Christian Persecution, Some say it doesn't exist.

I'll plead "guilty" to the charge of simple resentment.

While I strongly feel my beliefs are of equal validity to those of anyone else, I have NEVER claimed that they, or my own "cultural tradition or racial group" is superior to ANY others, let alone to all others. Therefore I'm going to claim "not guilty" to that one.

Source = http://www.allwords.com/word-ethnocentricity.html

Swanny

Not a problem, Swanny. Thanks for taking the time to post them again. I just think it is a great thing to bring the names of these "unknown" heroes back into the forefront.

Hi Swanny!

Thanks for posting that list! Check out the name of my home town!

<--------------

It was named after George Wythe, as was the county I live in, Wythe Co., Virginia!

Good to see these guys getting some well-deserved recognition!

Swanny,

Since this has primarily been a debate between you and me, I thought I would take a moment to quote a few of your comments and offer an opinion. I hope you will indulge me.

Government persecution of some Native American religions (not my own, but nonetheless valid and widely accepted Native belief systems) continues to this day. In 1990 two Native American Church members were fired from their jobs for their ceremonial use of peyote. They filed claims for unemployment compensation, but were turned down because they had been dismissed for “misconduct.” Dozens of religious organizations supported their claim that their free exercise of religion should allow their religious use of peyote. The Supreme Court held that they had no right to free exercise of religion that transcended otherwise valid laws. The Congress responded by passing, in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sought to extend free-exercise rights, but that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 on grounds similar to those originally cited in the Smith case.

You site this as your one example of Indian religious persecution. How can this be so, after some of your more verbose remarks on what constitutes persecution? And considering, by the words used in this example, that the Indians in question were not fired for their religion, but rather for the use of illegal hallucinogenic drugs, how do you arrive at the conclusion that persecution took place? I think this would make a fantastic thread all on its own.

So please, don't presume that I don't understand 'religious persecution' simply because I am not a Christian and please don't expect me to extend more than a modicum of sympathy for your perceived 'persecution'. While I am a little bit sorry that you sometimes have to face the same sorts of issues that I've had to face because of my beliefs, I can't help but think that sometimes "what goes around comes around".

I don't seem to recall ever saying that I have been personally persecuted. Did I do that? The point of this quote is to show you what I view as ethnocentricity. For by your words "what goes around comes around", you imply that even though Christians have had to face the same sorts of issues that you have had to face, their's is self-inflicted, while yours is innocent of wrongdoing. So by implication, in regards to religion, yours is superior. I suppose you could say that the 'comes around goes around' line was intended for anyone who faces such issues, including yourself, but you would have to find us all very gullible to make that work.

In fact, I'll consider any source other than Christian biased rhetoric.

How would we determine what you consider rhetoric, and what you would consider honest information? Am I to assume that if the author is a professing Christian, that his work can by no means be trusted?

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.

This paragraph struck a nerve in me, but at the time I wasn't sure why. Then today it dawned on me the double-standard here. On the one hand, if teachers wear cross necklaces, or allow the children to have prayer before lunch, or allow the children to distribute religious literature to one another, or discuss creation vs. evolution, then they are in violation of the Establishment Clause because clearly, as employees of the government, they are seen as promoting religion. However, when it comes to their attacks of the same types of issues, then the government is relieved of any guilt of persecution because they are not constitutional attorneys. Is that about right? It must be, because you later said "My position is that Christians are not PERSECUTED by the government." So which is it, do teachers and other school employees represent government, or do they not?

My post probably wasn't as clearly written as it should have been. This cases was cited because it is a recent example showing that government persecution of Native religions persists to our current time. It was in response to Wizard of Owl's assertion that because I'm not Christian I don't understand persecution. As an example of "persecution" it was based at least partially on your interpretatin of the word in question and in comparison to some of the examples of the social persecution that you cited. If you would prefer stronger examples of 20th century government persecution against Native American religions and cultures I can provide plenty of them. I think you are right, it would make an interesting thread on it's own.

This is a fast moving thread, so it sometimes behooves us to consider previous posts in the full context in which they were written. I'll try to extend to you that same courtesy, and if I forget to do so please don't hesitate to remind me.

No, I'm not saying Christian persecution is self-inflicted. Lets be clear though. Those that have behaved rudely toward me or threatened me with physical harm due to my religious beliefs (or their perceptions of my beliefs) were not Muslims, they were not Jews, they were not Atheists, they were not Rastafarians and they were not Bhudists.
Each and everyone of them was a self-proclaimed Christian.

So when I write "what goes around comes around" it is a way of explaining that I am not very sypathetic to Christians who seem to be complaining about the same behaviors that Christians have so regularly inflicted upon others. My experiences with those who profess to be followers of Christ have not always been very positive and it leaves me personally rather distrustful. Actions speak louder than words, and even the Bible notes that fact. (reference Matthew 7:20). Depending on which particular version of the Bible you read - "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

The short answer is "Yes". If it's an important point to the debate I will not trust a source written from a Christian perspective until the facts have been verified from a sectarian source. We've already seen in this debate how even the highly respected Rutherford Institute is willing to omit important parts of a story in order to pursue their best interest. The art of misinformation isn't limited to politicians and political liberals and some Christian sources seem to play pretty fast and loose with the ninth commandment ("Thou shalt not bear false witness" - often translated as "Thou shalt not lie."

I'm running really late. I'll address your last point later on, when I have more time to do so.

Swanny

I'm running really late. I'll address your last point later on, when I have more time to do so.

Sooner, later, when you have time. Very nice answers to my questions, although I'm not in particular agreement with them. The answer to the Indian religious persecution was spot on, and I have no doubt that there have been a number of verifiable instances of it. I will say, however, that in considering the definition of what that word means, I must stay with the one that makes sense to me. I see it clearly in a variety of religions, though none in America nearly so profound as against Christians. Regardless, it is obviously a point that we disagree upon, and to that I think we can both agree.

Swanny

Thanks for you patience and understanding, SC. It's truly appreciated. It's true we will continue to disagree, but it's wonderful that we live in a nation where we can be free to do so, and neither of us risking imprisonment or worse. We are in agreement on many other issues, so one out of several shouldn't really cause us a lot of heartburn.

That the paragraph struck a nerve is actually a good thing. It shows you are really paying attention and putting a lot of thought into this debate. The thread has caused me to do the same, reexamining some long held feelings and attitudes. At the least it's caused me to acknowlege some of things about myself that I've long taken for granted.

We can address this paragraph from several directions. Let's start by putting it in context. I wrote that paragraph simply to show that honest mistakes don't necessarily equate to persecution. I've never advocating giving them a pass though. I've repeated stated that such events as you described should be challenged by those with the legal standing to do so. If they are not challenged then those behaviors won't be changed. It's pretty much that simple.

Let's take a look at which of behaviors have been challenged in the United States in the past, and the outcomes of those challenges. First off, teachers disciplined for wearing religious themed jewelry. There is a pretty good article that addresses this topic at

Religious Tolerance. org

I found the resolution of this case in a news article at First Amendment Center . org

Notwithstanding the outcome of the case above, the FAQ answer below from First Amendment Center . Org has this to say about prohibitions against public school teachers religious displays:

I find it interesting to note that neither of the illustrative cases presented in this statement referred to a display promoting Christian beliefs. Not sure if they were cherry picking cases or not, as the site strikes me as being pretty much neutral in terms of promoting any specific religion.

Regarding the student behaviors you mentioned, case law indicates that teachers may not legally interfere in peer initiated religious activities such as prayer, Bible discussion, &c.

Again from First Amendment Center.org, we have this regarding prayer in public schools:

Regarding religious discussions, the same source provides this:

So, if teachers are preventing students from engaging in any of those protected activities then it should be challenged - "by those with legal standing" (i.e. the students or their parents/guardians).

There is no argument that the Government holds teachers and other school officials to a much higher standard than students or the general population. First Amendment Center . Org also addressed this issue, which I found of interest.

I agree strongly with that statement, so there probably is a double-standard in my opinion in that regard.

Swanny

Unconscionable eh? My you are an extremist. Obviously I recognize the diversity of opinion in any generalized group, and simply because I didn't bring up that point doesn't mean I don't understand it, I simply assumed it to be a matter of common sense.

Any large body or social organization as influential as Christians however diverse has a collective impact. My point was to address that only. It was a different idea I thought I'd bring into the discussion. Its hardly unconventional nor is it unconscionable, yet you seem to possess a fondness for ignoring ideas which are inconvenient for you to address and have done so with birddog, celtic coalition and myself. Fine. I won't belabour the point. Go ahead and quibble over terminology until the cows come home, knock yourself out.

Since its "unconscionable" that I view Christians as a general categorization (not Christendom) then by what qualifications do your posts refrain from being "unconscionable" by using the same generalization may I ask?

You will probably ignore that question, but if your reply is something akin to "I'm right because of my faith" may I remind you that is not a valid argument. Before you twist my meaning to suit you, I'm not saying your faith isn't valid, I'm saying that statement or facsimile thereof is not a valid argument.

Now, don't mind me....go ahead and banter with Swanny.

Hi Antwn.

Hey, not meaning to jump in between the dialog between you and Shamrock, but please indulge me.

Here is my problem with the broad term of christendom. There are those groups who thought it was alright to "encourage" people to convert to Christianity by offering them that opportunity or losing their heads. There are those who would claim ethnic superiority under the broad term of christendom. Neither of those views, among others, would reflect those of myself or most of those in whose circles I run. I understand where you are coming from with the term, but I hope you can see my personal distaste for the term from where I sit.

It would be like me lumping together all Native American beliefs or tribes into one unit. I happen to work on the Navajo Reservation and there are huge differences in thought processes here than say in Tahlequah, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma capital. And at least among the Native Americans I know, they resent the "lumping in" with other groups.

Just my two cents worth. Have a great day!

1. And you stereotype. Call it "collective" if you wish, but those of us who identify ourselves as Christian fully realize incredible diversity amongst our various denominations and levels of understanding. It is with that, and the fact that many of us who profess Christianity (myself included, and I am repeating myself) do so apart from any organized or structured system. To have another tell me: "Amid your whining about your victimization, you might take some responsibility for the incredible social influence you have and the repercussions which ensue in the way you brandish it", only later to claim to have been addressing a group collectively, clearly doesn't understand what they are saying, or otherwise feels fully justified in making such sweeping assumptions. And another thing. You obviously feel there is some level of equality among this collective group called Christians. Define that for me.

2. The answer to my last question will sufficiently address this nonsense too.

3. I haven't used the same generalizations. There is a distinct difference in the charge you lay at the feet of all Christians, and the statements I have made. I haven't remotely implied a non-diversified position with one exception, and that is the assertion of Christians being persecuted in numbers, and the name Jesus being the catalyst for this persecution. Try again.

Amid the generalizations used by everyone on this forum when referring to a large group of ethno-religious or philosophical commonality we've had Christians, Muslims, Native Americans, Jews and even marxist socialists represented. The practice is not distinct to me by any means.

And yes, I was referring to the collective all along. Why would I have begun my initial post speaking about Christians collectively then ask you as an individual to take personal responsibility for the activities of the collective I was referring to?

To reiterate, I was making a point that a large social group has a collective impact, its unavoidable. No group with any social, political, military or economic impact anywhere is without influence. I'm simply suggesting that Christians recognize and take responsibility for the repercussions of their collective body as one explanation for reasons your so called "persecution" might have erupted. Its not a complicated thought.

By way of analogy, Europeans practiced cultural genocide against indigenous populations in the Americas. Does that mean every European settler agreed with, participated in, had equal power and authority in, sanctioned or was personally involved in it? No, at least not directly. However when talking about the impact made by post 1492 European influence in North America, its not only valid but common to talk about Europeans as a collective group is it not? For the sake of brevity few will spend the time in a conversation endlessly qualifying a generalization in this context to apease indignant nitpickers.

By your logic for example, news reports could never refer to American influence in Iraq without taking up needless time in qualifying disclaimers to explain that not all Americans have equal personal influence, nor agree with American policy necessarily, nor share an equal degree of political power and that without such differentiations the use of the term American in that context is "unconcsionable".

Endless quibbling over semantics gets old, you think we can move on now?