Why Not Let God Sort It Out... If God Exists

[bluegreenearth]

While there are a minority of Christians who keep their religious perspectives to themselves and cooperate peacefully with non-Christians, the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion. On one hand, these "soldiers for Christ" behave as though they are actively battling in a war against evil on behalf of their omnibenevolent God. On the other hand, they proudly proclaim their omnipotent God is fully capable of protecting the righteous and destroying the wicked without any of their assistance at all. I can understand where divine hiddenness essentially forces many Christians to rally in defense of themselves even if they believe their undetectable God cannot be harmed by any human action, but what is the justification for going on the offensive when no one is threatening their religious freedoms?

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity? Are they unaware that their own religious freedom does not grant them the authority to impose Christian doctrine on everyone else or are they deliberately trying to install a Christian theocracy? If they strongly believe that their Christian God is the final and ultimate arbiter of spiritual justice, then why not peacefully coexist in a religiously pluralistic society in this life and trust their God's ability to perform in his designated role during the afterlife? Instead, these privileged fundamentalist Christians act as if the non-Christian's demand for equal rights and the separation of church and state were hostile threats against Christianity.

I recognize where it can be difficult sometimes for Christians to tolerate a non-Christian's freedom to live in accordance with values they do not share. Because Christianity has been the dominant religious faith in the West for centuries, any non-Christian attempt to assert itself into a seat at the table will certainly feel like a foreign invasion to anyone accustomed to the Christian privileges they've historically enjoyed. However, granting non-Christians the freedom to peacefully conduct their lives in whatever ways they see fit is not the same thing as an attack on Christian values. So, why can't these fundamentalist Christians be more tolerant like the minority of other Christians who somehow manage to successfully collaborate with non-Christians to develop and promote a more egalitarian society?

[1213]

the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion

By my experience it is atheists who want that society is like they want, and they are forcing their world view to all. I personally think all people should be free and independent, without any earthly government.

[Zzyzx]

.

the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion

By my experience it is atheists who want that society is like they want, and they are forcing their world view to all.

Yup. "I don't believe your god tales" sure is intimidating isn't it?

'Kindly provide verifiable evidence that the god tales you are spouting are true', is forcing Atheist views on believers, isn't it? Some deconvert when they discover that their god tales CANNOT be supported with verifiable evidence. Others just keep on with the tales, even after childhood and/or for a lifetime (and perhaps die expecting to be rewarded for believing).

I personally think all people should be free and independent, without any earthly government.

Anarchy is 'the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body'. That is available in Somalia. Read how well it is working out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm

[1213]

Anarchy is 'the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body'. That is available in Somalia. Read how well it is working out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm

I think Somalia is a good example of how bad governments are for humans. People in Somalia would have much better life, if there would not be so many people who want to govern. It is interesting that also USA wants to govern there. Without governments, world would not have wars.

[Mithrae]

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity?

Could you be more specific? What legislation do the majority of Christians develop and support that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians?

Take your pick from a host of Establishment Clause violations that are regularly exposed by watchdog groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists.

That is not a helpful response. It is possible that there is something on American Atheists list. It is also possible that their examples are either not supported by the majority of Christians, or not genuine violations of the establishment clause. Instead of asking others to play guessing games about what legislation you are focused on, please list a few examples of legislation that the majority of Christians develop and support which legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians.

Three days and no response to this request? I'm neither American nor a Christian, but even I was thinking of commenting that the accusations in the OP seem potentially dubious. If nothing else, the fact that ~43% of US Christians are Republican or lean Republican while ~40% are Democrat or lean Democrat would seem to be an obvious hurdle precluding any easy assumptions about the political views of a majority of Christians.
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... filiation/
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 13 by Mithrae]

You make a good point. It was a mistake to use the phrase "majority of Christians" in the OP. The Christians that do behave in the way described in the OP create the impression that they are acting on behalf of the majority of Christians.