that Christians are being discriminated against her in the Bay Area, in LA in New York, etc. I only have to show one instance of persecution in America to show that it exists. You have to prove that noone anywhere has been persecuted, a much harder (actually impossible) task. I mentioned before the ritual slaying of the Coptic Christian family in New Jersey, killed for being outspoken against Islam. My brother faces it daily and so do I. But that is the price we pay for enduring in our professions as an artist in Manhattan and as a grad student in Berkeley.

Blacks are underrepresented in higher education in spite of the universities and the government. There are MASSIVE affirmative action programs for minorities. But there are none for Christians, event though they are arguablly even more underrepresented in, say, the faculties of the Ivy League. How many professors at Harvard do you think go to church every week?

As for the legal profession, the dominant legal philosophy in the 20th century is legal positivism, which is completely unmoored from any religious belief, except secular humanism. It basically states that what is legal is what is right, no more no less. This is a far cry from standard Christian morality. Again, I don't doubt that many, even the majority in the legal profession are self-described Christians. But, non-Christians are vastly overrepresented in the elite level of jurisprudence, again at the top 25 law schools, how many professors go to church weekly? Most seek a moral neutrality or objectivity or even an active hostility to Christianity. The starkest example of where this moral nihilism leads is contained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own conception of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
That is profoundly antithetical to all religous belief, let alone Christian, where WE are defined by our beliefs, not the other way around.

But this takes the cake:
"3. Beliefs are internal, right? So, in reality, you don't have to go against them at all, what you have to do is follow the law. The law states that people, so as not to persecuted must be given an equality of opportunity. This means offering homosexuals a chance at a job, just as you would have to at least give a willing disabled person or a woman a chance at the job. That's to create a "more perfect union". Abortions and contraceptives are being phased out by the Republican Congress anyway, so how are Christians being persecuted? Also, these are for the health and welfare of the people, I think that would be the sort of thing someone with convictions to aid humanity would be happy to support. "


So, if the law forced you to attend mass every day, make a public proclaimation of your belief in God, you'd be fine with that because "beliefs are internal", right? All you ahve to do is follow the law. But it is the laws themselves that can be judged just or unjust, and if unjust, they represent persecution.
Homosexuals are defined differently than the disabled or women. Women and the disabled *ARE* what they are, no matter what they do or don't do. Homosexuals however, under the church's definition, are those who engage in specific behavior, not a type of person. Most Christians would have no problem with hiring someone who is celibate but attracted to his same sex. Actually, it wouldn't even come up as an issue. The reason why we have laws against discriminating against women, disabled, blacks, etc is because employers can easily discriminate against them because they can *see* that they are different. But because homosexuality is a behavior, an employer cannot tell and therefore cannot discriminate.

But the most outrageous part of your message was basically saying that:
1. All people who care for humanity would support abortion and contraceptives.
and 2. Many Christians don't support abortion and contraceptives.
Therefore, 3. Many Christians don't care about humanity.

It is exactly that discriminatory, anti-Christain, ignorant, bigoted attitude that exemplifies the eliteist persecution of Christians in America. And you don't even realize it! You just came on a Catholic site, insulted everyone on it by implying that they don't care about other people and then deny that any persecution is going on!!! It is truly amazing how blind you are.

[argent_paladin]

Oh, I wanted to correct some slanders and distortions by burnspivey:

1. Secularists do have the power in many spheres, as I pointed out. Most espectially: Hollywood (see Mel Gibson), academia (ask any Christian professor, if you can find one), and national journalism (see how "fundamentalists" are portrayed in the Times, Post, broadcast tv, etc).

2. If you are in the legal profession, surely you are at least aware of the prayer in schools legal struggle. It's only been going on for forty years. Yes, individuals can pray in schools, but there cannot be a moment of silence or public prayer of any kind. A teacher can teach that Marx is God, that Darwin is God, that Nietzshe is God, but not that God is God. Even talking about the bible (or even the Declaration of Indepencence) is taboo.

3. Yes, the Supremes can be wrong, Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. But your biggest distortion is the implication that most Christians were for slavery. In fact, Judeo-Christianity is the only tradition where slavery is considered immoral. Not Islam, not paganism, not Buddhism. Christians were the driving force behind the abolitionist movement. That is a historical fact. There weren't any atheists calling for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a very open Christian and used Christian language and imagery in his Emancipation Proclaimation. Most abolitionists saw themselves as being on a mission from God.

4. Again, the legal profession is now at the forefront of persecution of Christians, in the form of denying public acknowlegements of religion, rather than simply establisment of religion. There are Supreme Court cases going in as we speak dealing with this persecution. Even the Ten Commandments are under attack. And why? Because they are religious symbols and therefore must be banned. Religion is under attack and slowly being erased from public view.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 23 2005, 01:21 PM'] [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=welfare"]Welfare:[/url] 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

[url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=well-being"]Well-being:[/url] the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

Strictly definitionally, abortion IS "for the health and welfare of the people." [/quote]
So if killing someone makes you happy, or causes you material gain, it should be promoted.

Let's say murdering you causes me great joy, and once I kill you, I steal all your money and improve my material welfare!

Hey, it's my right to choose!

[argent_paladin]

Abortion is only for the health and welfare of the people only if you define fetuses as not being people, because it certainly doesn't make THEM healthier or improve their welfare.
So, what is your definition of a person to be protected under the law?

[musturde]

[quote name='curtins' date='Feb 22 2005, 06:19 PM'] muslims are not persecuted in america. That is nieave anti american rehtoric.

How about those Christians in philidelphia- were they not persecuted for saying homosexuallity is wrong?? if you call that a "minor idiological battle" thats quite sad.

the truth is christians are being persecuted everywhere- in some places more than others- more harshly in some places- in different ways in some places- but there is persecution of Christians all over the world. [/quote]
How about this just to lift the curtain (get it?... maybe?). I believe everyone is persecuted in America. People everywhere are crazy, it's not a religion bashing one another, it's the people bashing the religion. There are crazy, downright narrowminded Christians and the same applies for every religion. I don't believe it's necessary to argue which religion or belief is the most bashed. What do we get out of that?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Feb 23 2005, 02:43 PM'] It's a false sense of health and welfare, [b]burnsspivey[/b]. The same can be said of a child who eats too much junk and fulfills his cravings, thus making him happy. Yet the long term effects can lead to physical health problems, such as obesity. [/quote]
False analogy. Citizens are not children to the government's adult supervision. As adults who are autonomous we are allowed to make our own medical decisions in connection with our doctors' recommendations.

[Melchisedec]

Socrates, pal..your going off the deep end on this one a bit.

[quote]1. Secularists do have the power in many spheres, as I pointed out. Most espectially: Hollywood (see Mel Gibson), academia (ask any Christian professor, if you can find one), and national journalism (see how "fundamentalists" are portrayed in the Times, Post, broadcast tv, etc)[/quote]

Secularist have power but not as much as the christian majority. Regardless of denomination or despite if you think they are 'true' or not. As far as fundies being portrayed in the media. I think it goes both way. In my local paper we have alot of pro-christian articles. In some other markets, they paint fundies as whacky. I cant help but to think both are to blame for that.

[quote]2. If you are in the legal profession, surely you are at least aware of the prayer in schools legal struggle. It's only been going on for forty years. Yes, individuals can pray in schools, but there cannot be a moment of silence or public prayer of any kind. A teacher can teach that Marx is God, that Darwin is God, that Nietzshe is God, but not that God is God. Even talking about the bible (or even the Declaration of Indepencence) is taboo.[/quote]

This is where u go way out. Now I totally agree on NOT having public prayer in public schools. Because I would not want to hear a hindu prayer anymore than Id like to hear a christian one. Religion in public schools should not be intertwined. By keeping it seperate, you make it equally fair to all sides of the coin. Because we have to have respect for all americans and their beliefs.

As far as them teaching marx as god, darwin as god, ect I couldnt disagree more. I basing it on my own personal experience in public school and never have I encounter that. Or know anyone who has. And we spoke alot about the declaration of independence. Just take some deep breathes and relax

[quote]3. Yes, the Supremes can be wrong, Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. But your biggest distortion is the implication that most Christians were for slavery. In fact, Judeo-Christianity is the only tradition where slavery is considered immoral. Not Islam, not paganism, not Buddhism. Christians were the driving force behind the abolitionist movement. That is a historical fact. There weren't any atheists calling for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a very open Christian and used Christian language and imagery in his Emancipation Proclaimation. Most abolitionists saw themselves as being on a mission from God. [/quote]

Look you are not completely correct here. I happen to have a huge interest in slavery for both being a minority and living in the south. The bible never condemns slavery. If it does, I would like for you to show me where it clearly condemns it. Because I have many passages that support it. I have heard many appologetics try to explain this to me with varying answers. But utlimately, the good nature of people and the evolution of morality paved way for slaveries abolotionment. Religious indivuals aswell as Atheist,Deist (Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll ). I think no one source other than humanity can be commended for the ending of slavery.

But I will say this. During my research and reading many slave naratives I found to my surprise that some slaves were treated very kindly. And a large part of that, was because of good christian people.


[quote]4. Again, the legal profession is now at the forefront of persecution of Christians, in the form of denying public acknowlegements of religion, rather than simply establisment of religion. There are Supreme Court cases going in as we speak dealing with this persecution. Even the Ten Commandments are under attack. And why? Because they are religious symbols and therefore must be banned. Religion is under attack and slowly being erased from public view.[/quote]

I agree religion is being swept away from public view. In large part because it violates (debatable) the rights of the others. Now many dumb lawsuits and zealotous PC people have been making a sham of this. Like Michael Newdow. Honestly I think the majority of atheist and secularlist that I know and myself included could care less about the pledge or the ten commandments stone. I think these sorts of things balancing out in the future. I certainly dont think it warrants the persecution tag.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 23 2005, 06:39 PM'] 1. I think this is a bit of a red state/blue state divide. I live in Berkely, California. I lived in Oakland for the past four years, the home of the Black Panthers and the birthplace of Kwanzaa and Ebonics. So, yes, I *have* seen city displays of Kwanzaa, frequently. "Merry Christmas" is a dirty word around here, but is fine to say "Happy Kwanzaa." I don't doubt that Christians are not being persecuted in most of Texas, Nebraska, etc, etc. but you shouldn't doubt that Christians are being discriminated against her in the Bay Area, in LA in New York, etc. I only have to show one instance of persecution in America to show that it exists. You have to prove that noone anywhere has been persecuted, a much harder (actually impossible) task. I mentioned before the ritual slaying of the Coptic Christian family in New Jersey, killed for being outspoken against Islam. My brother faces it daily and so do I. But that is the price we pay for enduring in our professions as an artist in Manhattan and as a grad student in Berkeley. [/quote]
1. I disagree. Just because you saw a Kwanzaa display doesn't mean that you saw a Yule display. Either all or none must be there. Living in NYC, I have to say that no, christians aren't discriminated against. Coming into work on ash Wednesday I noticed that a good portion of my coworkers had ashes -- if they were being persecuted that would not have been allowed. For the most part, at least around here, people are allowed to do what they want...even christians.

Actually, no, I don't have to prove anything. I'm simply stating that christians are no more persecuted than any other group. The fact that they are heavily represented in government further lessens their claim of persecution. Mostly what I'm saying is that christians should un-staple the backs of their hands from their foreheads and stop moping around wailing "Woe is me!"


[quote]Blacks are underrepresented in higher education in spite of the universities and the government. There are MASSIVE affirmative action programs for minorities. But there are none for Christians, event though they are arguablly even more underrepresented in, say, the faculties of the Ivy League. [/quote]

Because affirmative action works for minorities -- not those of you in the majority. Nice try, though.

[quote]As for the legal profession,  the dominant legal philosophy in the 20th century is legal positivism, which is completely unmoored from any religious belief, except secular humanism. It basically states that what is legal is what is right, no more no less. This is a far cry from standard Christian morality.[/quote]

Ah, I see. You want to talk about legal theories. In which case, yes, the law is secular, but it does not discriminate against christians. The law doesn't have to reflect christian morals for christians to be able to practice those morals.

[quote]Again, I don't doubt that many, even the majority in the legal profession are self-described Christians. But, non-Christians are vastly overrepresented in the elite level of jurisprudence, again at the top 25 law schools, how many professors go to church weekly?[/quote]

On what are you basing this? How are non-christians vastly overrepresented? Or are you just pulling this out of your @$$?

[quote]Most seek a moral neutrality or objectivity or even an active hostility to Christianity. The starkest example of where this moral nihilism leads is contained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own conception of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
That is profoundly antithetical to all religous belief, let alone Christian, where WE are defined by our beliefs, not the other way around.[/quote]

All religious belief? ALL? Do you really want to make that claim?

Even if what you said is true, and 'the right to define one's own conception of existence' is antithetical to your brand of christianity, in what way does it block your ability to practice that brand of christianity? Just because you have a right doesn't mean that you will ever have to exercise it.

[quote]But this takes the cake:
"3. Beliefs are internal, right? So, in reality, you don't have to go against them at all, what you have to do is follow the law. The law states that people, so as not to persecuted must be given an equality of opportunity. This means offering homosexuals a chance at a job, just as you would have to at least give a willing disabled person or a woman a chance at the job. That's to create a "more perfect union". Abortions and contraceptives are being phased out by the Republican Congress anyway, so how are Christians being persecuted? Also, these are for the health and welfare of the people, I think that would be the sort of thing someone with convictions to aid humanity would be happy to support. "[/quote]

I would here like to note that I did not write this.

[quote]So, if the law forced you to attend mass every day, make a public proclaimation of your belief in God, you'd be fine with that because "beliefs are internal", right?[/quote]

This is a false analogy. The whole point of the paragraph above is that your "Free Exercise" of your religion is not being impeded. However, if this were law "Free Exercise" would be. Do you see the problem?

[quote]All you ahve to do is follow the law.  But it is the laws themselves that can be judged just or unjust, and if unjust, they represent persecution.
Homosexuals are defined differently than the disabled or women. Women and the disabled *ARE* what they are, no matter what they do or don't do. Homosexuals however, under the church's definition, are those who engage in specific behavior, not a type of person.[/quote]

Going to have to stop you right there. You don't get to use the church's definition when making laws.

[quote]Most Christians would have no problem with hiring someone who is celibate but attracted to his same sex. Actually, it wouldn't even come up as an issue. The reason why we have laws against discriminating against women, disabled, blacks, etc is because employers can easily discriminate against them because they can *see* that they are different. But because homosexuality is a behavior, an employer cannot tell and therefore cannot discriminate.[/quote]

Homosexuality is not defined by behavior. If so, then a celibate person could not be homosexual, and yet they are. In much the same way, a bisexual person could not exist outside the realm of polyamory. You have your terms confused, methinks. Just so you know, an employer can't ask a person whether or not he/she is celibate before hiring her/him. So in such a case, how would a christian know?

[quote]But the most outrageous part of your message was basically saying that:
1. All people who care for humanity would support abortion and contraceptives.
and 2. Many Christians don't support abortion and contraceptives.
Therefore, 3. Many Christians don't care about humanity.[/quote]

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[quote]It is exactly that discriminatory, anti-Christain, ignorant, bigoted attitude that exemplifies the eliteist persecution of Christians in America. And you don't even realize it! You just came on a Catholic site, insulted everyone on it by implying that they don't care about other people and then deny that any persecution is going on!!! It is truly amazing how blind you are.[/quote]

Wow, this is just absurd. I came to a catholic website at the invitation of a catholic friend. She felt that there was too much infighting going on and that the presence of a non-catholic would help stir up better debate. I have not insulted anyone, nor have I said or implied that "they" don't care about others. Suddenly I'm feeling persecuted.

Not that the feeling of persecution is helped by my warning level being inflated because I made a comment disagreeing with something that the pope said. Perhaps some should remove the log from their own eyes.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 23 2005, 06:53 PM'] Oh, I wanted to correct some slanders and distortions by burnspivey:
[/quote]
I know that people here can read: BurnsSpivey -- 2 s's.

[quote]
1. Secularists do have the power in many spheres, as I pointed out. Most espectially: Hollywood (see Mel Gibson), academia (ask any Christian professor, if you can find one), and national journalism (see how "fundamentalists" are portrayed in the Times, Post, broadcast tv, etc). [/quote]

1a How is Mel Gibson a secularist?
1b Since I'm not in school I'll have to get back to you on that one. But I do know the college I went to had a rather large population of christians.
1c "fundamentalists" say crazy things sometimes, thus they garner ridicule and scorn from the mass media. At some point, we have to break free from mass media and begin to learn for ourselves. If you are still watching American news, I feel bad for you.

[quote]2. If you are in the legal profession, surely you are at least aware of the prayer in schools legal struggle. It's only been going on for forty years. Yes, individuals can pray in schools, but there cannot be a moment of silence or public prayer of any kind. A teacher can teach that Marx is God, that Darwin is God, that Nietzshe is God, but not that God is God. Even talking about the bible (or even the Declaration of Indepencence) is taboo.[/quote]

This tells me that you really don't know much about these issues (and there are multiple issues here). A teacher cannot teach that Marx is god. In the setting of a religious studies class a teacher can talk about the bible, god, etc. A teacher cannot [i]preach[/i] to students. There is an important difference. The reason for this is that a teacher is considered an arm of the government because schools are government funded. So, if a teacher in a public school were to start preaching it would, in effect, be the government proselytizing. You would be just as opposed to this if the teacher was preaching Islam as I am in general. There can be moments of silence, if they are presented as exactly that: a moment of silence. It's when the school advocates a use for the moment that we run into trouble.

[quote]3. Yes, the Supremes can be wrong, Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. But your biggest distortion is the implication that most Christians were for slavery. In fact, Judeo-Christianity is the only tradition where slavery is considered immoral. Not Islam, not paganism, not Buddhism. Christians were the driving force behind the abolitionist movement. That is a historical fact. There weren't any atheists calling for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a very open Christian and used Christian language and imagery in his Emancipation Proclaimation. Most abolitionists saw themselves as being on a mission from God. [/quote]

I don't believe that I said anywhere that christians were for slavery. The bible was used repeatedly to justify it, but that isn't the same thing. In fact, I made no reference to slavery at all. I did make reference to [i]Brown v Board of Education[/i] but that is a civil rights issue, not a slavery issue.

[quote]4. Again, the legal profession is now at the forefront of persecution of Christians, in the form of denying public acknowlegements of religion, rather than simply establisment of religion. There are Supreme Court cases going in as we speak dealing with this persecution. Even the Ten Commandments are under attack. And why? Because they are religious symbols and therefore must be banned. Religion is under attack and slowly being erased from public view.[/quote]

No. Just, no. The ten commandments are not under attack. A [i]government display[/i] of the ten commandments is under attack. As well it should be. I don't know if you (or the rest of the 'christians are so persecuted' crowd) are understanding the extremely important difference.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2005, 07:02 PM'] So if killing someone makes you happy, or causes you material gain, it should be promoted.

Let's say murdering you causes me great joy, and once I kill you, I steal all your money and improve my material welfare!

Hey, it's my right to choose! [/quote]
Well, we still advocate war and the death penalty, so we obviously feel that some people are more worthy of life than others...

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='musturde' date='Feb 24 2005, 01:18 AM'] I believe everyone is persecuted in America. [/quote]
Holy carp! Someone gets it!

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 23 2005, 06:39 PM'] 1. I think this is a bit of a red state/blue state divide. I live in Berkely, California. I lived in Oakland for the past four years, the home of the Black Panthers and the birthplace of Kwanzaa and Ebonics. So, yes, I *have* seen city displays of Kwanzaa, frequently. "Merry Christmas" is a dirty word around here, but is fine to say "Happy Kwanzaa." I don't doubt that Christians are not being persecuted in most of Texas, Nebraska, etc, etc. but you shouldn't doubt that Christians are being discriminated against her in the Bay Area, in LA in New York, etc. I only have to show one instance of persecution in America to show that it exists. You have to prove that noone anywhere has been persecuted, a much harder (actually impossible) task. I mentioned before the ritual slaying of the Coptic Christian family in New Jersey, killed for being outspoken against Islam. My brother faces it daily and so do I. But that is the price we pay for enduring in our professions as an artist in Manhattan and as a grad student in Berkeley.

Blacks are underrepresented in higher education in spite of the universities and the government. There are MASSIVE affirmative action programs for minorities. But there are none for Christians, event though they are arguablly even more underrepresented in, say, the faculties of the Ivy League. How many professors at Harvard do you think go to church every week?

As for the legal profession, the dominant legal philosophy in the 20th century is legal positivism, which is completely unmoored from any religious belief, except secular humanism. It basically states that what is legal is what is right, no more no less. This is a far cry from standard Christian morality. Again, I don't doubt that many, even the majority in the legal profession are self-described Christians. But, non-Christians are vastly overrepresented in the elite level of jurisprudence, again at the top 25 law schools, how many professors go to church weekly? Most seek a moral neutrality or objectivity or even an active hostility to Christianity. The starkest example of where this moral nihilism leads is contained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own conception of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
That is profoundly antithetical to all religous belief, let alone Christian, where WE are defined by our beliefs, not the other way around.

But this takes the cake:
"3. Beliefs are internal, right? So, in reality, you don't have to go against them at all, what you have to do is follow the law. The law states that people, so as not to persecuted must be given an equality of opportunity. This means offering homosexuals a chance at a job, just as you would have to at least give a willing disabled person or a woman a chance at the job. That's to create a "more perfect union". Abortions and contraceptives are being phased out by the Republican Congress anyway, so how are Christians being persecuted? Also, these are for the health and welfare of the people, I think that would be the sort of thing someone with convictions to aid humanity would be happy to support. "


So, if the law forced you to attend mass every day, make a public proclaimation of your belief in God, you'd be fine with that because "beliefs are internal", right? All you ahve to do is follow the law. But it is the laws themselves that can be judged just or unjust, and if unjust, they represent persecution.
Homosexuals are defined differently than the disabled or women. Women and the disabled *ARE* what they are, no matter what they do or don't do. Homosexuals however, under the church's definition, are those who engage in specific behavior, not a type of person. Most Christians would have no problem with hiring someone who is celibate but attracted to his same sex. Actually, it wouldn't even come up as an issue. The reason why we have laws against discriminating against women, disabled, blacks, etc is because employers can easily discriminate against them because they can *see* that they are different. But because homosexuality is a behavior, an employer cannot tell and therefore cannot discriminate.

But the most outrageous part of your message was basically saying that:
1. All people who care for humanity would support abortion and contraceptives.
and 2. Many Christians don't support abortion and contraceptives.
Therefore, 3. Many Christians don't care about humanity.

It is exactly that discriminatory, anti-Christain, ignorant, bigoted attitude that exemplifies the eliteist persecution of Christians in America. And you don't even realize it! You just came on a Catholic site, insulted everyone on it by implying that they don't care about other people and then deny that any persecution is going on!!! It is truly amazing how blind you are. [/quote]
1. Just because you don't doubt that Christians aren't persecuted in some areas is absolutely no reason for me to do the same in regards to California, Massachusetts, etc. Oh, and I live in blue state America, Northern Illinois, right near Chicago. VERY liberal, oppressively so. Almost as bad as if I lived in Crawford, Texas. Almost. I sidetrack, though. That was said to show you that your point in geopolitical differences is misplaced, to say the least. And about the death of a family for their beliefs; that happens to people all the time for all kinds of things. Persecution, however, is something that happens all the time to one or a few specific groups, not everyone. Persecution and the like is a very specific condition.

And affirmative action for Christians? What? Because you don't think enough of them are Christians? I don't know how many go to church each week at Harvard and Yale, etc. Do you?

2. While a good instance, this would also mean that Muslims are persecuted, Jews are persecuted, Sihks and Buddhists are also persecuted, and all should have everyone claim to have each of these beliefs as well. To be any different would in and of itself, elitist.

3. Lastly, I want to address your rant at the end of this post. I'll take it out and post it below for posterity:

" But the most outrageous part of your message was basically saying that:
1. All people who care for humanity would support abortion and contraceptives.
and 2. Many Christians don't support abortion and contraceptives.
Therefore, 3. Many Christians don't care about humanity.

It is exactly that discriminatory, anti-Christain, ignorant, bigoted attitude that exemplifies the eliteist persecution of Christians in America. And you don't even realize it! You just came on a Catholic site, insulted everyone on it by implying that they don't care about other people and then deny that any persecution is going on!!! It is truly amazing how blind you are. "

I'm beginning to think the reason I was brought here was for others to vent their anger upon me. Hm. Well onto the post.

a. The angry, offensive, accusatory, and altogether false nature of this post is enough to get my mind off track, and into a ranting mood, but then the part where you called me "elitist", that was the kicker. How you get off calling someone else elitist, all the while, going on your own self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", nose-thumbing raid of yours is utterly baffling to me. Practice before you preach. (pun intended)

b. Now that that's out, I'll clarify.

Christianity, as I've been told, is about giving of yourself to the service of your one and only God, who asks only of you to do great and wonderful helpful things for the benefit of humanity. In my mind, it is completely unhealthy for Congress to profess such values and then have a "laissez-faire" attitude to the health of women all over the country who will have abortions, no matter the laws in place. If it is made illegal, then it will turn out bad, and there will be dead women on our hands. That is not, and will never be something I can just be apathetic to, unlike many of the Republicans who claim to have run on "moral values". They are the target of my ire.

[argent_paladin]

1. My point still stands. Logically speaking proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive. If I say, "Christians are being persecuted in America", all I have to do is produce two Christians who have been persecuted at some time to prove my point. To prove the statement than "No Christians are being persecuted in America", you have to somehow contact every single American and show that not even two of them were persecuted for their Christianity, out of 280 million. That is virtually impossible. Therefore, my anecdotal evidence is decisive and yours is worthless, because even if every single person you have ever met in your life has never been persecuted, that still wouldn't disprove my point.

2. You are correct. Theists are being persecuted, not just Christians. I don't doubt that atheists are persecuted as well. I detest all forms of persecution. But this debate began because some denied that Christians were persecuted because they are the majority, not because any of us denied that atheists were persecuted.

3. "Christianity, as I've been told, is about giving of yourself to the service of your one and only God, who asks only of you to do great and wonderful helpful things for the benefit of humanity." I think someone has been filling your head with misinformation. The heart of Christianity is to come to know and love God and to love our neighbors. We are not a religion of "works". We are called to love and that love can take the form of small and "insignificant" deeds, rather than "great and wonderful" ones.

I don't want to take us too far from the topic, but there is a significant difference between giving of your own generosity in lovingkindess for your fellow man and coercing others to give to what you think is the right thing. Virtue cannot be coerced. If you want to help out women, great. So do I. But it is a very different thing to pass a law that forces others to do the same. That restricts their freedom and infringes on their rights. Where is your right to choose?

[AtheistAlex]

Then, on a technical basis, you are correct. Christians are, like all other groups, persecuted. And so, I concede that point.

On the last thing you said, all I can say is, "What are you trying to say?"