Is there a case for making Christianity illegal?

[dbohm]

Before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christianity was in a precarious position. As it was not formally recognised as a religion, it was technically illegal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Sometimes Christians were tolerated and left alone, sometimes used as scapegoats, and other times actively persecuted. Judaism had a bumpy history too, however since it was considered an ethnic religion it was given legal status from the beginning.

Besides rumours about child sacrifice and orgies, it's chief danger lay in the fact that it recognised a more powerful Lord than Caesar. Many Romans believed their obstinacy in this matter especially deserved punishment and could have proven troublesome to the greater peace of Rome. As Pliny wrote himself in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, "Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque asset, quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexible obstinationem debere puniri." 'For I was in no doubt that regardless of what they believed their inflexible obstinacy and pigheadedness definitely should be punished'. If it wasn't for that he regarded it simply as a base and excessive superstition - 'superstitio prava immodica'.

Even today we see Christianity in conflict with secular governments. In China for instance one of the reasons that makes an underground church illegal is teaching the Second Coming as it implies an authority more powerful than the Chinese Government. In most countries in the West, churches are exempt from equal opportunity legislation and also cannot be forced to administer Gay marriages. Also and this has become a particular problem in cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, priests are not obliged by law to relate crimes told in Confessional. Some recent psychologists and atheists have also argued that the concept of Hell amounts to child abuse.

Should Christianity be illegal again? Or at any rate should the State be given the power to decide what legally can or cannot be practised or believed in orthodox Christianity?

[dianaiad]

Isn't it a good thing, then, that the USA has a constitution that forbids this sort of thing?

I mean, consider this: the government isn't some alien computer thing completely apart from the people within it. It's people; people with power.

What happens when these people with power decide that it's YOUR ox they want to gore?

Perhaps the government does those things anyway without us really realizing it?

It tries.

It's up to us to pay attention and not allow it.

The problem here is that those who are saying 'WAIT just a minute here!" are the ones who believe things that the politically correct disagree with. Yet, when the problem was school prayer, everybody was on board with that one; the government should STAY OUT of religion and religion should STAY OUT of government.

Now me, I'm pretty darned religious, all things considered, but I didn't like the idea of mandatory school prayer either. Didn't bug ME much, but I could see that it bothered the atheists and non-Christians who didn't agree with the idea.

I have a real problem with the government figuring that it has any right at all to interfere with the free exercise of religion and religious beliefs...including the belief that there is no god.

The problem is, most people think that it's OK to force others to go along with what they, personally, believe, and only get unhappy when they think someone is about to make them go along with beliefs that others have.

The government needs to stay the heck OUT of it.

[Hamsaka]

Isn't it a good thing, then, that the USA has a constitution that forbids this sort of thing?

I mean, consider this: the government isn't some alien computer thing completely apart from the people within it. It's people; people with power.

What happens when these people with power decide that it's YOUR ox they want to gore?

Perhaps the government does those things anyway without us really realizing it?

It tries.

It's up to us to pay attention and not allow it.

The problem here is that those who are saying 'WAIT just a minute here!" are the ones who believe things that the politically correct disagree with. Yet, when the problem was school prayer, everybody was on board with that one; the government should STAY OUT of religion and religion should STAY OUT of government.

Now me, I'm pretty darned religious, all things considered, but I didn't like the idea of mandatory school prayer either. Didn't bug ME much, but I could see that it bothered the atheists and non-Christians who didn't agree with the idea.

I have a real problem with the government figuring that it has any right at all to interfere with the free exercise of religion and religious beliefs...including the belief that there is no god.

The problem is, most people think that it's OK to force others to go along with what they, personally, believe, and only get unhappy when they think someone is about to make them go along with beliefs that others have.

The government needs to stay the heck OUT of it.

This is precisely the secular (non-religious) position, and the way you write in (in my perception, anyway) it has left room for people to be 'quite religious' like you and not-at-all religious, like me.

Why is it that we hear from Christians who oppose gay marriage then? What is it to them? I know this is a bit off the topic, but how is the GOV'T ruling that gay marriage is allowed taken by some Christians as an attempt to force them to go along with what they don't believe?

[dianaiad]

This is precisely the secular (non-religious) position, and the way you write in (in my perception, anyway) it has left room for people to be 'quite religious' like you and not-at-all religious, like me.

Why is it that we hear from Christians who oppose gay marriage then? What is it to them? I know this is a bit off the topic, but how is the GOV'T ruling that gay marriage is allowed taken by some Christians as an attempt to force them to go along with what they don't believe?

I can only speak for my own view.

(and you have to know that you have opened a can of worms here with me...I can hear the groans coming now...)

I don't care if the government gives the rights of marriage to anybody it wants to.

Go for it.

I care only that in doing so, those who are newly introduced to those rights think THEY have the right, legally, to force others to approve/participate/publicly support it RELIGIOUSLY.

And they sue if they can't do that forcing.

Gay people want to marry each other and have all the rights? Fine. sign the certificate, get the rights, go get married in the church that will officiate. No problem. Shoot, invite me and I'll bake the cake.

Wouldn't be the first time.

But if someone does not see that same sex marriage is 'marriage' according to their religion and beliefs, do NOT force them to participate in or approve of the wedding. To me, that's precisely like the school prayer thing. Nobody should be forced to participate in an event to which they are religiously opposed. Period.

Now me, I don't think that same sex marriage is 'marriage' as I view it, religiously...but that's for me and my beliefs. I can't see that it applies to those who don't share those beliefs.

So, if I have non-Mormon friends who want to tie the knot (and I do) and they ask me to bake the cake and celebrate their day with them...no problem.

but my evangelical neighbor would view having to participate in a gay wedding with as much enthusiasm as being forced to dance nekkid under the full moon while beheading a protesting chicken. It's agin their religions.

I find it....incredibly hypocritical that those who get all hot and bothered over having to stand quietly in a classroom while someone else prays thinks it's just DANDY to force someone to actively participate in an event to which they are religiously opposed, no matter HOW silly/bigotted/whatever it seems to those who approve of the event.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]
For the record, I've already had "Honoring Dianaiad" as my only group for about a year now. Yes, right on here, exactly right! And I'm not Mormon.
I likewise warn all and sundry that bringing up this topic is "touching the 3rd rail" in ever-so-many discussion boards. Please, let's not get dragged into that here once again. That's not the topic.
That said, I do acknowledge that the case for criminalizing Christianity would be a logical extension of what Dianaiad alludes to. Gays sometimes demand that a photographer or caterer handle their wedding ("wedding?"--itself tendentious) or they will sue the businessperson. The case for making Christianity illegal would be some extension of this kind of social (or anti-social, same difference) activity that the majority or powers-that-be declare should be protected by banning anything that lessens tolerance of said activity. "We must ban Christian teaching against the homosexuals that we have declared sacrosanct." This might reach some compromise (we're already near to it) that Christian groups can be allowed that recognize homosexual rights even up to same-sex marriage and homosexual pastors. How far would this go? Would explicit repudiation by such "Christian" groups include denunciation of the OT and Paul in the NT for homophobic teachings?

Well, I said I second Diana's warning against touching this "third rail", but I have opened Pandora's Box. Can we nevertheless close it up and discuss only more broadly the objection of Atheists in general to Christians who teach against "sin" in the forms many Atheists (and Christians, and Jews, and Moslems etc.) engage in, pick your poison maybe and be specific about one example, like extra-marital sex?


s

[Bust Nak]

Bless your heart, sir....they do that all the time.

The fall back position is that no law can prohibit what someone BELIEVES...only what someone can do about it.

That is exactly what I meant, that is as far as militant atheists would go, they wouldn't make Christianity illegal, knowing how it would back fire hard against us.

Well, that's true...but rather circular, given that the US Constitution expressly forbids the government to pass any laws that messes with the free exercise of religious belief.

You know you keep telling me that, and every time I point out it isn't true across the board, and point out an example of an exception that you should be well aware of: the banning of polygamy.

Now me, I'm for making the line "you can behave any way you want to, in service to your religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion, whichever) as long as nobody is forced to do something he doesn't agree to."

The problem, of course, is that no matter what the belief is (or isn't) the people who disagree all seem to want to force their ideas of what's 'proper' on everybody else.

You know how I feel about that, what is 'proper' should be forced.

[dianaiad]

Bless your heart, sir....they do that all the time.

The fall back position is that no law can prohibit what someone BELIEVES...only what someone can do about it.

That is exactly what I meant, that is as far as militant atheists would go, they wouldn't make Christianity illegal, knowing how it would back fire hard against us.

Well, that's true...but rather circular, given that the US Constitution expressly forbids the government to pass any laws that messes with the free exercise of religious belief.

You know you keep telling me that, and every time I point out it isn't true across the board, and point out an example of an exception that you should be well aware of: the banning of polygamy.

..........and that one is getting tested. In fact, it's rather funny. One of the big rallying cries of the evangelical Christian set against legalizing gay marriage is 'what next, POLYGAMY?"

It looks like that may be next. The Constitution is the basis, but people keep wanting to find the loopholes, because, at the bottom, those who want to tell other people what to do don't LIKE the Constitution.

Now me, I'm for making the line "you can behave any way you want to, in service to your religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion, whichever) as long as nobody is forced to do something he doesn't agree to."

The problem, of course, is that no matter what the belief is (or isn't) the people who disagree all seem to want to force their ideas of what's 'proper' on everybody else.

You know how I feel about that, what is 'proper' should be forced.

Aye...but who gets to decide what's 'proper?"

[Bust Nak]

..........and that one is getting tested. In fact, it's rather funny. One of the big rallying cries of the evangelical Christian set against legalizing gay marriage is 'what next, POLYGAMY?"

It looks like that may be next. The Constitution is the basis, but people keep wanting to find the loopholes, because, at the bottom, those who want to tell other people what to do don't LIKE the Constitution.

Well, atheists require the Constitution for protection as much as Christians, if not more so, since we are the vast minority.

Aye...but who gets to decide what's 'proper?"

That's an easy question to answer: What is proper is subjective, so I get to decide, as just each individual would have to decide. The hard question is how we resolve differences in opinion.

[dianaiad]

..........and that one is getting tested. In fact, it's rather funny. One of the big rallying cries of the evangelical Christian set against legalizing gay marriage is 'what next, POLYGAMY?"

It looks like that may be next. The Constitution is the basis, but people keep wanting to find the loopholes, because, at the bottom, those who want to tell other people what to do don't LIKE the Constitution.

Well, atheists require the Constitution for protection as much as Christians, if not more so, since we are the vast minority.

Oh, I agree that atheists require the protection of the Constitution as much as do Christians...but not MORE than Christians, and not INSTEAD of Christians. ....and I thought that everybody was all excited about how religion is going into disfavor and atheism is growing by leaps and bounds?

Aye...but who gets to decide what's 'proper?"

That's an easy question to answer: What is proper is subjective, so I get to decide, as just each individual would have to decide. The hard question is how we resolve differences in opinion.

yes indeed, you get to decide for YOU. But as soon as you are talking about...how did you put this..."what is proper should be forced..." then you are claiming to be able to decided for others what "Proper" is.

Now me, I think "proper" includes: breakfast is the most important meal of the day, no dating until the age of sixteen, don't have sex until you are married, you STAY married unless your spouse cheats on you or hurts you (or the kids), don't smoke tobacco (or anything else, unless it's good meat in the back yard smoker) or drink alcohol, don't go to movies or listen to music that celebrates the degradation of women, never say the "F" word, dancing is NOT the same thing as simulated sex on stage,,,,well, there are a great many things that I think are 'proper.'

I rather imagine that you disagree with at least one of the above things. Do I have the right to force my idea of 'proper' on you?

Do you have the right to force me to participate in things that you deem 'proper?"

And which of our opinions should count? Because between you and me and the fencepost, I vote for mine.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]

Hey, you can open a can of worms on me anytime

This is my 'distillation' of your point, using your quotes, you did a great job with this answer btw. It's your fault that I'm going to go on and on and further derail the thread, due to your excellent reply

I care only that in doing so, those who are newly introduced to those rights think THEY have the right, legally, to force others to approve/participate/publicly support it RELIGIOUSLY.

*If* this is the intent of gays and gay supporters, I'd be one of the first to stand up and tear into them for the hypocrisy of it all. Fortunately I have yet to hear from a gay or gay supporter than their intention is to FORCE religious acceptance, in person or in the media. Not saying there aren't extremophiles in every group, and if they are telling YOU as a religious person you must give your approval and religious public support, they are hypocrites.

But if someone does not see that same sex marriage is 'marriage' according to their religion and beliefs, do NOT force them to participate in or approve of the wedding.

Refer to the above. A question I have for you is how would YOU as a religious person be FORCED to participate (however) and approve of it?

Now me, I don't think that same sex marriage is 'marriage' as I view it, religiously...but that's for me and my beliefs. I can't see that it applies to those who don't share those beliefs.

Yes! And so . . . I'm back at my question. I'll be honest here -- where in the world did you (even the generic 'you' religious person) get the impression that you are being demanded to accept and affirm this? It's more like -- just get out of the way and let people who want this to have it, there's no reason for them not to.

I find it....incredibly hypocritical that those who get all hot and bothered over having to stand quietly in a classroom while someone else prays thinks it's just DANDY to force someone to actively participate in an event to which they are religiously opposed, no matter HOW silly/bigotted/whatever it seems to those who approve of the event.

Hear hear. Agreed on every point you make. Yet, there's that word FORCE again, and better, 'forced participation' in an event they are religiously opposed. How exactly would that be done? I really don't understand the mechanics here!

If a gaggle of gays mobbed your temple and threw a big ole gay wedding party, that would be trespassing, correct? They couldn't go do that at most Catholic churches either. Clearly, neither religion is OK with homosexuality or gay marriage, so the church and it's buildings are naturally off limits. Wouldn't they be? Discussions have been well under way as to where a homosexual couple can get a church wedding and where not.

There's plenty of places to get married, churches included, that are welcoming, so why would they make a beeline for the Tabernacle? (besides it being an extremely fabulous building to have a wedding and party in lol).

You are by far not the first Christian to make these statements and I'm baffled as to WHO exactly is threatening some kind of force here, in terms of acceptance or participation. I promise I am not being intentionally dense.

If there is anything in this equal marriage rights thing about forcing all churches to perform gay weddings, or all pastors or whatever, that would be WRONG, and at least in the gay communities I've known, they really don't care if the generic you accept or participate or what. They just want to get married. They don't care if the generic you won't 'call' it real marriage to their faces, because state's laws dictate marriage, not church laws. That would be downright Orwellian to dictate what people THINK and FEEL.

The beef they have is religious people voting and lobbying against THEM being able to get married like heterosexual couples. They want religious folks to stop trying to prevent two private citizens of the same sex getting married. That's it. That religious lobbies have coalesced around outlawing gay marriage should never have happened in a government where separation of church and state are the standard. It's why we even have to VOTE AT ALL. Now talk about FORCING other people to accept and participate in what they don't believe in! Do you see how that is exactly what agin' gay marriage lobbying is? It's the same thing. I realize being a religious person it won't LOOK the same, because of the bias, and I'm sure that goes both ways, too.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 39 by Hamsaka]
That's what you're saying TODAY. In six months you will be joining all your LBGT buddies is supporting exactly what your final paragraph states NOW. I predict you will be in lockstep with them when they demand ever more unfair and intrusive actions and thoughts than they did the year (day?) before.

Speaking of predictions, you've already fulfilled what I predicted in my Post #34:
"Well, I said I second Diana's warning against touching this "third rail", but I have opened Pandora's Box. Can we nevertheless close it up and discuss only more broadly the objection of Atheists in general to Christians who teach against "sin" in the forms many Atheists (and Christians, and Jews, and Moslems etc.) engage in, pick your poison maybe and be specific about one example, like extra-marital sex?"