Discrimination, oppression, and the War on Christianity

[brewer]

“Free speech is essential, but only for us.  Everyone else should be censored!”

Classic explanation for why the US has the separation of church and state in the Constitution. Though it does seem that the BE has gotten it done a bit better, even with an official religion. I say it's because all the religious nutters emigrated to this continent. Thanks a lot, Europe. 

If they were all that religious, why did they bring witches with them?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Classic explanation for why the US has the separation of church and state in the Constitution. Though it does seem that the BE has gotten it done a bit better, even with an official religion. I say it's because all the religious nutters emigrated to this continent. Thanks a lot, Europe. 

If they were all that religious, why did they bring witches with them?

Another shining example of religious tolerance.  Women who used bathing, clean food and bedrest to help sick people (as opposed to leeches, prayer, and scourging) were clearly in league with the Devil and had to be destroyed.

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain. - Twain

Boru

[Guard of Guardians]

Can you name any type of real discrimination against Christians in America?

Also, why is that asking people not to tag you in religious posts on social media, saying happy holidays, and maintaining a separation of church and state is so often considered a war on Christianity; however, the same Christians that claim oppression have no qualms about mistreating anyone who dares to openly not be Christian?

It’s still fairly mild in the U.S. compared to getting your head chopped off in other nations, but it really doesn’t take a lot effort to find significant evidence of both hostility and discrimination mostly based on leftist Marxist ideology, which makes common cause with naturalists/materialists, Muslims, and others.
 
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/vir...-pronouns/
 
https://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42535/
 
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-mag...in-america
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-k-...government  (A British Example)




 
Regarding the separation of Church & State, Christians already believe in that, at least Protestant Christians.  We don’t want a particular church in charge of the state, as that would inevitably lead to a threatening of the rights of other Christian sects, as well as those of other religions or no religion at all a right to their freedom of conscience.  The modern version of the Separation of Church & State wasn’t instituted in America until 1947, after Everson v. Board of Education and the decision written by Hugo Black, which was a deliberate revision of history and misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson’s letter written to the Pastor of a Baptist church, if I recall correctly.  I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with asking not to be tagged, but the Separation of Church & State is an artificial and false standard that has been added in the last 70 years in order to push Christians out of the public square and foster a hostility toward Christianity on the part of the government, which of course, was never the intent of America’s Founders.  I mean, Thomas Jefferson used to hold church serves on Sunday inside the Capitol Building of the United States back in the early 1800s.  It’s obvious that neither he, nor any of the other Founders of note had anything like today’s modern notion of the Separation of Church & State in mind.  That’s why people tend to see the modern imposition of the Separation of Church & State for what it really is.

[The Valkyrie]

I’ll check out some links later.

However, credibility drops immediately when you link to W(orld) N(ut) D(aily).

[Cod]

I’ll check out some links later.

However, credibility drops immediately when you link to W(orld) N(ut) D(aily).

And when that particular link claims that someone has been viciously attacked by Darwinists, whatever they are.... I don't blame you.

[Losty]

Can you name any type of real discrimination against Christians in America?

Also, why is that asking people not to tag you in religious posts on social media, saying happy holidays, and maintaining a separation of church and state is so often considered a war on Christianity; however, the same Christians that claim oppression have no qualms about mistreating anyone who dares to openly not be Christian?

It’s still fairly mild in the U.S. compared to getting your head chopped off in other nations, but it really doesn’t take a lot effort to find significant evidence of both hostility and discrimination mostly based on leftist Marxist ideology, which makes common cause with naturalists/materialists, Muslims, and others.
 
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/vir...-pronouns/
 
https://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42535/
 
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-mag...in-america
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-k-...government  (A British Example)




 
Regarding the separation of Church & State, Christians already believe in that, at least Protestant Christians.  We don’t want a particular church in charge of the state, as that would inevitably lead to a threatening of the rights of other Christian sects, as well as those of other religions or no religion at all a right to their freedom of conscience.  The modern version of the Separation of Church & State wasn’t instituted in America until 1947, after Everson v. Board of Education and the decision written by Hugo Black, which was a deliberate revision of history and misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson’s letter written to the Pastor of a Baptist church, if I recall correctly.  I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with asking not to be tagged, but the Separation of Church & State is an artificial and false standard that has been added in the last 70 years in order to push Christians out of the public square and foster a hostility toward Christianity on the part of the government, which of course, was never the intent of America’s Founders.  I mean, Thomas Jefferson used to hold church serves on Sunday inside the Capitol Building of the United States back in the early 1800s.  It’s obvious that neither he, nor any of the other Founders of note had anything like today’s modern notion of the Separation of Church & State in mind.  That’s why people tend to see the modern imposition of the Separation of Church & State for what it really is.

Firing someone for refusing to use another person’s preferred pronouns is not discrimination. If anything, the person who was fired was the one doing the discriminating.

A place of education definitely has a right to not employ someone who refuses to teach real science and/or insists on teaching fake science in their school. A university is not a church, people who want to learn about god have a plethora of religious organizations they can join. When people go to school they go to learn real evidence based information. It’s not to say a person cannot attend or teach at a university as a Christian. They can refuse to accept science personally, but they still have to learn/teach real science in a school. I don’t consider that to be discrimination against Christianity or Christians. There are people who don’t believe in mars, they have a right to not believe in mars. They won’t be hired to teach about space exploration though.

Most places in public are fine to preach in. If you’re inciting violence, that’s illegal. Not allowing Christian preachers to incite violence isn’t discrimination against them. It’s just a protection of the minorities that they target.

The last link isn’t even in America, but again if someone refuses to call another person by their preferred pronoun they are the ones discriminating. People are welcome to be bigots on their own time, but if your bigotry reflects poorly on a company’s image that company is also welcome to fire you.

No matter how you spin it, separation of church and state is not discrimination against Christians. It doesn’t matter if that’s what the founding fathers intended. America is a nation of its people, not a nation of its founding fathers. Religion (Christian or otherwise) has no place in government.

[The Grand Nudger]

If Christians really were being persecuted They should be elated. It would be an example of magic book finally coming true, lol.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I read through Guard's links and checked out some follow-up sources.  It seems that every, single incident whinged about involves Christians either breaking the law, or breaking the rules of the institution at which they are employed.

This is not discrimination against Christians.  It is clear to me that if an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jew had behaved in the same way, they would not have been treated any differently than were the Christians.

Just to look at one example (first on the list) Mr. Vlaming refused to address a female to male transgendered student with male pronouns, as required by school policy (although he did refer to him by his new male name).  Vlaming's defense was that   'his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns' for a female student. After a subsequent hearing and investigation, the teacher was fired for violating the school's non-discrimination and harassment policies.  He was NOT fired for being a Christian.

The fact that his Christian beliefs lead him to violate the policy is immaterial.  If someone of another faith or of no faith had done the same thing, they would have been sacked as well.  If the school was truly discriminatory, it wouldn't hire Christians in the first place.

Boru

[Amarok]

It’s still fairly mild in the U.S. compared to getting your head chopped off in other nations, but it really doesn’t take a lot effort to find significant evidence of both hostility and discrimination mostly based on leftist Marxist ideology, which makes common cause with naturalists/materialists, Muslims, and others.
 
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/vir...-pronouns/
 
https://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42535/
 
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-mag...in-america
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-k-...government  (A British Example)




 
Regarding the separation of Church & State, Christians already believe in that, at least Protestant Christians.  We don’t want a particular church in charge of the state, as that would inevitably lead to a threatening of the rights of other Christian sects, as well as those of other religions or no religion at all a right to their freedom of conscience.  The modern version of the Separation of Church & State wasn’t instituted in America until 1947, after Everson v. Board of Education and the decision written by Hugo Black, which was a deliberate revision of history and misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson’s letter written to the Pastor of a Baptist church, if I recall correctly.  I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with asking not to be tagged, but the Separation of Church & State is an artificial and false standard that has been added in the last 70 years in order to push Christians out of the public square and foster a hostility toward Christianity on the part of the government, which of course, was never the intent of America’s Founders.  I mean, Thomas Jefferson used to hold church serves on Sunday inside the Capitol Building of the United States back in the early 1800s.  It’s obvious that neither he, nor any of the other Founders of note had anything like today’s modern notion of the Separation of Church & State in mind.  That’s why people tend to see the modern imposition of the Separation of Church & State for what it really is.

Firing someone for refusing to use another person’s preferred pronouns is not discrimination. If anything, the person who was fired was the one doing the discriminating.

A place of education definitely has a right to not employ someone who refuses to teach real science and/or insists on teaching fake science in their school. A university is not a church, people who want to learn about god have a plethora of religious organizations they can join. When people go to school they go to learn real evidence based information. It’s not to say a person cannot attend or teach at a university as a Christian. They can refuse to accept science personally, but they still have to learn/teach real science in a school. I don’t consider that to be discrimination against Christianity or Christians. There are people who don’t believe in mars, they have a right to not believe in mars. They won’t be hired to teach about space exploration though.

Most places in public are fine to preach in. If you’re inciting violence, that’s illegal. Not allowing Christian preachers to incite violence isn’t discrimination against them. It’s just a protection of the minorities that they target.

The last link isn’t even in America, but again if someone refuses to call another person by their preferred pronoun they are the ones discriminating. People are welcome to be bigots on their own time, but if your bigotry reflects poorly on a company’s image that company is also welcome to fire you.

No matter how you spin it, separation of church and state is not discrimination against Christians. It doesn’t matter if that’s what the founding fathers intended. America is a nation of its people, not a nation of its founding fathers. Religion (Christian or otherwise) has no place in government.

1.Not to mention world religion classes are a thing they just DON'T endorse religion 

2. Not teaching ID or Young earth isn't discrimination as even many Christians reject them 

3.And lastly the pronouns thing isn't exclusive to Christains it applies to everyone 

4.The only thing Church state separation discriminates against is Theocrats

---

I’ll check out some links later.

However, credibility drops immediately when you link to W(orld) N(ut) D(aily).

And when that particular link claims that someone has been viciously attacked by Darwinists, whatever they are.... I don't blame you.

Considering  all his "sources " are extremist right propaganda mills .....This does not surprise me , And prager U WTF.

[tackattack]

---

3. I'm not saying your atheist son can't play football because his teammates are Christians. However, if you see that they pray before meals and before a game and after a game, he should know they're Christians going into it, and I hope you've had a discussion about what that means for him. I consider some conformity the cost of socialization, and as a parent I would hope you wouldn't force him to join the group just so you can single out those Christian boys from the team or their coaches.

4.@Losty On the second point you make my case. I agree it was a horrible example because both of us agree that trans jokes, regardless of the audience are discriminatory and wrong. What we don't agree on is that saying a prayer publicly is wrong. How is saying a prayer with an audience discriminatory or wrong, exactly? I don't believe my right to my free speech ends if I am making others hurt or uncomfortable, otherwise it's not FREE speech. I believe there is a certain amount of discomfort in any social contract as it's a compromise and in compromises neither side gets all of what they want. I believe I am abusing my right to Free speech when I am intentionally saying something that hurts someone else.

Yea, are you kidding me? Lol. No, I wouldn’t force my son to join a sports team just so I could “single” out the entire team for being Christian. We actually really had this issue with his team and I just privately made the request to the coaches that they keep their prayers to themselves and don’t make it a group thing. They were very nice about it after I gently suggested that I would go to the directors of the organization if needed. I would never force my son to join anything he doesn’t want to join lol. My son wants to play football, football is not a religious activity, there is zero reason why he shouldn’t be allowed to join a team just because most of the other players are Christians. There’s also no reason why he shouldn’t be free from an adult asking him to join a prayer during football, that’s extremely inappropriate for an adult to discuss any religious matters with a child that he doesn’t know well enough to know their religious views and/or without permission from their parents.

Saying a prayer publicly is not wrong. I never said it was. (I personally have issues with praying over sporting events but that’s aside from the point) If you want to say it out loud at the grocery store that’s fine by me, some people might ask you not to and that would be up to the company how they deal with that. What is 100% wrong is to ask for a group prayer when you’re an adult and they’re children and when you’re a coach and they’re players and when you’re in a position of authority. In that case, it is wrong for you to even say your prayer out loud where everyone who wants to play football is forced to listen. You don’t have any rights to free speech within a sports organization anyway. Free speech is a person or community’s freedom to voice their opinions without government retaliation, censorship, or legal penalties. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want anywhere you want to anyone you want without consequences. The organization is well within their rights to not allow group prayer during sports events. Also, even if free speech did apply here, the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the rights of a captive audience outweighing the rights of an individual or group’s freedom of speech.

---

Sounds like you handled it well, even with the unnecessary threat attached.
I understand that now (since 2007 I believe)it is not legal by the First Amendment. It does not guarantee the right to direct messages at people who will find them deeply hurtful, and who have no effective means of simply tuning them out. That coupled with the privilege of being in the majority and the historical organizational acceptance of the practice of prayer at this sporting event, and coupled with the fact no intention of being hurtful wasn't present, I didn't see it as wrong. Perhaps I find it most problematic that prayer in this legal context is something people would find hurtful or forced. I've never been part of a prayer that was hurtful or forced, public or private. If you've ever coached kids, you know they can tune out about anything in the 6 seconds that is a huddle and often do. Maybe a reprimand, to be PC, but not removed from coaching entirely to save face.

I believe in corporate prayer. I also believe in private prayer. Both have their uses. Neither should be for show, which wasn't the intent of the huddle prayer. Nowadays, I coach upwards sports when I coach. I don't think they'd have a problem with me choosing not to pray, as I wouldn't have a problem with someone choosing to pray or not to pray. The only difference is the expectation of God to be in the conversation and methods.

That's my overall point. While legally nowadays it's not acceptable legally to make someone uncomfortable in a captive situation like teaching. But where do you draw the line with someone's personal expression and their job duties? Do we fire teachers for wearing a cross necklace or carrying a Bible? My second point, being that of the main difference is the expectation of God in the methods, couldn't a parent reasonably forsee that there would be a prayer prior to the game, before their child joined?

I wasn't limiting or forcing his speech by direction. You might claim coercion through established normative behavior at best, which I admit. He probably felt out of place, from my doing. I catch the general gist that in today's modern PC times it is illegal to have a corporate prayer as a coach. What if I had asked the kids, "Does anyone here want to lead us in quick prayer?" Would that have been acceptable?