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?
Is there a case for making Christianity illegal?
Moderator: Moderators
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #51
[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]
These very select and minority cases only display the ignorance of the discriminator and not understanding their rights and the rights of their potential consumers.
By obtaining a business liscence to operate in the respective state you agree to abide by the laws of that state. If you don't like that form a PRIVATE CLUB/ASSOCIATION and feel free to discriminate all you want. Because these people were ignorant of the law doesn't make them exempt. If a case was found without merit you can always file a counter suit.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.
These very select and minority cases only display the ignorance of the discriminator and not understanding their rights and the rights of their potential consumers.
can you provide a reference I couldn't find a specific case.the church who was sued because it refused to allow a gay wedding/reception to use their park venue
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
Post #52
[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]
This just puts poor people at the mercy of litigious lawyers and the rich who can afford to file lawsuits. Whatever the outcome, small businesspeople are helpless to avoid being forced to violate their consciences, even where the so-called laws of their state may be just judge-issued dictates.
It's these kinds of cases that has turned me bitterly against the LGBT lobby. I used to be neutral on these minor matters and even in favor of gays in their efforts to defend themselves against discrimination. Now I just oppose them on all matters (within the U. S. here, not of course with regards to homicidal fanaticism against them elsewhere in the world).
This just puts poor people at the mercy of litigious lawyers and the rich who can afford to file lawsuits. Whatever the outcome, small businesspeople are helpless to avoid being forced to violate their consciences, even where the so-called laws of their state may be just judge-issued dictates.
It's these kinds of cases that has turned me bitterly against the LGBT lobby. I used to be neutral on these minor matters and even in favor of gays in their efforts to defend themselves against discrimination. Now I just oppose them on all matters (within the U. S. here, not of course with regards to homicidal fanaticism against them elsewhere in the world).
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #53
[Replying to post 52 by Korah]
What are you talking about? What poor people were affected by the cases Dianiad listed?
Regardless of discrimination or non discrimination do you want to get rid of the civil court system?
Because the problem you listed rich people filling frivolous lawsuits against poor people is not just an LGBT issue. This idea you have can be applied to literally anything in the public scope of civil suits. So should we remove the civil court system?
Which cases were without merit with regards to LGBT issues can you list 1? If frivolous litigiousy is a real issue that is widespread can you list 10 in the last year? last 5 years? last 10 years?
What are you talking about? What poor people were affected by the cases Dianiad listed?
Regardless of discrimination or non discrimination do you want to get rid of the civil court system?
Because the problem you listed rich people filling frivolous lawsuits against poor people is not just an LGBT issue. This idea you have can be applied to literally anything in the public scope of civil suits. So should we remove the civil court system?
Which cases were without merit with regards to LGBT issues can you list 1? If frivolous litigiousy is a real issue that is widespread can you list 10 in the last year? last 5 years? last 10 years?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
Post #54
Just the cocoon that doesn't get my news from Fox or conservative Christian venues.Korah wrote: [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.
If you google "churches forced to marry gays", the first two pages are full of hits to news sources (including a good one from Snopes about the BUSINESS that made the news last fall refusing to marry gays in their privately owned wedding chapel) with names like "Will Churches be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings?" and "Will the LDS Church be Forced blah blah" and "Churches Braced For Same Sex Wedding Ruling". A whole lot of paranoiac drama rama and I haven't found an actual case where this has happened to a church.
If you can link to an actual case where a church has been sued that would be great. All I'm seeing is Glen Beck whooping up people's fears, and Judge Scalia making a typical ass out of himself.
A whole lot of whoop de doo and no one FORCED to perform against their religious beliefs.
Post #55
[Replying to post 54 by Hamsaka]
I suppose you are correct, for the moment (just until the next queer judge rules against Christians), all they have to do is pay the money or move out of the state or the country. Nothing like forced.
I suppose you are correct, for the moment (just until the next queer judge rules against Christians), all they have to do is pay the money or move out of the state or the country. Nothing like forced.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Is there a case for making Christianity illegal?
Post #56Sure, that's where such things as anti-discrimination laws comes in, which is why I said minorities depends on legal protection more so than Christians.Korah wrote:Bust Nak wrote:
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.)
You seems to be conflating being forced to accept gay people, with being forced to serve gay people. You don't have to approve of them, you just have to serve them as you would anyone else.I suppose you are correct, for the moment (just until the next queer judge rules against Christians), all they have to do is pay the money or move out of the state or the country. Nothing like forced.
Post #57
Did you hear from your preferred news source that this was likely or ?Korah wrote: [Replying to post 54 by Hamsaka]
I suppose you are correct, for the moment (just until the next queer judge rules against Christians), all they have to do is pay the money or move out of the state or the country. Nothing like forced.
That's the thing about using discrimination when it comes to the media. You (the generic, it's true for all regardless of persuastion) get manipulated by the media, exploiting people's fears and whipping them up into a frenzy over NOTHING.
I'm not surprised I've not been inundated with fear mongering because I don't watch Fox news or get my up-to-date latest from any of the big media corps, and that includes the 'liberal' media who can be just as biased and frenzy-whipping as the conservative media. It might mean I miss something, but I'm telling you that you it wouldn't hurt anyone to miss what you've been manipulated into.
A queer judge ruling against Christians, demanding either money or emigration out of the country. Please! What a horrible thing to have running through your head. Sure does distract folks from what's really going on -- media exploiting fears and raking in your ratings and cash while you (the generic) demand more. Great racket they have going on.
Post #58
"Accepts Correction" is listed as your first group. Let's see if you honestly mean that.
I watch Faux News occasionally, even watch the far more Rightist One America News (farther Right because they proclaim they clearly separate factual news from partisan opinion, but I have never yet seen them admit that Daily Ledger is Rush on steroids--or not so fat, anyway). I am thoroughly biased against such Neocon jingoism, yet I know that we can find there some glimmers of truth that standard media hides by political correctness. I'm quite aware you can't believe ANYONE in the media--or out of it either.
Nobody manipulates me, except to the extent I react to the other extreme when I get someone like you trying to steamroller me. You're the kind of PC tyrant, I suppose (and I HAVE JUST heard about this on the radio tonight, Focus on the Family that I rarely listen to), who gets Christian clubs thrown off college campuses for holding to their consciences instead of caving to allow queers and such to destroy them.
You so completely misunderstand me in your bias (bigotry?) against me that you think I spoke about expecting queer judges to extort money from people to avoid getting deported? If you can't accept correction about that you're both...well I can't go on without getting banned.
I watch Faux News occasionally, even watch the far more Rightist One America News (farther Right because they proclaim they clearly separate factual news from partisan opinion, but I have never yet seen them admit that Daily Ledger is Rush on steroids--or not so fat, anyway). I am thoroughly biased against such Neocon jingoism, yet I know that we can find there some glimmers of truth that standard media hides by political correctness. I'm quite aware you can't believe ANYONE in the media--or out of it either.
Nobody manipulates me, except to the extent I react to the other extreme when I get someone like you trying to steamroller me. You're the kind of PC tyrant, I suppose (and I HAVE JUST heard about this on the radio tonight, Focus on the Family that I rarely listen to), who gets Christian clubs thrown off college campuses for holding to their consciences instead of caving to allow queers and such to destroy them.
You so completely misunderstand me in your bias (bigotry?) against me that you think I spoke about expecting queer judges to extort money from people to avoid getting deported? If you can't accept correction about that you're both...well I can't go on without getting banned.
Post #59
Looks like I hit a nerve, but not the one I intended to.Korah wrote: "Accepts Correction" is listed as your first group. Let's see if you honestly mean that.
I watch Faux News occasionally, even watch the far more Rightist One America News (farther Right because they proclaim they clearly separate factual news from partisan opinion, but I have never yet seen them admit that Daily Ledger is Rush on steroids--or not so fat, anyway). I am thoroughly biased against such Neocon jingoism, yet I know that we can find there some glimmers of truth that standard media hides by political correctness. I'm quite aware you can't believe ANYONE in the media--or out of it either.
Nobody manipulates me, except to the extent I react to the other extreme when I get someone like you trying to steamroller me. You're the kind of PC tyrant, I suppose (and I HAVE JUST heard about this on the radio tonight, Focus on the Family that I rarely listen to), who gets Christian clubs thrown off college campuses for holding to their consciences instead of caving to allow queers and such to destroy them.
You so completely misunderstand me in your bias (bigotry?) against me that you think I spoke about expecting queer judges to extort money from people to avoid getting deported? If you can't accept correction about that you're both...well I can't go on without getting banned.
Specifically what are you offering to correct me about? That you haven't been manipulated by extreme right conservative media?
And then you accuse me of being a PC tyrant that would get Christian clubs thrown off of college campuses instead of caving to allow queers and such to destroy them. Does that sound like a reasonable assessment or emotional agitation to some perceived threat? Queers destroying clubs? By their very presence, I'm sure.
Sounds like you are channeling Glen Beck.
It would be sad for you to get banned because I FORCED you to indulge yourself in name calling. I'm glad you got a grip at the last minute.
Post #60
[Replying to Hamsaka]
Quite clearly I've made a mockery of your claim on your top listed DC&R group. For the record it is ("was", soon, if you decide to cover your tracks) "Accepts correction". Well you don't, so I'll bow out before I get banned.
If it's against the rules to copy in what I posted earlier (no one will bother going back to my Post #34 where I have now proven myself an accurate prognosticator, here it is (or go back there if it gets removed):
[font=Comic Sans MS]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?
[/font]
Quite clearly I've made a mockery of your claim on your top listed DC&R group. For the record it is ("was", soon, if you decide to cover your tracks) "Accepts correction". Well you don't, so I'll bow out before I get banned.
If it's against the rules to copy in what I posted earlier (no one will bother going back to my Post #34 where I have now proven myself an accurate prognosticator, here it is (or go back there if it gets removed):
[font=Comic Sans MS]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?
[/font]
