Christian Persecution, Some say it doesn't exist.

I have only one statement to add to this:

Swanny, your posts are articulate, profound and right on target!

I support the seperation of church and hate!

Really? Prove it. Show some reliable documentation, preferably specific case law, USC (United States Code) or CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) citations, or the State/local equivalents. Heck, I'll even settle for public school policy citations. I'll even consider the investigative findings of the FBI or any other official source tasked with investigating violations of civil liberties. In fact, I'll consider any source other than Christian biased rhetoric.

I'm not interested in paraphrases, personal interpretations, letters to constituents or sermons. I am not looking for opinion, I am looking for to specific laws or policies that are currently enforced. and that "persecute" Christians.

Is descrimination equivalent to persecution? I can't receive medicare or welfare benefits. Am I being discriminated against because I earn a decent living at my work? Sure I am. Am I being persecuted because I enjoy a liveable income? Not even by the loosest definition of "persecution".

Swanny

Once again, you find yourself taking the position of moderator of this discussion. You will have to realize Swanny that in this unmoderated forum, you are merely whizzing in the wind. I started the thread, I asked for opinion, I will monitor as well.

As for your demand to see laws, I will not even attempt to transform myself from trucker to lawyer in order to appease you. However, I do have the ability to find information, just as you. How much have you looked? Here are a few examples from just one entity that specializes in civil rights protection. From
The Rutherford Institute.

Much more will follow.

Your entire post is reminiscent of hearing some southern blacks talk about the white race. Here, they say "y'all" in referring to whites, placing complete blame on our race for slavery. I have had conversations with southern blacks about the proposed "reparations" that are currently being sought, and have met with much finger pointing and condemnation for something I am innocent of. Now you do the same. I am not whining. I do not feel victimized. I feel no social influence, incredible or otherwise, and I brandish nothing. Should you feel compelled to address the topic on face value, rather than spew more childish venom, I would be more than happy to entertain you.

Backlash eh? Here is an example of the backlash "we" brought upon ourselves:

Full Story

Here is a case in which the law was found to support the "victim." However, the point of the article is not to demonstrate which government entity was right or wrong, but rather to highlight what I am speaking of. Do you think this teacher's aid was not persecuted? Was it "...this belief in the inherent entitlements of Christianity like some spiritual manifest destiny that inspired the backlash..." which caused her to get fired? No, it is Christian persecution, plain and simple. You may choose not to believe it, but true it is.

(expletive - bovine feces). Nope, I'm merely asking you to provide reliable evidence to support your claims, rather than spewing forth more propaganda.

We've already conceded that many SCOTUS rulings are misapplied, especially by local school boards. All you've done thus far is a show evidence to document a fact that has already been conceded.

I found it interesting to note that in one case you cited (Carpenter vs. School District #10) the plaintiff did not allege a violation of his first amendment right to free speech, nor that the government prohibited the free exercise of his religion, but rather that the school board denied him a valuable government benefit. The appeals court in that case ruled that

Reference reference = http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:sMEIzv1...le/04-35088.PDF

In the case you cited, of Reginald Helms and the Indian River School District,

. reference = http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459748/posts

In the case you cited of Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale vs. Broward County,

reference = http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12256

Thus, of cases you cited to bolster your argument that the government persecutes Christians, we have one in which the suit did not actually allege the "persecution" you claim, and we have two which show that the Government actually protected, rather than "persecuted" the rights of Christians.

This is precisely the reason why I am asking for documentation rather than propaganda and is also why I am challenging your claim that

Yes, you absolutely have the same information seeking resources available that I have. If I can find the disposition of these cases, you should just as easily be able to do the same.

Swanny

Swanny,

You seem to be stuck, like a broken record, on SCOTUS, Congress, etc., as being the only branches of government. As it is public (there's that darn word again) funds that pay for state mandated public schools, and public funds that pay for police agencies and other such entities, then it is also the same that is government. To just cite the first example where you imply it was government who stepped in and prevented persecution, let me affirm to you that the school board meeting that was called in which Carpenter's permission to speak was rescinded was, in that very instant, persecution. He was denied because of his religious moorings, not because of his qualification to speak. Whether or not another government entity comes in and overturns such a decision, or otherwise makes just accommodations for the offense is immaterial. The wrong was committed, and no amount of rectification can alter history. So, in cases where one governmental agency commits acts of discrimination, exclusion, or condemnation, only to have that decision overturned by courts, does not negate the fact that it was an occurrence. To determine when such events have taken place, one need merely substitute the plaintiff with someone of a minority status. Should I deny a black family to rent my home because they are black, only to have that decision overruled by a court, does not mean the discrimination did not take place.

Apples and oranges. Discrimination due to skin color is clearly illegal in all contexts. Prohibiting the promotion of one religion over others is illegal only in the context of "public (read 'government') venues. What you say, wear or do on private property is of no concern to any branch of the government, local or federal.

The bottom line is that it is illegal to use the government as a tool to promote your beliefs over those of others. Simply being Christian does not make you "more equal" than those who adhere to other beliefs, or to no beliefs at all. School board members and public school employees usually aren't constitutional attorneys, they are everyday folks like you and I. Most have no idea what is, or is not, acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. We've already conceded (repeatedly) that Supreme Court rulings have been frequently misapplied. More often than not it isn't a case of "persecution", but rather it is an honest mistake on the part of well-meaning people.

Note that in the cases you cited, the reason that the schools took the actions that prompted the complaint was because they were trying to comply with the very vague "guidelines" that have resulted from previous court rulings. In each of these cases in which a Christian was wrongfully treated, the courts with jurisdiction did what they could to correct the wrong that was done.

Here's an analogy to which you may be able to relate. If, while driving a truck down the road, the truck's driver hits a patch of ice while going too fast, causing the trailer to skid and wipe out a school bus killing all 50 of children on board it's pretty obvious that those kids suffered harm as a result of the driver's mistake (driving too fast for conditions, most likely). Their civil rights (the right to life) may well have been violated due to the driver's negligence, but that does not mean that the driver was trying to persecute those 50 innocent children. Even negligence is not always akin to persecution.

Let's be clear about what we are arguing. I have never alleged that Christians are not sometimes discriminated against in the United States. That would be a foolish position as members of most religions are discriminated against from time to time in this "free" nation. My position is that Christians are not PERSECUTED by the government.

In general usage, the term "persecution" refers to "punishment or harassment of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin (Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

Another source notes that "Christian Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate Christians."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution

I'm afraid that prohibiting Christians from using the government or government owned and operated venues to promote Christianity over other beliefs doesn't quite qualify as persecution.

There is one more term that may be applicable to our debate, however. That term is "Persecution Complex", and is defined as "the feeling of being persecuted especially without basis in reality". Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

The desire to be a martyr doesn't necessarily make it so.

Swanny

I first thought that of course Christians are persecuted in the world. I mean, that was the title of the post and the question at hand. And the example given was from the United Kingdom. So I said absolutely.

But in America? Please. Christians aren't persecuted in America. What is see as the issue here is that Christians used to be the complete majority in America. Now that America is becomming more and more the melting pot, Christians aren't being persecuted so much as they are losing privlidges that they took for granted.

It sounds to me like the Christians are whining because other religious folk are standing up and demanding equal treatment, and sense it would be impossible for all religions to be given the same exposure as Christianity enjoys in America, Christianity is being brought down a few notches.

It sounds like whining to me. All of the examples I've read do not apply to Christianity more so than any other religion currently or in history. They are simply being treated equally with the rest of them now. Get over it.

And as for the personal stories, I've been "persecuted" by Christians more times than I care to remember for my personal beliefs and I feel they can deal with it the same way I had to: ignore it and turn the other cheek.

I have to bring up a few things here. First off, the post directly before mine, from Celtic Coalition. I agree- yes, there is no doubt persecution of christians and christianity somewhere in the world. No doubt in some communities in the US as well. You'd be hard-pressed to find any religion that was not discriminated against or persecuted somehwere. I'm not saying that it would be state-sponsored or supported, but I have little doubt that it exists.
In any community that is predominantly one religion, people of other religions will likely be discriminated against- but not necessarily persecuted.
That being said, I do have to raise this point about separation of church and state:

While the intent and the interpretation are both that it means "separation of religion and state" it does specify christianity.

Also, the Establishment Caluse states this:

There's nothing in there preventing individual states from making laws about religions. The Founding Fathers did not support giving the Federal Gov't more power than necessary, is this regard they generally had a minimalist philosophy.

In Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) the Supreme Court upheld that the federal government COULD provide funding to a hospital that was run by a Roman Catholic institution. It's only been more recently- mainly since the 1940's- that this trend has been reversed. I have to wonder if we're not straying from what was intended.

Subhuman, you are essentially correct. In 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education,23 used Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter (the first known use of the term "separation of church and state") to extend the constitutional restrictions of the federal government to the legislatures of the States as well. They did so by incorporating the fourteenth amendment (specific State powers) with the First Amendment's provision against an establishment of religion.

The specific excerpt from Jefferson's "Danbury letter" reads as follows:

Source = THOMAS JEFFERSON, WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON VOLUME XVI, PP. 281-282 (1904)

14'th Amendment was a post-civil war amendment. Its wording specificly extends equal protection to all citizens regardless of race. It says nothing about religion.
Although you are correct that Jefferson does seem to be opposed to any level of govermental involvement in religion, however Madison's original proposal read:
[quote'The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established,[/quote]

We have one of the Founding Fathers opposed to any governmental involvement, and another opposed to Federal involvement. In the final wording, Federal intervention was ruled out, but nothing is said about State involvement.

Read at this link, paying particular attention to the Scholarly Commentary:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution...ent01/01.html#1
Here's an excerpt:[quote]Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.'[/quote]

For 160 years the position was that the Federal Gov't couldn't get involved, it's only been the last 60 years that this has changed. While this may be for the best, it does not seem to be what the majority of the Founding Fathers intended.

For those who complain of religious persecution, ask yourselves this: what would the situation be like now if States still had the power to regulate religions?

Obviously it's impossible to play "what if" with accuracy. Since the States had that power up through the mid-twentieth century with very little conflict I'm guessing they'd have figured out a way to more or less get along and the majority of sheeple would be perfectly content, just as they are today.

Football on Sunday would probably be illegal in some States, though. That could be a real heartache in some regions.

It might have been a bit rough for Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Catholics in some regions, Mormons and other less popular denominations.

Oh, and the first line of that classic 'Christmas' song might have been "Wiccans roasting o'er an open fire."


Swanny

1. If you use the term persecution and believe it to be appropriate to how Christians are treated, then I don't see how the word victimized is inappropriate to express your perspective. Isn't it commonly used to describe the persecuted? Indeed, if you did not feel victimized as you claim, what then is the point of this thread and your complaint?

2. Childish venom? You said similar things about birddog's post, discounting his rather valid point that its hard to justify the concept of being persecuted when you uphold such a vast majority. Should you feel compelled to address the point I also would be happy to "entertain" you.

3. What I was attempting to do is expand the concept of Christian influence to view it in macrochasm. Your assertion that Christians (a designation which refers to a collective) are being persecuted warrants looking at effects that the collective of Christians have/have had in my opinion. You however have come your personal defense, misinterpreting my comments as a personal accusation. My post was meant to suggest a psychological cause/effect relationship between collective Christian attitudes of entitlement historically, the physical manifestations of such attitudes coupled with the social and political power Christians wield, and the natural response such attitudes might inspire. By extension, I was also suggesting that you (collectively) take some responsibility in generating a backlash to your own social policies. I'm not suggesting that this as sole cause of your current "persecution". I'm only suggesting that your victimization is not wholly justified when juxtaposed with your collusion and that yes, you (collectively) participate in the dance of social dominance and have an effect as a consequence, except now you complain about perceived losses in preeminence which you interpret as persecution and I would classify as whining.

4. Concerning your example of of the teacher's aid, I think Swanny is addressing that very well.

CC, although the question asked in the poll was whether Christians are persecuted in the world, SCSchamrock's original post read in part

. Since he specified "here in America" I elected to pursue that avenue of debate, and he later furthered the debate in that direction. I don't know if that was his original intent or not, but as he is monitoring the thread I'm sure he can elaborate if necessary.

Subhuman, based on the excellent link you provided (thanks), the full text of Madison's original motion was

It seems to me that the wording "in any manner, or on any pretence" would have made that motion applicable not only to all States, but even to private institutions and citizens. Can you imagine what a mess that might have become? Arguably, an atheist might legally prevail in a suit filed against a private citizen alleging that a cross or nativity scene erected on that private citizen's personal property violates the atheist's equal right of conscience. Meanwhile his Jehovah's Witness neighbor might allege that his refusal to listen to the witness' infringes upon that witness' right to 'spread the word'.

Swanny

I suppose that persecution can mean different things to different folks. I have personally had a 12 gauge shotgun held to my head because of witnessing to a guy. I was also chased by a guy with a broken wine bottle who wanted to use it on my throat. Having said that, compared to some of my friends who live abroad, what I have endured is pretty weak.

As a missionary to Navajos, I have seen what some would call persecution. Often times a Navajo that becomes a Christian is said by some family members to cease to be a Navajo. He has taken the white man's Gospel ( By the way, Jesus was not white. Anther thread for another time). Does this qualify as persecution? I would say so. It is as difficult as what my friend from Syria recently went through (Four days in jail, beatings for being a Christian, having all his bank accounts taken by the government)? Probably not.

Christian Law Association also has a good website that documents incidents of people facing legal difficulties because of their faith. Some of these are clearly misinterpretations by local authorities of case law and fear of lawsuits from ACLU type organizations. To classify these as persecution would most likely be on a case by case basis. The Voice of the Martyrs newsletter (Free!) does a great job of showing persecution around the world. I would highly recommend it!

Just my two cents worth. Have a great day!