Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Post #1

Post by 1John2_26 »

Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Do Christians endure being hated like no other group?

The Media's War on the "War on Christians" Conference
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 31, 2006


Last week (March 27-28), Vision America convened a War On Christians conference in Washington, D.C. It was the first to address escalating attacks on Christians from Hollywood, the news media, academia, the courts, and activist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.

Speakers included scholars, authors, clergy (among them an Orthodox rabbi), lawyers and members of Congress. Delegates came from as far away as South Africa. I was the conference coordinator, as well as a speaker on two panels ("Jews Confront the War On Christians" and "Hollywood: Christians Through a Distorted Lens").

You will be shocked shocked! to learn that the mainstream media did its best to trivialize and marginalize the conference: to present a thoughtful examination of the rising tide of anti-Christian bias and persecution as the work of hysterical, paranoid whack-jobs who are manufacturing a crisis to generate donations and mobilize Republican votes.

An alleged news story in The Washington Post, (March 29th) by Alan Cooperman, was headlined "War on Christians Is Alleged." Try to imagine the Post covering the 2005 conference Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right and headlining its story "Coming Theocracy Alleged."
Cooperman misidentified Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America (the conference host) as a "radio commentator." You know, one of those guys who screams at you over the airwaves. In fact, besides being the head of a growing national movement, Scarborough is a Baptist minister, an author and an acclaimed speaker.
Cooperman included extensive quotes attacking the conference SOP for reportage on conservative events. A professor of social ethics charged that the meeting was "a spoiled brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position." A mainline Protestant cleric claimed that by calling attention to the war on Christians in the U.S., the conference "disrespects the experience of people who have been jailed and died because of their faith."
This theme dominated news "coverage" Christians are so powerful that its absurd to claim theyre persecuted. Thus, a commentary in USA Today (March 28th) by Tom Krattenmaker (who called the conferences theme "overblown" and reckless): "We are in the second term of the most faith-friendly, explicitly Christian presidency in many a decade.Hollywood is producing more Christian-friendly movies [like The DaVinci Code? DF] while Christian news media, Christian music, Christian novels and other forms of Christian pop culture continue making their strong mark on society." Im only surprised Krattenmaker didnt cite the presence of "In God We Trust" on our currency to refute claims of Christian persecution.
Apparently, a majority of Americans are equally hysterical, reckless and disrespectful of real persecution. According to a FOX News poll taken in December 2005, 59 percent of the American people agreed with conference organizers that "Christianity is under attack" in the U.S. today.

In reality, you have to be dogmatic, blind and biased which pretty much describes the mainstream media to miss the obvious here.

V for Vendetta is the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date. Its set in a Britain, 20 years in the future, ruled by a murderous regime of Christian fanatics. (Would Warner Brothers distribute a film about Britain becoming an Islamic republic?) V for Vendetta was the number one box-office draw in its first week of release, and number two in its second, with a cumulative gross revenue of over $46 million.
The latest literary hatchet-job by Kevin Phillips (American Theocracy) claims our civilization will be undone by (among other things) a "milieu of radicalized (and much too influential) religion." With the faithful fighting to keep "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (and the teaching of Creationism recently banned by a federal judge lest students be inspired to meditate on the "G" word), Phillips charge that religion is much too influential in America should provoke peals of uproarious laughter. "American Theocracy" just made it on The New York Times Bestsellers list further evidence of the formidable power of radicalized religion.
In California, an employer can be fined $150,000 (thats not a typo) for firing a man who comes to work in a dress. Believe it or not, the law wasnt intended to target secular humanists.
Hewlett-Packard fired a Christian for posting near his cubicle a sign with Bible verses relating to the prohibition of men lying with men. This was in response to a celebrate sexual-diversity sign posted by the company. Hewlett-Packard does not celebrate diversity of opinion.
At colleges across the country, Christian groups have lost their accreditation for refusing to accept homosexuals as officers. Thus, at schools founded by Christians and endowed by Christians Christians are forced to choose between their conscience and the ability to hold meetings on campus.
In the New York City public school system, Moslem crescents and menorahs are displayed during certain holidays, but not Christmas trees or crches. Incredibly, school officials have decided that the former are non-religious (try telling that to bin Laden) but the latter strictly sectarian.
Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution attacking the Catholic Church for teaching that children should be placed for adoption with mothers and fathers. The resolution called this "hateful and discriminatory."
Last weekend, the Christian youth group Teen Mania held a two-day revival for 25,000 kids in the city that inspired the moniker San Francisco Democrats. Supervisors labeled this "an act of provocation," while State Assemblyman Mark Leno called it a "fascist mega-pep rally."
Evangelicals have been described as "a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America" (former Labor Secretary Robert Reich), determined to "Christianize all aspects of American Life" (the ADLs Abraham Foxman), "moral retards" and "an ugly, violent lot" (City University of New York Professor Timothy Shortell), possessed of "the same kind of fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia" (Al Gore), and responsible for moving America "each day closer to a theocracy where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule" (a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Jane Fonda, Ed Asner and other Hollywood savants).
And, in Philadelphia not quite two years ago, a group of Christians with Repent America were arrested for holding signs and quietly praying at a city-sponsored gay pride event. Though the Christians obeyed all police orders and were accosted by militants, they were arrested and spent 20 hours in jail. The City of Brotherly Love wanted to prosecute them for a laundry list of felonies, including criminal conspiracy. If convicted, they could have faced up to 47 years in prison. (Fortunately, a reality-based judge ruled the Christians were exercising their First Amendment rights and threw out the case.) No other group in America has seen its free-speech rights attacked in similar fashion.
Granted, the foregoing doesnt rise to the level of persecution in Afghanistan (where a man was threatened with death for converting to Christianity), Saudi Arabia (where the New Testament is contraband), or China (where the organizers of home churches are imprisoned). And, granted again, unlike Europe, Christianity is thriving in America.

But to say the presidency of George W. Bush proves the potency of conservative Christians is a real stretch.

Bushs rep as an "explicitly Christian" president is based mostly on the 2000 campaign, wherein he referred to Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Last year, White House "Christmas" cards didnt even mention by name the holiday celebrated by more than 90 percent of Americans. Bush invokes the Almighty no more than any of his predecessors.

Despite a GOP majority reputed to be the love-slaves of Jerry Falwell, its been almost two years since Congress voted a on a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other than a ban on partial-birth abortion, the political agenda of Christian conservatives has been studiously ignored in our nations capital.

The news and entertainment media, public education, higher education, the judiciary and a fair number of corporations and foundations are in the hands of ideologues who despise Bible-believing Christians, and who rarely miss an opportunity to smear them, to foment hatred against them and to circumscribe their activities.

Give the National Socialists credit for candor. In 1920s Germany, if a Jew had said to a Nazi, "You hate me," the goose-steeper would have replied: "Youre right, Jew. And if we ever get a chance, well kill you." He would not have accused his victim of paranoia, hysteria, disrespecting real religious persecution, and making wild allegations for fundraising purposes.

The war on Christians is real. So too is the medias thoroughly biased coverage of same.

User avatar
palmera
Scholar
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:49 pm

Post #21

Post by palmera »

"1John2_26"]What's too bad is that children are not only Sodomized but are taught it is a civil right to do so. My excitement comes from defending children that are vulnerable to adults getting to them. Thank you for noticing my passion. It IS getting through, even to you atheists that support the civil rights of sexual perversion. Sorry I cannot join with you on that issue. Children need to be protected
I've never heard of children who are sexually abused taught that adults have a civil right to abuse them. Where is this taught and by whom? Should you do find a place where this is taught, then notice an important distinction: it would be emphasized that it is the civil right of a heterosexual male to sodomize a child. After all, the vast majority of sex offenders (against children et. al) are heterosexual males.

Yes, atheists (and some Christians alike) do support the civil rights of "sexual perversion," in the same way that they support the civil rights religious freedom, even though they may find certain religious doctrines or the whole idea of religion extremely perverse.
Let's go to the maternity ward and see where babies come from for starters. Then, we'll follow the evidence backwards and see what we discover about correct sexuality.
Here's the thing about this argument: it doesn't really say anything important. Yes, the male and female anatomies function so that each needs the other in order to conceive a child. Is child bearing the only purpose of sex? Most people including scientists: (i.e. zoologists, anthropologists, biologists, sociologists et. al.) would say quite simply: no. Intercourse isn't just about conceiving children- it's much more than that. Therefore to argue that because anal sex doesn't produce children, it's not right, just doesn't hold up. In fact it's a moot point because no one argues against it and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #22

Post by OccamsRazor »

1John2_26 wrote:Getting your feelings hurt is something I care nothing about.
I think that you have missed my point. You are not hurting my feelings, I simply say that it does not constitute intelligent debate.
1John2_26 wrote:
You seem to respond by purely mocking every view which is contrary to your position.
Yes I mock absurdity.
Are you therefore suggesting that all views contrary to your own are absurd?
1John2_26 wrote:I have seen many peole fold their tents and go home. It is the typical liberal response to being challenged in the same way they challenge others.
I am not surprised that people "pack up their tents and go home". This is a typical response of someone who believes that every opinion differing from their own is absurd and not worthy of reasonable consideration.
1John2_26 wrote:I present facts to counter your points. I'm sure that is unsettling in someone that thought they were being taught the truth.
John, the statements you are making are not self-evident. I don't know what you are suggesting by "someone that thought they were being taught the truth" however I believe that neither of us can proclaim objective truth, merely differing philosphical positions.
1John2_26 wrote:I do test all things. It is a Christian thing.
Surely this is is an oxymoron. Christianity, like any religion, is based on pragmatic truth rather than epistemology.

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #23

Post by OccamsRazor »

1John2_26 wrote:They are all protested against incessantly. George Bush is a hate crimes perpetrator in San Francisco and most of California, Massachusetts, New York, Seattle. As is any white Christian male that disapproves of homosexuality.
Do you think that because these people are Christian then they should not be protested against or disagreed with?

It appears that you have still not answered my question. Do you not agree that white Christian men are the most powerful demographic on Earth? How does this make them a victimised minority?
1John2_26 wrote:In Europe "homophobia" is now a crime.
I am European and I applaud this law entered into the EU this January. I should clarify the law however
the resolution called for action against member states who fail to implement programs directed at fair treatment of homosexuals in employment and occupation, and to "ensure that same-sex partners enjoy the same respect, dignity and protection as the rest of society."
If you, 1John2_26, lived in Europe you would not be convicted of a "hate crime" (using the term you are so fond of) for having your views.

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #24

Post by Lotan »

OccamsRazor wrote:Do you not agree that white Christian men are the most powerful demographic on Earth?
Did you mean to say 'heterosexual' white Christian men?
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #25

Post by OccamsRazor »

Did you mean to say 'heterosexual' white Christian men?
Sorry, you are right. I missed that key part.

Nick Hallandale
Apprentice
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: Fort Pierce, Fl

Post #26

Post by Nick Hallandale »

It always seems to me that the Christians are hung up on sex.
Most of my neighbors are Christians. Once a month the development I live in has a party on a Sunday afternoon. My wife likes to go to them so I get stuck going also.
The big topic of conversation is gossip about people's sex practices.
When they talk politics it is all about Roe v Wade, and homosexuals and same sex marriage.
If the homosexuals get married it won't cost me a dime....meanwhile their hero george W Bush is costing me a fortune with that crazy war in Iraq.
When I buy gas it is $2.70 a gallon.
The way I see it the pornographers, homosexuals, and those cheating on their spouses don't bother me at all. But I think I am being screwed by the Christian right agenda.

Nick Hallandale
Nick Hallandale enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net
If GOD gave us a conscience, doesn''t he expect us to obey?
If GOD expects us to obey, can we expect judgement and reward or punishment?

melikio
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Nothing Special; Nothing New

Post #27

Post by melikio »

No, Christians aren't targeted as 1John often obsesses about (IMO). They meet with opposition at times, and unfortuantely the reputation of the label "Christian" brings with it VALID negative connotations. Those don't have to be argued, but it is reasonable and fair to take note of what some people inject into their "Christianity". Some of the "Christians" have been their own worse enemies, in many cases taking on friendly-fire at both the spiritual and social levels; some (Christians) have blamed "others" for the problems they endure today.

It is true that that belief system certainly has true enemies (as any other system does), but I think many of the claims of persecution exuded by Christians today (especially in this nation), indicates the thin-skinned nature of the theology which many have be indoctrinated with. That is, "Christianity" (the essence of what it truly is), is not as weak and fragile as some seem to indicate.
Soon it will be anyone that teaches that the human rectum is not a sex organ. The sperm is for ovem and ovum for sperm making sexuality only one way. It is clear that the day is now here where those immutable facts are now seen as a hate crime for believing the truth.
Sex has never been ONE way this/that. Not to say that just anything is "approved" of, but to promote the foolish idea that people have been perfectly conformed to this/that, is a false.

The human "rectum" is used by heterosexuals for the purpose of sexual expression also; and likely many homosexuals are no more into that than some heterosexuals.

I suppose this is your attempt to inject the empiricism you so often claims supports your positions. I understand the effort, but in order for it to work you have to be "realistic", and so often you simply are not.

BTW, what caused you to be so obsessed with homosexuality overall? I really didn't expect you to inject the issue of homosexuality into yet another thread, but here it is. :| It's like you can ignore every other problem known to mankind, because you are so sigularly-focused upon the ONE fault which draws your attention (D-I-V-O-R-C-E, is a pretty MAJOR problem you know). It is interesting to zoom out of the discussions, and see that you do focus heavily upon homosexuals and homosexuality.

-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-

melikio
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

The Enemy isn't Always External

Post #28

Post by melikio »

Nick Hallandale wrote:It always seems to me that the Christians are hung up on sex.
Most of my neighbors are Christians. Once a month the development I live in has a party on a Sunday afternoon. My wife likes to go to them so I get stuck going also.
The big topic of conversation is gossip about people's sex practices.
When they talk politics it is all about Roe v Wade, and homosexuals and same sex marriage.
If the homosexuals get married it won't cost me a dime....meanwhile their hero george W Bush is costing me a fortune with that crazy war in Iraq.
When I buy gas it is $2.70 a gallon.
The way I see it the pornographers, homosexuals, and those cheating on their spouses don't bother me at all. But I think I am being screwed by the Christian right agenda.
Nick, I think you see what you do, because "Christian" traditions have generally not allowed people to be both open and honest about human sexuality. It's not far from mentioning sex, to people going to one of two extremes:

1. They will talk about it only objectively, because they are ashamed of their own past. (They talk about "others".)

2. They will loudly and proudly profess their tales of sexual-conquest or experience (usually heterosexual-males).

The Christian-Right Agenda is basically evil and ominous because it ends up promoting CONTROLS upon people, rather than promoting the same "within" people. Yes, some people ARE controlled by temptation and sin, but there is nothing necessarily better or good about subjecting an entire society to religious laws.

It is a cliche', but it is worth noting: "Morality cannot be legislated."

Some people want this nation to become a "theocracy", rather than exuding the faith they have in God, and trusting Him to shape society. They want to IMPOSE their "God" upon other human beings. Sex is usually targeted, because it is likely one of the most common and universal expressions human beings can relate to; if that can be controlled by the power-mongers and zealots, they know they have a massive amount of influence indeed.

And I agree with the majority of people, who believe that children SHOULD be very well-protected; not unduly influenced or subjected to anything "sexual". I agree with laws which protect people (to the extent that they can be effective). Additionally, it is also important to understand that people are "sexual"; they aren't going to stop having sex, and not all sexual-encounters are going to be aligned with biblical standards; to impose such by law, would be ineffective and basically wrong. And I agree that individual churches should have the right to "impose" guidelines as they see fit, where sexual morality and responsibility are concerned.

Be all that as it may, part of what draws fire to Christianity is that many of its adherents do not regard the DIFFERENCE between shraring the Word and imposing the Word (playing God). Christianity DOES have real enemies, but many are already within the walls of the various church buildings.

-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-

User avatar
scorpia
Sage
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:31 am

Post #29

Post by scorpia »

Do Christians endure being hated like no other group?
As much as I dislike 1 John's arguments I am afraid that it does seem at least to me that Christians, or more appropriately Christianity, are rather hated.

Some people unfortunately feed that hatred, although who and how is another debate. :-s
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.

Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #30

Post by OccamsRazor »

scorpia wrote:...I am afraid that it does seem at least to me that Christians, or more appropriately Christianity, are rather hated.
I still find this point of veiw quite surprising. I have made this point before to 1John:
OccamsRazor wrote:Do you not agree that white heterosexual(Added) Christian men are the most powerful demographic on Earth?
Your profile shows that you do not entirely fall into this demographic. However my point still stands that Christianity is the largest religion and among its numbers are people who hold the most powerful stations on the planet. How can anyone justify the argument that Christians are a marginalised victim of persecution?

Post Reply