Christian Persecution

[Lek]

So what rights specifically do you imagine will be denied to Christians?

Losing the freedom to express our opinions about the morality of homosexual relationas in pub,

if they condemn or challenge them. (I think that's already happened in England.)

Being banned from holding worship worship services or proselytizing in public places such as parks or sidewalks

Christians kids not being allowed to tell other kids in school that they are christian

Not being allowed to wear a necklace with a cross on it in school or in public workplaces

Not allowing christians to run for public office

Banning christianity for being subversive

[Lek]

Now that christians are shrinking as a majority, it's easier to pass laws like gay marriage, etc.

It's not your right to interfere with the rights of others. It's your right to live your own life as you please with all the rules, you want to impose on yourselves. Interfering with other people's business isn't a right. It's by definition the attempt on tyranny, since you obviously consider imposing your lifestyle on others as some kind of entitlment.

I didn't say it was. I just said it usually happens.

[abaris]

Persecution complex. And you don't even realize that some of your points are indeed the sense of entitlement to impose your views on others. Not allowing christians to run for public office? No, it's just that there should be no religious check for running for office. Which is the case in most civilized countries. In my country since 1867.

But I realize, you're hinting at that media star idiot not doing her job. Well, tough. A job is a job and has certain requirements. With public office it's upholding the law of the land. If you don't feel to be up to that, you shouldn't run. That's your prerogative and only prerogative. Bending the law to suit your needs isn't.

[Crossless2.0]

So what rights specifically do you imagine will be denied to Christians?

Losing the freedom to express our opinions about the morality of homosexual relationas in pub,

if they condemn or challenge them. (I think that's already happened in England.)

Being banned from holding worship worship services or proselytizing in public places such as parks or sidewalks

Christians kids not being allowed to tell other kids in school that they are christian

Not being allowed to wear a necklace with a cross on it in school or in public workplaces

Not allowing christians to run for public office

Banning christianity for being subversive

In other words, you think that the rest of us are so careless of our own Constitutional protections that we will trash the Bill of Rights and institute religious tests for public office? Seriously?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So...

What is the relevance of this "tyranny of the majority"? What issue is being tyrannised?

If you weren't making a particular point, then my apologies I agree that reality doesn't conform to ideals.

You made the statement that even when there are 2.5 christians left in the US, the constitution will still protect the rights of that minority.  I don't agree with your statement.  I believe that if and when, non-christians become a large majority, the rights of a christian minority will be ignored to a large degree.  That's typical human group behavior and would prove true in any society with a democratic-based system of government.  Now that christians are shrinking as a majority, it's easier to pass laws like gay marriage, etc.  It would not have happened in the 50s or 60s.  The interpretation of the constitution and the laws that result would be based more on the interpretation and needs of the majority.  The letter of the constitution would support fair treatment of all, but in reality it never worked that way - take slavery, for instance, or black people afterwards.  Therefore, my reference to "the tyranny of the majority".  It's tyranny because it is most often unfair and oppressive, to a degree, towards the minority of people with different views and needs.

Except, you know, the Bill of Rights.

[robvalue]

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading.

I wouldn't know where to start so I'm not even going to try.

[abaris]

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading.

I wouldn't know where to start so I'm not even going to try.

Better not. He's not getting the distinction between right and entitlement.

[Lek]

You guys are not paying attention to what I'm saying.  I think that what I refer to as the "tyranny of the majority" is not a good thing!  I'm saying that it happens.  It's been happening in  the US since the nation began.  The constitution is interpreted according to how the majority views it.  Why do you think that when the supreme court passes judgments on controversial issues, the vote is almost always divided up between the liberal and conservative judges?  That's why the political parties always fight to choose a judge who has a history of reflecting their views.  People have been denied their constitutional rights from the beginning because the powers to be either ignored or misinterpreted the constitution which was supposed to protect them in the first place.  Since they were a small minority nobody cared.  Christians have been the majority in the past and have often ignored minority rights because they had a small voice, even though their actions were to opposed to the constitution.  I believe that the same thing would happen to christians if they became a small minority.  I'm not rationalizing past behaviors, I'm just stating my opinion in answer to the questions I've been asked.   I think that you're seeing that I'm a christian and then using that impression to interpret what I'm saying instead of just reading what I wrote.

[abaris]

So you have used the wrong examples. Allowing same sex marriage doesn't concern you, as far as your rights go. It only is of concern to you, if you were to impose your views on others, since you are still free not to subscribe to it. What I mean is, you should be allowed to live your lives as you please. You, or any other group, shouldn't be allowed to impose your worldview on others.

[Lek]

So you have used the wrong examples. Allowing same sex marriage doesn't concern you, as far as your rights go. It only is of concern to you, if you were to impose your views on others, since you are still free not to subscribe to it. What I mean is, you should be allowed to live your lives as you please. You, or any other group, shouldn't be allowed to impose your worldview on others.

Again you didn't read what I said. I didn't mention the freedom not to think homosexuality is immoral, but rather the right to say it in public. I gave an example of England where you can be put in jail for doing that.