Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that most christians don't actually think about christ, or is it just a hunch? For your point to be relevant you would not only have to show some evidence that there are many people who self identify as christians who don't think about christ at all, you would also have to show that somewhere close to a majority of these people make up the body of christianity in the country. Even with that impossible task ahead of you, i still feel that it is a little far fetched to claim that people who self identify as members of a certain religion would work for the destruction of that religion. Why would someone who considers themselves a member of a religion, whether committed or not, allow or facilitate the destruction of that religion?
|
It's a hunch backed up by antedotal evicence (which could be argued to not be evidence at all).
Quote:
|
No, it doesn't mean that they're under attack. The fact that there is a constitutional amendment in the works to exclude them from various commonplace day to day activities is evidence that they are under attack. Notice that this kind of attack is something the constitution must be changed for, unlike the standard "attack" on christianity that is the result of the constitution is being conformed to.
|
But by that logic, all amendments are less valid simply because at some point, they weren't in the constitiution. All amendments wre attacks on certain groups, because before those rights were allowed/disallowed they weren't previously in the constitution. Also, I hardly see the marriage amendments as an attack, but that's an entirely different discussion. And it could be argued that the first amendment was designed to keep gov't out of religion, and not vice-versa as is the current trend, it's up to interpretation. You could just as easily say that prayer being kept out of schools is an attack on religion, by disallowing Christians to practice their constitiutional rights.
Quote:
|
There are a great many people who are ignorant, stupid, illogical, etc. A great many of these people also happen to be christian. A great many of these people also happen to be ignorant, stupid, illogical, etc, whilst proclaiming their piety from the rooftops. Again, do you have evidence to the "widespreadedness" of such things? I don't remember the last time i saw a joke at the expense of christianity on t.v.. Occasionally i do hear some random person making an ass out of themselves lumping all religious people into the same category, but it seems obvious to me, as it should to anyone with any kind of information on the matter, that the people who make such comments are just as ignorant as the people they believe they are ridiculing.
|
A great many of people who are ignorant, stupid, illogical, etc. also happen to NOT be Christian. And as for the pervasiveness, you only need to look at certain posts in this thread. Are those people making asses of themselves?
Quote:
|
You can't criticize pat robertson for his hypocrisy without criticizing him for his piety. In his particular brand of christianity such things are encouraged. Pat robertson is a good christian, as far as him and most of his followers are concerned. Though maybe you'd lump him into that "christian who doesn't think about christ" category of yours.
|
If he professes to want to help the poor, and talk about Catholic excesses, but siphons money off donations to live like a king, he is being hypocritical. It has nothing to do with his piety.
Quote:
|
First off, are you serious? Do you honestly believe that an amendment outlawing christianity might not be far off? Are you aware of the religious leanings of nearly every american politician? I'm sorry, buddy, but that's tin hat territory.
|
I don't really think that would come about, I was merely taking part in some hyperbole. However, I do see an active movement to isolate Christians from being allowed to both take part in public affairs and hold religious beliefs.
Quote:
|
Firing someone because of their religious affiliation is illegal. In many places it is completely legal to fire someone because they are gay. What does that tell you about the level of protections afforded christians not afforded homosexuals? As for violence against christians, anecdotal evidence that "supposedly" indicates antichristian bias doesn't cut it. Name me a place in america where being openly christian can result in getting your ass kicked. I don't have enough space to name all the places in this country where being openly gay can result in getting your ass kicked. I know "outside" is one of them.
|
There are many places where people have to choose between religion and work. And to my knowledge unless it's gov't work it is allowed to fire someone for their religion. And as to the violence aspect, I can't argue that gays have more violence directed at them than Christians. But there are more attacks in the media directed at Christianity than at gays. If someone in the public eye makes a derrogetory comment about homosexuals, they get negative press. If someone makes a similar statement about Christians, not only is there not backlash but they are often hearlded.
Quote:
|
Imagine? That's the status quo. The first state republican senator ever to come out of the closet in minnesota just came out of the closet. The next day the republican leadership in minnesota decided to begin grooming someone else to challenge him for his seat in the coming election. I try to hear the uproar, all i hear is crickets.
|
Yes, but Gov. McGrevey (sp?) from New Jersey faced a great deal less public scrutiny over his actions because he said he was gay. And there are many times that challengers are groomed in-party over all sorts of issues, not just being gay.
Quote:
|
I don't know where you went to school, but where i went to school, having the misfortune of being labeled as gay meant your days were filled with torment and overt threats. Funny thing is, everyone just assumed everyone else was a christian.
|
Where I went to school you would also face torment and overt threats if you were labelled a nerd, if you smelled bad, if you were fat, if you were poor, etc. Pretty much any way of not fitting in with the status quo meant you would be tormented.
Quote:
|
If you want to see less of an anti-christian tone, all you have to do is stop looking for it. People often only notice what they expect they're going to notice.
|
And I could say the same thing about anti-gay tone, anti-black tone, anti-liberal tone, anti-anything. But you can also find anti-x tone in many places. Maybe people as a whole should be less sensitive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i see it as a kind of collective intellectual handicap that these folk submit to willingly, because, apparently, not only would jesus be a bigot were he alive today, but he would also be unable to make this distinction
|
Here's one of those "imaginary" attacks I was talking about. I will say it's refreshing to see someone so smug and feeling superior about being a bigot. I'm sure many Klansmen also thing that the mud races suffer from collective intellectual handicaps.