The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice.

[Woyzeck]

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

You seem to not understand the phrase 'I think.' I never said that's what you said, I stated that is what I think you think. It very much comes off that way.

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

I suggest you don't let someone else fight your own battles for you. Glad to see you come in once someone else replies. You left me hanging with my last post to you.

Perhaps you would like to join in this civil discussion? You could offer some counterpoints to my posts. All are welcome. You may find the change from insulting me to replying to me with serious, adult posting refreshing. The insults say more about you, then they say about me.

 

[Woyzeck]

The people who want to prevent Christians from practicing their religion or in any way openly embracing it are the same people who would support genetic engineering, forced euthanasia and abortion, and who in the old days supported Nazism. They are supremely arrogant in their belief and they feel they are justified when they seek to stifle the rights of others, so that they are not *subjected* to any differing viewpoints on any topic.

You support giving all Muslims the right to build mosques, worship freely, and not be subjected to profiling and stereotypes as I have evidenced previously in this thread? If not, then well, your own logic says you are no better than those who " support genetic engineering, forced euthanasia and abortion, and who in the old days supported Nazism. They are supremely arrogant in their belief and they feel they are justified when they seek to stifle the rights of others, so that they are not *subjected* to any differing viewpoints on any topic." I would say Muslims have a differing viewpoint on topics.

But, knowing your history of posts about Muslims, I would say this rather proves my thought that freedom of religion means freedom of Christianity to you. I suggest you get off that cross of yours, we could use the wood.

 

[AllieBaba]

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

You seem to not understand the phrase 'I think.' I never said that's what you said, I stated that is what I think you think. It very much comes off that way.

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

I suggest you don't let someone else fight your own battles for you. Glad to see you come in once someone else replies. You left me hanging with my last post to you.

Perhaps you would like to join in this civil discussion? You could offer some counterpoints to my posts. All are welcome. You may find the change from insulting me to replying to me with serious, adult posting refreshing. The insults say more about you, then they say about me.

I've already provided counterpoints to every argument you could ever possibly make, including the imbecilic "the us is not a theocracy". I understand that you THINK I think whatever, and my post was by way of setting you straight. You don't know what I think and you are completely backwards in your assessment of what I have said in the past, will say in the future, or will ever think, including what I think under the influence.

I think that's pretty civil, all things considered. I suggest you kick back and study the material you are debating before you apply condescension to PC or me on this topic. You'll find we're aren't ignorant yahoos, and in fact, for you or anyone to make this point against us (i.e., that the US is not founded upon Christian principle) you will have to fly in the face of facts, supported by considerable documentation down through the centuries.

As a matter of fact, in arguing that the US is not founded upon Christian principle, you are arguing that all the founding fathers, the supreme court, presidents Obama and Lincoln (just to name 2), and all sane historians (and possibly all historians, period) were liars or just didn't know what they were saying. If you want to assume an arrogant demeanor and randomly spout vapisms like "Jefferson wasn't really a Christian" or "Christianity is BAD" or "Free will is a universal concept that isn't confined to Christianity" please feel free. Understand that those opinions mean nothing to this argument, and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was founded upon Christianity. Which, of course, it was. Comfort yourself in the knowledge you aren't any different from the crowd that came before.

 

[Woyzeck]

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

You seem to not understand the phrase 'I think.' I never said that's what you said, I stated that is what I think you think. It very much comes off that way.

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

I suggest you don't let someone else fight your own battles for you. Glad to see you come in once someone else replies. You left me hanging with my last post to you.

Perhaps you would like to join in this civil discussion? You could offer some counterpoints to my posts. All are welcome. You may find the change from insulting me to replying to me with serious, adult posting refreshing. The insults say more about you, then they say about me.

I've already provided counterpoints to every argument you could ever possibly make, including the imbecilic "the us is not a theocracy". I understand that you THINK I think whatever, and my post was by way of setting you straight. You don't know what I think and you are completely backwards in your assessment of what I have said in the past, will say in the future, or will ever think, including what I think under the influence.

Except you didn't counter my last post to you and you just did not reply. Also, point out where I said the United States is a theocracy.

I think that's pretty civil, all things considered. I suggest you kick back and study the material you are debating before you apply condescension to PC or me on this topic. You'll find we're aren't ignorant yahoos, and in fact, for you or anyone to make this point against us (i.e., that the US is not founded upon Christian principle) you will have to fly in the face of facts, supported by considerable documentation down through the centuries.

I think you should kick back and actually read what we've been discussing. I haven't brought up what the nation was founded on, that isn't the topic on hand in this thread.

As a matter of fact, in arguing that the US is not founded upon Christian principle, you are arguing that all the founding fathers, the supreme court, presidents Obama and Lincoln (just to name 2), and all sane historians (and possibly all historians, period). If you want to assume an arrogant demeanor and randomly spout vapisms like "Jefferson wasn't really a Christian" or "Christianity is BAD" or "Free will is a universal concept that isn't confined to Christianity" please feel free. Understand that those opinions mean nothing to this argument, and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was founded upon Christianity. Which, of course, it was. Comfort yourself in the knowledge you aren't any different from the crowd that came before.

Take comfort in that has nothing to do with this thread or anything I've said in this thread. We haven't been discussing if the United States was founded on Christian principles, but rather this "last bastion of allowed prejudice" PC has stated in the OP.

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder if you might see my point in the following salient, albeit simple example of an anti-Christian bias which, it seems is totally acceptable in the common culture.

A recent child's film which hit the big screen around Easter, a film about the Easter bunny called "Hop."


This "Easter" film has no references to the Christian religion. None. Nothing about Jesus on Easter. Not even going to church. Nada. There is, however, a possible pagan allusion. Even thousands of years before Christ, say, 4,000 years ago, some in the Middle East worshipped a goddess named Astarte. Some say this fertility goddess is the source of the egg traditions that surround Easter, the name of which is supposedly derived from Astarte. Others attribute the eggs and rabbits of Easter to a later, German goddess, Eostre. Regardless of whether Easter came from Astarte or Eostre, the Christian church attempted to "redeem" this worship by attaching its festivals to Christ's resurrection. The bunnies and eggs remained, but the meaning has largely been about Jesus for centuries. Apparently, now that we've thrown out Jesus, but not the eggs and bunnies, the concept has come full circle, as the Easter Bunny Dad in "Hop" refers to the delivering of eggs and Easter baskets as a "4,000-year tradition." Hmm.


Read more: Easter Bunny lays an egg Easter Bunny lays an egg

Are you really using the commercialization of Easter as an argument that Christianity is put upon? Are Christmas movies that involve Santa and Rudolf and Frosty but don't mention Christ or Christianity examples of anti-Christian bigotry?

Are you using "the commercialization of Easter" as an excuse for anti-Christian propaganda?

You didn't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours. No, I am not using it as an excuse. I am questioning how the commercialization of Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas is anti-Christian propaganda in the first place. Is not mentioning Christianity in a cartoon about the easter bunny anti-Christian propaganda? Or is it simply taking a childish, commercialized holiday myth for children and trying to make a buck off of it? If you consider depictions of the easter bunny without Christianity as anti-Christian propaganda, I must assume you feel the same about depictions of Santa, or Rudolph, or Frosty in the same way. That seem incredibly ridiculous to me, and makes me think you are looking for anti-Christian propaganda wherever you can find it; worse, that you are manufacturing it where you don't find it. As such, I find it hard to take you seriously with any other assertions of this type you may make.

There is a huge difference between ignoring the Christian aspects of these long-commercialized holidays and actively opposing Christianity.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey I meant that post for another thread, so I'm cutting and pasting it...should I delete it from here?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

‘There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a programme for anyone to express a personal message.

To determine an Establishment Clause violation, the measure in question is subjected to the Lemon Test, outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Lemon Test

What is the secular purpose of the program? Does the program have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? Lastly, is there an ‘excessive government entanglement" with religion?

If any of the three ‘prongs’ of the Lemon Test are violated, then the measure is un-Constitutional.

The Lemon test is a lemon, alright. Three prongs of banality obscuring the balanced and straight-forward application of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

Jones gives us his predictably leftist application of the prongs, his subjective take on this capricious doctrine . . . as if a conservative court couldn't turn it on its head in any given instance.

But either way, it's all sophistry, the unnecessary complication imposed by the Court . . . for no other reason but to subvert the public education system as a means of beating religion out of children and circumventing parental consent and authority.

Ol' C Clayton got his judicial Jones on, a little Plainviewian freak dance before the closing credits, a milk shake to go with that bowling pin lodged in your skull. We don't need no stinkin' prongs telling folks when they can and cannot express themselves as they ordinarily would: an artificial dunce cap put on liberty. Three prongs and you're out! What the hell is that anyway? A load of effeminate, limp-wristed legalese. Leftists get all hard and throbbing over that sort of rot, a little pseudo-intellectual copulation for the brain pan. Is that a prong in your pocket or are you just happy to still have one?

But let's not kid ourselves . . . or lefty especially. Ol' lefty's a gelding. He ain't packin'. He's all bent over, sissy like, gnawing on those lemon rinds, always down for a little governmental sodomy.

What we might eventually need, however, is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at lefty's head, figuratively speaking, of course . . . or maybe not. A little Jeffersonian speak for the next revolution.

Boo!

No institution, especially one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum. Self-evident. Only sheep can't see that. Universal educational choice in the public schools is the only resolution that satisfies the demands of the First Amendment for all. Take your prongs and do what you like best with them. And wipe that unsightly goo off your chin.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am not saying anything about the first amendment. The school should have been more specific in what was allowed to be placed on the bricks.

The only way to protect yourself from law suits is freedom FROM religion. All religion. They were getting sued so scraped the project.

Another prong packer.

 

[Obamerican]

Can it get any better than that??? LMAO...

You don't believe in separation of church and state, I take it? Shove your doctrine down everyone's throat. Yes?

Pray in public schools, teach creationism in science classes, and re-write history. Are you gonna tell me Thomas Jefferson was a Christian? Did you know the Texas school board voted to write Jefferson out of their history curriculum?

Can I make a point here?
There is no such doctrine as 'separation of church and state,' the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

The origin of the idea to which you subscribe is the work of the rabid anti-Catholic bigot, Justice Hugo Black.

During the course of American judicial history, particularly with the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

See The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’ In essence, Justice Hugo Black with his often quoted remark conflated Jefferson’s trope of separation between church and state with the First Amendment which references the non-establishment clause and free exercise of religion. Those were two entirely separate concepts at the time in 1802.

I'm certain that you would like to reconsider you view...either that, or name any other KKK members you see as mentors.

Well, then "freedom of speech" is not true also. The origins of "freedom of speech" came from ALL political parties having "freedom of speech" in Congress and other political debates. The definitions have changed over the years. "Freedom of speech" did NOT apply to the general public.

 

[AllieBaba]

You don't believe in separation of church and state, I take it? Shove your doctrine down everyone's throat. Yes?

Pray in public schools, teach creationism in science classes, and re-write history. Are you gonna tell me Thomas Jefferson was a Christian? Did you know the Texas school board voted to write Jefferson out of their history curriculum?

Can I make a point here?
There is no such doctrine as 'separation of church and state,' the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

The origin of the idea to which you subscribe is the work of the rabid anti-Catholic bigot, Justice Hugo Black.

During the course of American judicial history, particularly with the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

See The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’ In essence, Justice Hugo Black with his often quoted remark conflated Jefferson’s trope of separation between church and state with the First Amendment which references the non-establishment clause and free exercise of religion. Those were two entirely separate concepts at the time in 1802.

I'm certain that you would like to reconsider you view...either that, or name any other KKK members you see as mentors.

Well, then "freedom of speech" is not true also. The origins of "freedom of speech" came from ALL political parties having "freedom of speech" in Congress and other political debates. The definitions have changed over the years. "Freedom of speech" did NOT apply to the general public.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can I make a point here?
There is no such doctrine as 'separation of church and state,' the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

The origin of the idea to which you subscribe is the work of the rabid anti-Catholic bigot, Justice Hugo Black.

During the course of American judicial history, particularly with the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

See The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’ In essence, Justice Hugo Black with his often quoted remark conflated Jefferson’s trope of separation between church and state with the First Amendment which references the non-establishment clause and free exercise of religion. Those were two entirely separate concepts at the time in 1802.

I'm certain that you would like to reconsider you view...either that, or name any other KKK members you see as mentors.

Well, then "freedom of speech" is not true also. The origins of "freedom of speech" came from ALL political parties having "freedom of speech" in Congress and other political debates. The definitions have changed over the years. "Freedom of speech" did NOT apply to the general public.

Couldn't have said it better!

 

[Woyzeck]

1. Americans are allowed freedom of speech. This, according to the Constitution…but it seems that here is a codicil, right there…in invisible ink, but right there. It says “Unless what ever it is you would like to say is, in any way, associated with Christianity.”

The anti-religious bigotry is palpable!

So, this California school had a clever fund raiser, in which one would ‘purchase’ bricks to be used for a walkway. You would purchase the bricks, and have them monogrammed with a message or quote.
Two folks had five or six bricks printed with biblical quotes that they found inspirational.

The school district refused to allow their bricks in, but when they sued, cancelled the program and refunded some $45,000 to all the contributors.

“Lou Ann Hart, of Palm Desert, and Sheryl Caronna, of Rancho Mirage, purchased several bricks for $100 to $250, which were due to be installed in the walkways of Palm Desert High School.

When they were told they could not use the bricks in the memorial because the content risked an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the two women filed a legal complaint against the district in an attempt to reverse the decision.

Hundreds of messages and quotes had been accepted for other bricks including ones with religious themes, according to lawyer, David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who initiated the lawsuit on the women’s behalf.

One featured a quote from Mahatma Gandhi while another had Bible quotation: ‘Yes, it is possible,’ in Spanish.

‘It is cowardly to shut down everyone's participation in this programme simply out of animosity toward Christian speech.

‘There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a programme for anyone to express a personal message.”
California School District cancels memorial fundraiser over Bible verse bricks | Mail Online



2. On a related note, congratulations to the Boston Bruins for winning the Stanley Cup…and to their magnificent goalie, Tim Thomas.

PLEASE be sure to keep the following note from the Desert Palm School District:

“Thomas, who recorded a shutout in the Bruins’ 4-0 victory over the Vancouver Canucks, wears the motto “In God We Trust” on the front of his face mask. On the back, Thomas sports a tribute to the Gadsden flag.”
» Tim Thomas - Big Government


It's past time for Americans to stand up for the rights of the religious community, and demand an equal footing with the non-religious or secular community.

I'd also like to make another point in this thread. Does no one else find issue with the claim that Christians in America face prejudice against them? Does anyone else find it to be an utterly childish, narcissistic argument, that also insults those who suffer from prejudices in the United States? Especially when the evidence presented in this thread has been superficial and shallow at best of examples of bigotry towards Christianity in America.

Because it is.

For starters, Christians across the globe actually do face prejudice and hardship because of reaction to their faith. Missionaries in China and North Korea face the possibility of death for spreading their faith, Coptic Christians in Egypt are marginalized and isolated, and church workers in Laos are often arrested. These are good examples of prejudice towards religious Christians, and infringe on civil rights, freedoms of speech, religion, and general liberty.

But is there persecution of Christians in America? The short answer is, no of course not. Those who call what Christians face in America persecution, insult their fellow Christians across the globe, and all others who have actually been persecuted for their faith, especially in America. The Mormons faced a lot of prejudice when they were getting started. These days, Muslims take the punching bag of real persecution.

But Christians in America being persecuted? Well, let's look at the outrage of Christians. Prayer in public schools. Debates over evolution or creationism. "Liberal secularization" in the media. This thing about bricks that started this thread. America is a "Christian" nation.

Well. Technically. You're correct. It's majority is made up of Christians. Most Americans are Christians of some kind, Catholic, Protestant, etc. Many identify themselves as such, even if they do not go to church every week or even pray. Some of the founding fathers believed in God, and created the secular government we have today. All of the presidents have been of the Christian faith, and much fuss was made over the possibility and rumor that the current sitting one wasn't.

What a stunning example of persecution of Christians.

The religious freedoms of Christians are not restricted because they are Christian. They are not arrested for going to a Christian church, for taking the Eucharist, or believing in Jesus. Houses are not raided searching for Bibles or other religious paraphernalia. You are not fined for being a Christian, barred from marriage or owning property, or arrested by the police on the grounds that you are Christian.

But you claim persecution.

You are allowed freedom of speech like everyone else. On television, radio, the internet, through music, in newspapers and pamphlets and books, and all sorts of media. You can take ads out spreading a religious message of whatever you like, and protest abortion clinics with sign boards with images of dead fetuses on them. There are Christian churches everywhere, thousands across the United States, and you are often free to build them wherever you like, and no one gives a damn, or makes a big fuss and protests it. You can lobby and influence politicians and get your own policy across. Look at the Texas School Board of Education and its religious influence on textbooks. Look at George W. Bush, who is a born-again Christian and he asked God for help during trying times of his administration.

But there is extreme prejudice against Christians, the last bastion of allowable prejudice in a nation full of claimed Christians.

You're allowed speech to justify discriminating against same sex marriage, keep women from holding positions of authority within your Church, and even lobbied together to define marriage between one man and one women as part of the (state) Constitution in several states. God is on money and the pledge of allegiance, politicians end speeches with 'God Bless America' and showoff their faith for votes. Congress is opened with a prayer.

But there is prejudice against you.

This thread was made with the claim that the last bastion of acceptable and allowable prejudice was against the religious. The chief evidence presented were primarily and solely concerned with Christians being unhappy after not getting a Bible verse on a brick. As well as some late evidence about an Easter film having no references to its Christian origins. Meanwhile, Muslims face stricter backlash and bigotry over their faith from Americans in this country, and Christians abroad suffer far greater. How childish and immature to claim that bricks and bible verses are persecution, while not even discussing actual prejudice in this country. I think it says more about the OP's prejudices than she would like to admit.

The only thing this thread has proved, is that Christians in America who cry they are being persecuted are nothing but spoiled brats who throw a tantrum when they don't get every single thing their way. They are among the most protected and pampered and spoiled and revered religious group in America. And yet far most of the time it appears simply to be a complaint against the fact that it is not only Christians that live in America. There are others to be mindful of and be polite to as well. But that is persecution.

The only thing these 'victimized' Christians in this country are victims of, is their own persecution complex.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Question. If the Christians feel persecuted, why do they persecute others who don't believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

I mean..........for real..........God speaks to everyone differently, according to their understanding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you really using the commercialization of Easter as an argument that Christianity is put upon? Are Christmas movies that involve Santa and Rudolf and Frosty but don't mention Christ or Christianity examples of anti-Christian bigotry?

Are you using "the commercialization of Easter" as an excuse for anti-Christian propaganda?

You didn't answer my questions, but I'll answer yours. No, I am not using it as an excuse. I am questioning how the commercialization of Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas is anti-Christian propaganda in the first place. Is not mentioning Christianity in a cartoon about the easter bunny anti-Christian propaganda? Or is it simply taking a childish, commercialized holiday myth for children and trying to make a buck off of it? If you consider depictions of the easter bunny without Christianity as anti-Christian propaganda, I must assume you feel the same about depictions of Santa, or Rudolph, or Frosty in the same way. That seem incredibly ridiculous to me, and makes me think you are looking for anti-Christian propaganda wherever you can find it; worse, that you are manufacturing it where you don't find it. As such, I find it hard to take you seriously with any other assertions of this type you may make.

There is a huge difference between ignoring the Christian aspects of these long-commercialized holidays and actively opposing Christianity.

"Sheila Jackson Lee Diverts Islamic Terror Hearings Into Attack on Christians

It's nice to see moonbat congresscritter Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) participating in the hearing Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called on the continuing terror threat posed by Islamists. Unfortunately, she chose to divert the hearings to target Christians:
"Are you familiar with the Christian militants?" she asked former New York Dept. of Correctional Services official Patrick Dunleavy. "Can one might say that they might possibly want to undermine this country because right now the right for women to choose is a Constitutional right but people disagree with it but here is an individual trying to undermine the protections that are given to women? Would you suggest that might be compared to trying to undermine this country? That's a possibility, is it not?"
Moonbattery: Sheila Jackson Lee Diverts Islamic Terror Hearings Into Attack on Christians

 

[AllieBaba]

1. Americans are allowed freedom of speech. This, according to the Constitution…but it seems that here is a codicil, right there…in invisible ink, but right there. It says “Unless what ever it is you would like to say is, in any way, associated with Christianity.”

The anti-religious bigotry is palpable!

So, this California school had a clever fund raiser, in which one would ‘purchase’ bricks to be used for a walkway. You would purchase the bricks, and have them monogrammed with a message or quote.
Two folks had five or six bricks printed with biblical quotes that they found inspirational.

The school district refused to allow their bricks in, but when they sued, cancelled the program and refunded some $45,000 to all the contributors.

“Lou Ann Hart, of Palm Desert, and Sheryl Caronna, of Rancho Mirage, purchased several bricks for $100 to $250, which were due to be installed in the walkways of Palm Desert High School.

When they were told they could not use the bricks in the memorial because the content risked an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the two women filed a legal complaint against the district in an attempt to reverse the decision.

Hundreds of messages and quotes had been accepted for other bricks including ones with religious themes, according to lawyer, David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who initiated the lawsuit on the women’s behalf.

One featured a quote from Mahatma Gandhi while another had Bible quotation: ‘Yes, it is possible,’ in Spanish.

‘It is cowardly to shut down everyone's participation in this programme simply out of animosity toward Christian speech.

‘There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a programme for anyone to express a personal message.”
California School District cancels memorial fundraiser over Bible verse bricks | Mail Online



2. On a related note, congratulations to the Boston Bruins for winning the Stanley Cup…and to their magnificent goalie, Tim Thomas.

PLEASE be sure to keep the following note from the Desert Palm School District:

“Thomas, who recorded a shutout in the Bruins’ 4-0 victory over the Vancouver Canucks, wears the motto “In God We Trust” on the front of his face mask. On the back, Thomas sports a tribute to the Gadsden flag.”
» Tim Thomas - Big Government


It's past time for Americans to stand up for the rights of the religious community, and demand an equal footing with the non-religious or secular community.

I'd also like to make another point in this thread. Does no one else find issue with the claim that Christians in America face prejudice against them? Does anyone else find it to be an utterly childish, narcissistic argument, that also insults those who suffer from prejudices in the United States? Especially when the evidence presented in this thread has been superficial and shallow at best of examples of bigotry towards Christianity in America.

Because it is.

For starters, Christians across the globe actually do face prejudice and hardship because of reaction to their faith. Missionaries in China and North Korea face the possibility of death for spreading their faith, Coptic Christians in Egypt are marginalized and isolated, and church workers in Laos are often arrested. These are good examples of prejudice towards religious Christians, and infringe on civil rights, freedoms of speech, religion, and general liberty.

But is there persecution of Christians in America? The short answer is, no of course not. Those who call what Christians face in America persecution, insult their fellow Christians across the globe, and all others who have actually been persecuted for their faith, especially in America. The Mormons faced a lot of prejudice when they were getting started. These days, Muslims take the punching bag of real persecution.

But Christians in America being persecuted? Well, let's look at the outrage of Christians. Prayer in public schools. Debates over evolution or creationism. "Liberal secularization" in the media. This thing about bricks that started this thread. America is a "Christian" nation.

Well. Technically. You're correct. It's majority is made up of Christians. Most Americans are Christians of some kind, Catholic, Protestant, etc. Many identify themselves as such, even if they do not go to church every week or even pray. Some of the founding fathers believed in God, and created the secular government we have today. All of the presidents have been of the Christian faith, and much fuss was made over the possibility and rumor that the current sitting one wasn't.

What a stunning example of persecution of Christians.

The religious freedoms of Christians are not restricted because they are Christian. They are not arrested for going to a Christian church, for taking the Eucharist, or believing in Jesus. Houses are not raided searching for Bibles or other religious paraphernalia. You are not fined for being a Christian, barred from marriage or owning property, or arrested by the police on the grounds that you are Christian.

But you claim persecution.

You are allowed freedom of speech like everyone else. On television, radio, the internet, through music, in newspapers and pamphlets and books, and all sorts of media. You can take ads out spreading a religious message of whatever you like, and protest abortion clinics with sign boards with images of dead fetuses on them. There are Christian churches everywhere, thousands across the United States, and you are often free to build them wherever you like, and no one gives a damn, or makes a big fuss and protests it. You can lobby and influence politicians and get your own policy across. Look at the Texas School Board of Education and its religious influence on textbooks. Look at George W. Bush, who is a born-again Christian and he asked God for help during trying times of his administration.

But there is extreme prejudice against Christians, the last bastion of allowable prejudice in a nation full of claimed Christians.

You're allowed speech to justify discriminating against same sex marriage, keep women from holding positions of authority within your Church, and even lobbied together to define marriage between one man and one women as part of the (state) Constitution in several states. God is on money and the pledge of allegiance, politicians end speeches with 'God Bless America' and showoff their faith for votes. Congress is opened with a prayer.

But there is prejudice against you.

This thread was made with the claim that the last bastion of acceptable and allowable prejudice was against the religious. The chief evidence presented were primarily and solely concerned with Christians being unhappy after not getting a Bible verse on a brick. As well as some late evidence about an Easter film having no references to its Christian origins. Meanwhile, Muslims face stricter backlash and bigotry over their faith from Americans in this country, and Christians abroad suffer far greater. How childish and immature to claim that bricks and bible verses are persecution, while not even discussing actual prejudice in this country. I think it says more about the OP's prejudices than she would like to admit.

The only thing this thread has proved, is that Christians in America who cry they are being persecuted are nothing but spoiled brats who throw a tantrum when they don't get every single thing their way. They are among the most protected and pampered and spoiled and revered religious group in America. And yet far most of the time it appears simply to be a complaint against the fact that it is not only Christians that live in America. There are others to be mindful of and be polite to as well. But that is persecution.

The only thing these 'victimized' Christians in this country are victims of, is their own persecution complex.

Take that argument to the yahoos who claim the US is a third world country, or say that Islam is no worse than Christianity when it comes to modern day oppression and violence.

Christians in the US aren't being overtly persecuted..so far. But it's not for lack of trying. Talk to any of the screeching liberal Christian haters on this site and see what their vision of a perfect america is....it's one where Christians aren't allowed to teach, to participate in politics, to work in certain fields, and in some cases, to parent their own children. So while the actual persecution hasn't started across the board, there is certainly a prominent and vocal population who advocate for it. The whole point of being a free society is being able to PREVENT persecution.

BTW, I work for the state, and I get to sit across my desk on a regular basis with a co-worker who says things like "All churches are bullshit" "Religion sucks" "Ministers are all hypocrites" (and in fact he was doing that today). If I dare to say anything, he gets huffy and says "why are you trying to convince me otherwise? That's my opinion and I'm not changing it."

Er..I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm giving you mine...but it is less valid because, of course, I'm a Christian. He has no problem with telling me there is no God, that people who talk about God are "forcing" religion on him...and he comes to my side of the office to share this wisdom...but if I say anything, then I'm the one "forcing" religion down his throat.

And so it goes.

Anyway, the way to fight persecution is to prevent it from happening in the first place. There's no doubt that there's anti-Christian bigotry in the US. And where there's bigotry, there's oppression. Where there's oppression, there's persecution. So no, we're not as bad as N.K. and Indian and such...but kindly don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me it's insulting to those Christians to recognize and decry anti-Christian bigotry wherever it exists. And it absolutely exists here.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's a lie.

What's a lie? It's my opinion, that Christians who hate Muslims, would object to Islamic scripture on public school bricks.

I don't hate Churches, but it's ok with me if you have the opinion that I do. Churches are buildings designed for communities to come together and worship. I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with Christians making every public owned building their turf. 'TELL EVERYONE ABOUT GOD'S POWER' is inappropriate for a public school building.

It was the right thing to do to cancel the fundraiser. That's politics for ya.

You don't know Christains very well at all. You have a warped view of us, based on your own personal experience. Your personal experience does not make all Christians bad - just like I would not assume all Buddists are idiots based on you.

I don't know the Christians on this board all that well. My view is that the school was right to call off the brick fund raiser because of the politics.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Question. If the Christians feel persecuted, why do they persecute others who don't believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

I mean..........for real..........God speaks to everyone differently, according to their understanding.

Which Christians are you referring to? What others are being persecuted by Christians?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The people who want to prevent Christians from practicing their religion or in any way openly embracing it are the same people who would support genetic engineering, forced euthanasia and abortion, and who in the old days supported Nazism. They are supremely arrogant in their belief and they feel they are justified when they seek to stifle the rights of others, so that they are not *subjected* to any differing viewpoints on any topic.

Your view is that the bible quote brick layers were prevented from proselytizing Christianity at this school?

In your opinion, Christians have the right to plaster bible quotes wherever they choose?

Do non-christians have the right to say no to Christians?

 

[Sky Dancer]

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

After reading this thread I am convinced that most on this board are of the opinion that Christians should shut up and not offend anyone. Hey a gay parade down main street is a okay, but don't you dare put a Bible verse on a brick.

Damn people are dumb.

Just the opposite. This board is heavily weighed in favor of Christians shoving their bible bricks down the throats of non-christian citizens. The OP thinks this school that shut down the brick fundraiser had no right to do so because the Christians who put bible passages on their bricks free speech rights trump any other rights.

They think separation of church and state means churches can do whatever they like, wherever they choose.

 

[Zander]