[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Never, Whistler!

I am quite confident in our ability to agree to disagree about these types of issues with style and grace.

Can I interest you in a small flask of absinthe?

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Impenitent]

Whistler, I don't understand the gist of your previous post (Founders' hat notwithstanding)

Do you believe that the opinions of the Justices in that ruling are unfounded or erroneous? If so, I am interested to know your reasons.

[Whistler]

Impenitent, I'm going to pass on that one. I have some strong opinions about the Ninth Circuit Court and some of their decisions, but as I am in the presence of an attorney I would be a fool to attempt to debate them.

As to the hat...of course there's a hat.

You get a feather for every month you don't upset Voronwë. For every month you do, you have to take a feather out. If you lose all your feathers, you’re given a month’s suspension. During that time, you have to post with Harry Knowles at AICN, limiting yourself to sentences of no more than eight words, three of which must be obscenities.

He’s a hard man, the boss is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Imp, the Ninth Circuit (which covers much of the western U.S.) is notorious for liberal opinions which are often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a quiet movement to split the court in two, since it is by far the largest of the Circuits (the Court of Appeals is the court just below the U.S. Supreme Court). I actually support that movement, as I do believe that the court is too large and unwieldly.

[Whistler]

Whew! Thanks for taking care of that for me!

[Impenitent]

I see. So the debate about the rulings of the Ninth Circuit is on matters of ideological stance of the justices?

I don't know about any of these things, being a furriner and unacquainted with the legal world.

[Frelga]

But it never starts that way. It starts with a joke, a snub, a cold remark that is allowed to go unanswered. An eyebrow arched significantly during a news broadcast, just at the appropriate moment.

I do not disagree with that, but I would bring up two points.

One is that whichever way it "starts", all of the things I mentioned are way past having started. All of this is going on now, in our countries, as we sit here debating the proper name for a tree with lights.

The other is that attacks against places of worship and against individuals are not perpetrated by atheists, but by people who declare themselves to be deeply religious, indeed to be defenders of their faith. I trust that all of us agree that their action are an abomination and a perversion of faith, whatever faith they profess.

I value my freedom of worship and I respect that freedom for everybody, even if their view of Divine leaves me puzzled. And I want to be very clear who the enemy of that freedom is. And it's not atheists.

[Ethel]

But to destroy all public recognition of all religious holidays because some 1% of the population can't stand the sight of religious practice, this is indeed oppression of the majority by a minority, in my opinion, and a very dangerous path to tread.

Ah, but I doubt it's even as large a number as 1% of the population that wants to see no public recognition of religious holidays. I'm pretty much a heathen, but I appreciate the power and beauty of religion - all sorts - and I envy the comfort and light it clearly brings to believers. For me 'unbelief' is not a choice. It's just the way I'm wired, or something.

I love Christmas. I personally have no problem at all with public displays of Nativity scenes or whatever. I find them lovely. And I'm a huge admirer of Jesus of Nazareth as a moral teacher. Much as I appreciate the idea of the ACLU, in theory, in practice I feel they've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Freedom of religion need not be freedom from religion. We are who we are, and many of us are Believers. So long as we are not forcing Muslim or Jewish children to recite Christian prayers (or whatever) - where's the harm? Here's how the ACLU makes me crazy: they choose these cases where (usually only) a little bit of public money got spent on religious, or semi-religious, displays. I read about it and think, well, yes, I guess they have a point. But it's not something that I care about personally at all. I care about competent government, and sound fiscal policy, and a foreign policy that protects Americans and - where possible - helps people who have the potential to become allies. All this quibbling about creches seems utterly beside the point to me. And it's divisive. I feel like they're whacking me over the head with something... that isn't worth fighting about. Where fighting makes us weaker, not stronger.

Ah, Frelga!

But it never starts that way. It starts with a joke, a snub, a cold remark that is allowed to go unanswered. An eyebrow arched significantly during a news broadcast, just at the appropriate moment.

But I want to respond to this too. And Whistler, I hope you know how very much I esteem you, and have always done. For years now. But... this cuts both ways. I am very slow to admit to my unbelief. Mostly I keep my mouth shut about it. When I do admit it, it sometimes happens that people react quite badly - which is why I generally don't. Sometimes people who hear this don't really want to know me any more. In fact, I am fearful that - indeed, fairly certain that - this admission will result in you and others thinking less of me. Which frightens me. I don't want that. But I also don't want to lie, even if speaking the (my) truth has bad results.

This is who I am. I no more chose it than I chose the color of my hair or eyes. It's like I lack the gene, or something, that allows belief in a Creator. But I would never dream of arguing with those who believe differently, for this is a matter of faith, not proof.

I don't feel "discriminated against" as a non-believer. But I also know, from experience, that admitting it can produce very bad results. Can cost you a friendship. Can cost you a job. Can make things very awkward.

I guess I'm just saying - I have seen plenty of raised eyebrows too.

*is pretty sure she'll be sorry for posting this*

[Whistler]

That is unfortunately quite true, Frelga. I did not mean my post to be combative. Nor did I wish to suggest that you are indifferent to bigotry in its less obvious forms.

However, I will not agree that debating the proper name for a "tree with lights" is a trivial one. Such horrors as you have listed do indeed exist and are vastly more important, of course. But they do not currently exist as acceptable behaviors in our culture. It is only by small degrees that they become acceptable. It is only by the gradual manipulation of public attitudes that it becomes all right to do such things, to marginalize or demonize certain people. That's what I fear, and as one who has often felt such marginalization and demonization I will not dismiss my fear as groundless.

In my personal experience, the blows have come from the anti-religious. If your experience is different, I am sorry and in fact grieved to hear it. But does it really matter who’s dealing out the blows? We have to stop it, all of us.

Ethel:

I indeed raise my eyebrows at you! Because that hat is so charming.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Túrin Turambar]

Part of the issue, I think, is that extremism breeds extrimism. More specifically, for every absurd ACLU cause or controversial Ninth Circuit Judgment, some Baptist preacher or Fundamentalist organisation will come up with something equally extreme and then justify it as defending the faith from destruction. It’s a difficult situation.

For the record, we don’t tend to get these sorts of issues in Australia. part of it might be that out Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee the Separation of Church of State nor contain a Bill of Rights. Once you have legal documents lawyers can get at them and use them as ammunition.

[Ethel]

Matthew Williams, along with his brother Tyler, shot two gay men to death in their bed, and then firebombed a Sacramento synagogue in 1999. They believed they were doing God's will. Believed it, apparently, with all their hearts. I lived just outside Sacramento at the time, and was deeply shocked. (I am sure Frelga knows this story too.)

I do not blame you, or any other Christian, for what they did, Whistler. As I hope and expect you will not blame me, or any other nonbeliever, for whatever unkindnesses you have experienced. I think it was a very wrong and perverted kind of Christianity that inspired them. But... I do not know of an episode of a non-believer doing this kind of damage. And that is why I have a little bit of trouble with the word "persecution" being applied to Christians in this country.

I am sorry to offend if I have done so. I said my piece; I'll go.

[Whistler]

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://www.persecution.com/
http://www.persecution.org/Countries/indonesia.html
http://www.christianmonitor.org/
http://www.aiccindia.org/
http://www.persecutionblog.com/
http://www.myfortress.org/persecuted.html
http://brickballoon.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... ution.html
http://www.ncccusa.org/assembly/persecution.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~laohumrights/relipers.html
http://www.persecutionproject.org/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=30870

A worldwide phenomenon. Common as dirt.

Ah, but not in America? I have already mentioned the book “Persecution,” which provides very specific evidence to the contrary. It’s not the only book, by any means.

I had a few more paragraphs, but in a rare moment of self-control I have deleted them, just as I now delete myself from this discussion.

[vison]

Now, maybe someone here can explain this to me. I have always been under the impression that the separation of Church and State was more to protect the churches from state interference (England having an established church, which your founding fathers didn't want) than to protect the state from church interference?

Our Prime Minister Paul Martin has never, to my knowledge, been photographed either going into or coming out his church, and Canadian eyebrows would go shooting up if he was seen to be clutching a Bible under his arm. If he were to end a speech with these words, "God Bless Canada!" we would stare indeed. Yet, I am vaguely aware that Mr. Martin is a practicing Catholic, as were Mr. Chretien and Mr. Mulroney.

The present leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Mr. Stephen Harper, is an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian, whichever term is more correct. He makes noises about "returning" Canada to God, but quite frankly, it makes even religious Canadians very uneasy and will NOT serve to help him get elected. He will get elected, if he gets elected, largely IN SPITE of being "overtly" religious, not because of it.

Yet many Canadians are religious, many quite strongly evangelical Christians. Perhaps our shyness about public expressions of faith is some holdover from recent colonial days, when Canada was A British Country, and we had that British reserve? Whatever the reason it serves us as well as your constitutional separation of church and state.

I agree with Ethel that the word "persecution" is not quite what I would call the offenses against religion, if "offense" is the right word. *sigh* And I suspect it isn't.

But obviously there are those who disagree, and there are some of those on this very forum. How lovely, how nice, how civilized, that the disagreement can be carried on in this way.

[nerdanel]

I'm still having a problem with itchy fingers on this topic.

First of all, this discussion changes topics at almost every post. As best as I can tell it, we now have:

- Secularization of America/of religion/of Christianity. Whether secularization ever falls into the realm of persecution.
- The federal courts and the Establishment Clause
- The Ninth Circuit (Whistler, I do like the term "Ninth Circus" ); its progressive stance on certain issues; its high reversal rate; the fact that conservatives like the Ninth Circuit as much as liberals like the Fourth.
- Voronwë, hats, feathers, Whistler, absinthe, AICN...HUH?
- Discrimination against people based on religious beliefs or lack thereof.
- Extreme actions taken by religious zealots.

Apart from whatever it is that is required of the Founders of this site by the Thains (is that the right terminology?), we really do have several different topics here. Honestly, the Ninth Circuit (particularly the issue of splitting the court) is the one I find most interesting, but it is probably least germane to Jn's original discussion. I do intend to start a thread on this topic when I have the chance. Jn, I do have some thoughts on the Establishment Clause issue, but that will again take the thread in a different direction.

I want to address the issue of "discrimination," "marginalization," etc against people of faith, and people of little faith. I will do so from my personal experience. Most of you have heard me speak of my religious background - in brief, I was born and raised Catholic until I left of my own will at twelve; I studied earnestly on my own and with a rabbi for conversion to conservative Judaism until nearly eighteen; becoming disillusioned due to an excess of initial idealism about Judaism, I left and slowly drifted towards agnosticism, which is where I presently am.

As a Catholic: I remember growing up that our priests would frequently speak about the "persecution" that Catholics in America faced at the hands of Protestants. I did in fact observe Protestants ridiculing the beliefs of Catholics on a number of occasions.

As a would-be Jewish convert: Oh goodness. This is where I did observe various forms of prejudice from all sides. The worst of it came from Christian acquaintances, friends, and priests of mine, who informed me that I had "missed the boat," "was going backwards," "would surely never make it to heaven," "was rejecting salvation," and worse - the worse being in explicit terms that I am reasonably certain that Jesus would not have endorsed. Some people were so violently disturbed after learning that I could desert Christianity for Judaism that they simply told me that they didn't feel they could speak to me. My parents forbid me to tell certain people at our Catholic Church whose reactions they did not trust. I lost several friends over the matter. Some of my parents' Hindu friends, who already disapproved of our Christian beliefs, were even more astounded at interest in Judaism, and told me that I was trading one evil for a worse one. The grass wasn't entirely green on the Jewish side of the hill, either. I want to be clear that most of the Jews I spoke to about my desire to convert were supportive, friendly, wonderful people - true credits to their religion. However, there were many instances to the contrary. To cite just one example, more than one person told me that no matter what, I could never be Jewish because I could never have Jewish blood (note that this is directly contrary to what the Torah says on the subject), and they would not want one of their children to marry me as I would always be a shiksa. [the Jews in this thread may more fully appreciate the derogatory intent of that last statement]

As an agnostic - it is a radical idea in certain parts of this country NOT to believe in Jesus as Lord, Savior, and Messiah. When the topic has come up, particularly in Virginia, I have found that people - even non-churchgoers, or twice-a-year Christians - have a very hard time accepting this idea. I have felt that people have lost respect for me after I've answered their questions about my (lack of) belief truthfully. I believe that my lack of faith, should it continue, has the potential to impact negatively certain of my long-term career goals. Essentially, I do not trumpet my non-belief unless it comes up in the natural course of a discussion; I choose friends who do not trumpet their belief or lack of belief unless it comes up in the natural course of a discussion. I have often felt stigmatized, again particularly in Virginia.

Essentially, I really don't feel bitter or angry towards any of the people I've mentioned above. I view every one of my religious decisions as conscious, reason-driven choices that had natural consequences, including these people's reactions. I wish that they were not so - that people were neutral towards whatever faith I choose to have or not to have. (I find Judaism to be so beautiful and moving that if I can ever make my beliefs align sufficiently with the religion again, I will convert. It is truly a gem among religions for me.) But I know that it cannot be so.

My experience has taught me that there is prejudice against both believers and non-believers, against both Christians and non-Christians. Accordingly, I find it disingenuous when anyone claims that they are the disfavored group in today's America, because perversely, we all are. No matter what your stance on religion today is, there is an element in American society that will think worse of you for it.

EDIT to add: I very strongly have a problem with the word "persecution" being applied to any religious, atheist, or agnostic group in America today because I do not know of conduct against any group that rises to a level worthy of the term. Whistler, I understand that you have given a book that you say has evidence to the contrary; unfortunately, it will be more than two weeks before I can look at it. Would you mind providing some of the most egregious examples from the book for consideration in this discussion, should you decide to return to it?

No such thing as too much editing: Ethel, I always feel that providing specific examples of very, very extreme criminals does not normally prove very much. For instance, I know that the religious right often points to the murder of Jesse Dirkhising, a teenage boy, by two homosexuals who first raped and committed sadomasochistic acts on him. This incident has been used in attempts to establish the depravity of the "gay lifestyle" - but the actions of these two men tell me as little about homosexuals, as the actions of the two men you mention tell me about the Christian right.

[Ethel]

I had a few more paragraphs, but in a rare moment of self-control I have deleted them, just as I now delete myself from this discussion.

I do not think you should censor yourself. I feel quite sure that I have offended you, and that is painful to me. But we are trying to speak honestly and respectfully here, are we not? I wish you could like me, for I like and respect you. But I am understand why you cannot. Yet... perhaps if we air our differences civilly we might find some common ground?

For we must. Don't you think? Believers and non-believers need not be enemies. There is so much room for us to agree. We all want children to be wanted and well cared for, do we not? We all want a civil and decent society. We only disagree on how that is to be achieved.

I may make you angry, Whistler, but I am not your enemy. Talk to me. Tell me why I am wrong.

[Túrin Turambar]

Might I just say how much more reasoned this discussion is as opposed to some others I've participated in recently? Please don't go, Whistler. I honestly feel that we can get somewhere with this.

[Whistler]

It’s all right, everybody. I got a bit hot for a bit, and I had to step out on the porch and cool off. I’m a founder here, and if I get nasty Voronwë cuts my pay.

It seemed for a bit that we were playing a game of “can you top this?” and I found that frustrating. A couple of “Christian” idiots did some awful things, so I (presumably) was expected to come up with something equivalent that had been done to Christians.

What would be as bad, or worse? Atheists crucifying a priest, or drowning a preacher in his baptismal tank? Such things, and far worse, are happening at this moment. Not quite so bad in America, no! But when a thing is happening in a hundred other places, it is quite correct to be alarmed when one sees the seeds of it happening in one’s own home. And I do see those seeds, whether you do or not.

I don’t deny that religious people have done (and do) some awful things. I don’t deny that every group, as tp observes, is looked down upon by some other group. What I cannot abide is the notion that because Christians are so numerous it is impossible for them to be persecuted against, or at least that their persecution is a minor matter in the larger scheme of things.

If you told a black person or a gay (or whatever) that persecution existed only in his imagination, he’d answer, “How on earth would you know?” And that is pretty much my answer to some of you who remain unconvinced.

Sorry, I try to remain calm and respectful. But I do have a few hot buttons, and this is one of them.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]