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]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]


*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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. However, I appreciate your position, and welcome you to my side of the fence, joining the folks who object to forcing a photographer to 'shoot' a gay wedding when that photographer is religiously opposed to the event.

Welcome to the side that objects to forcing a church group to provide the venue for a gay wedding, when the church itself is against the idea.

You are quite right; there are many other people offering services such as these.

[squint]

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?

Some christians oppose various doctrines, such as "eternal hell" promotions for people as well. So it's not just shrinks and atheists.

That doesn't mean that "eternal hell" isn't a valid sight for the devil and his messengers for example. And scripturally speaking "these" are "overlapped" with mankind, so the confusion is a natural outcome within the realms of understanding.

It's one of many glaring "thought" faults in the arena of doctrines in general. The failure to take into account "all" the parties to the drama of scripture and to just see "man" singular when that is not the presentation.

For example, many see freewill at some point in a child's future. The actual point is debated. I think it's stupid -> because if a child dies prior to freewill coming into play said child would NOT go to hell, THEREFORE the logical extension would be that their deaths prior to freewill enactment would result in HEAVEN and their freewill enactment would result in a substantially larger portion of hell's inhabitants.

It's a bad sequence of thoughts resulting in bad doctrinal positions.

Some sects such as roman catholics have a heterodox position that babies could be in the infamous "limbo." Another idiotic progression.

The Roman catholics have remaining on their books of officialdom from the inquisition eras that they believe anyone who disagrees with them deserves to die, and they have no issues whatsoever with civil governments killing people on this basis.

God forbid these lunatics ever gain a foothold in governments again.

[Bust Nak]

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?

Sure things are turning in our favor, what I meant is that we are not at the point where atheists have anything other than appeals to the good will of our opponents and legal protection, where as Christians still have the option of the strength of arms.

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.

But he doesn't have to agree with me what "proper" is at all. He just have to do as I say. As you put it not prohibiting what someone BELIEVES, only what someone can do about it.

Now me, I think "proper" includes: [stuff cropped]

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?

No, not those particular things you mentioned. (Except maybe smoking in some circumstances.)

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

Only a subset of things I deem proper, such as not taking something that don't belong to you.

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

Well, voting is a popular way of resolving difference in today's world.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]


*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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. However, I appreciate your position, and welcome you to my side of the fence, joining the folks who object to forcing a photographer to 'shoot' a gay wedding when that photographer is religiously opposed to the event.

Welcome to the side that objects to forcing a church group to provide the venue for a gay wedding, when the church itself is against the idea.

You are quite right; there are many other people offering services such as these.

Well, I thought I was paying attention. I suspect you are aware of things as a theist that may not make it's way out into the general media. I have heard murmurings from this or that church pastor that someone requested a gay wedding and it was denied. But I haven't heard more than that, as in people suing or going to court to force a church to marry gay or lesbian persons, or of anyone being forced to provide services that contribute to gay/lesbian weddings.

I would expect this has happened, as people on one side of an issue are apt to do what they accuse the other side of doing, all the while denying it or explaining "well THIS is different!"

But is it common? All it has to do is happen once to make an impression, especially if it is your own church or someone you know. But I feel very confident that this behavior (that of gays FORCING) is exceptional. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. I think they should know better than dyed in the wool theists about avoiding hypocrisy, but that's just me.

[squint]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]


*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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. However, I appreciate your position, and welcome you to my side of the fence, joining the folks who object to forcing a photographer to 'shoot' a gay wedding when that photographer is religiously opposed to the event.

Welcome to the side that objects to forcing a church group to provide the venue for a gay wedding, when the church itself is against the idea.

You are quite right; there are many other people offering services such as these.

Well, I thought I was paying attention. I suspect you are aware of things as a theist that may not make it's way out into the general media. I have heard murmurings from this or that church pastor that someone requested a gay wedding and it was denied. But I haven't heard more than that, as in people suing or going to court to force a church to marry gay or lesbian persons, or of anyone being forced to provide services that contribute to gay/lesbian weddings.

I would expect this has happened, as people on one side of an issue are apt to do what they accuse the other side of doing, all the while denying it or explaining "well THIS is different!"

But is it common? All it has to do is happen once to make an impression, especially if it is your own church or someone you know. But I feel very confident that this behavior (that of gays FORCING) is exceptional. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. I think they should know better than dyed in the wool theists about avoiding hypocrisy, but that's just me.

The typical christian mindset amounts to "moral Darwinism."

Christians are no more moral that any person of LGBT.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]


*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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. However, I appreciate your position, and welcome you to my side of the fence, joining the folks who object to forcing a photographer to 'shoot' a gay wedding when that photographer is religiously opposed to the event.

Welcome to the side that objects to forcing a church group to provide the venue for a gay wedding, when the church itself is against the idea.

You are quite right; there are many other people offering services such as these.

Well, I thought I was paying attention. I suspect you are aware of things as a theist that may not make it's way out into the general media. I have heard murmurings from this or that church pastor that someone requested a gay wedding and it was denied. But I haven't heard more than that, as in people suing or going to court to force a church to marry gay or lesbian persons, or of anyone being forced to provide services that contribute to gay/lesbian weddings.

good heavens.

Where have you BEEN? There's that case of the photographer who refused to 'shoot' a gay 'commitment ceremony,' who was sued even though the couple never intended to use this photographer in the first place, the church who was sued because it refused to allow a gay wedding/reception to use their park venue, the baker who refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding...there are several such cases.

Don't get me wrong here. I would have shot the wedding and baked the cake. In fact, I have. However, I absolutely oppose the idea that it's a good thing to legally force someone...even a business owner...to do something that is against his/her religion.

Boycotts? you bet. Do that. Sue? No.

I would expect this has happened, as people on one side of an issue are apt to do what they accuse the other side of doing, all the while denying it or explaining "well THIS is different!"

But is it common? All it has to do is happen once to make an impression, especially if it is your own church or someone you know. But I feel very confident that this behavior (that of gays FORCING) is exceptional.

No, it's not. It's SOP.,

Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. I think they should know better than dyed in the wool theists about avoiding hypocrisy, but that's just me.

[Korah]

Well, voting is a popular way of resolving difference in today's world.

With certain notable exceptions, such as the almost universal ballot-box rejection of gay "marriage". Judge-ridden U. S. gets no say in the matter. (Wonder how many Hasterts are hidden among U. S. judges? Judge Walker in California is well known to have "voted" his dictates in favor of fellow gays.)
(Ireland is a notable exception, but I would guess there the "in your face" reaction of priest-ridden Roman Catholics finally getting the opportunity to give the raspberry to the hypocritical and tyrannical hierarchy, not that they are really sympathetic to LG demands.)

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]


*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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. However, I appreciate your position, and welcome you to my side of the fence, joining the folks who object to forcing a photographer to 'shoot' a gay wedding when that photographer is religiously opposed to the event.

Welcome to the side that objects to forcing a church group to provide the venue for a gay wedding, when the church itself is against the idea.

You are quite right; there are many other people offering services such as these.

Well, I thought I was paying attention. I suspect you are aware of things as a theist that may not make it's way out into the general media. I have heard murmurings from this or that church pastor that someone requested a gay wedding and it was denied. But I haven't heard more than that, as in people suing or going to court to force a church to marry gay or lesbian persons, or of anyone being forced to provide services that contribute to gay/lesbian weddings.

good heavens.

Where have you BEEN? There's that case of the photographer who refused to 'shoot' a gay 'commitment ceremony,' who was sued even though the couple never intended to use this photographer in the first place, the church who was sued because it refused to allow a gay wedding/reception to use their park venue, the baker who refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding...there are several such cases.

Don't get me wrong here. I would have shot the wedding and baked the cake. In fact, I have. However, I absolutely oppose the idea that it's a good thing to legally force someone...even a business owner...to do something that is against his/her religion.

Boycotts? you bet. Do that. Sue? No.

I would expect this has happened, as people on one side of an issue are apt to do what they accuse the other side of doing, all the while denying it or explaining "well THIS is different!"

But is it common? All it has to do is happen once to make an impression, especially if it is your own church or someone you know. But I feel very confident that this behavior (that of gays FORCING) is exceptional.

No, it's not. It's SOP.,

Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. I think they should know better than dyed in the wool theists about avoiding hypocrisy, but that's just me.

I have NOT been immersed in a theist's worldview, that's where I've been

There's nowhere to go with this because we are batting personal opinions back and forth. What I'd like to know is if it can be shown to be true (more true than not) that this equal marriage rights is mostly hoisted up by individuals who just want equal marriage rights, or is mostly hoisted up by individuals who want to FORCE religious people to accept a lifestyle they don't agree with in spite of themselves.

I guess the 'fruits' of it will reveal the intent of the majority. We'll just have to see Now that equal marriage rights seem to be spreading like a wildfire, we won't have to wait long to find out.

I'm going to suggest if the overall intent of the equal marriage rights 'movement' is to FORCE religious persons to accept them and 'agree' with them, that these 'fruits' will be obvious to anyone who cares to look. We'll see frequent news reports of LGBTQ persons challenging churches and religious individuals. We'll see lobbying to affect changes in what a religious person can legally do when they encounter this minority's requests (special rights).

If this minority's overall intent is to just get equal rights to marry, then we can expect the above NOT to happen on any wide scale. Sure, there will always be hypocrites and loudmouths on both sides of any issue. It's just more acceptable for theists to swing their weight around and not get any push back in the past, which appears to be changing. Now that push back is happening, and less and less people indoctrinated/raised in religious households and thus prone to the fears and promises, theist claims on the 'good and right' aren't allowed to slide by unchallenged.

That doesn't mean theists are being railroaded. It just means they are being pushed back into their own space and out of ours. I imagine it CAN feel to theists that any push back is enormously threatening, but it really isn't. It's balance in action, that's what's happening.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 48 by Hamsaka]
What cocoon have you been hiding in? I watch the news quite "religiously" and obviously you do not. Until you are willing to own up to the facts of what is happening in this country (U.S.) you can't expect us to debate with you.
Your reply is directed to dianaiad, thankfully. Usually she has the patience to reply thoughtfully to general observations that most people would doubt, so I'll leave you to her.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 48 by Hamsaka]
What cocoon have you been hiding in? I watch the news quite "religiously" and obviously you do not. Until you are willing to own up to the facts of what is happening in this country (U.S.) you can't expect us to debate with you.

Moderator Warning

This is personal and not civil.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.