Christians Being "Oppressed."

[Gravekeeper]

The fundamental problem of course being that you can't pull the victim card when you're a 75% majority in a country where its near impossible to even be elected without at least paying lip service to God. >.>

[Panacea]

They're just using religion as an excuse to make an issue out of this.

Well, on that point we're in complete agreement. I've never seen the problem with celebrating after a score regardless of the reason, but if that's the rule that's the rule.

That is never going to happen.
Far too many people have this mindset that Christ was persecuted, if we aren't persecuted, we are not walking in Christ's footsteps (the whole fact that he was persecuted so we wouldn't have to be being lost on them). There are actually people who will have themselves crucified, and not just as a one off thing, but every year, so that they may understand and honor Christ's sacrifice. It's also a brotherhood thing, Christians in other places are persecuted for their faith and they stay strong, how will I know that I am as good of a Christian and my faith is as strong if I am not also persecuted?

That's not quite what he said, as someone else mentioned. I don't know any Christian who wonders if their faith is strong if they are not being persecuted. The American "persecution" complex is not driven by real persecution, but rather bitterness: bitterness that since they no longer have carte blanche to tromp on everyone else's rights that they have to protest a paranoid persecution complex. I know a guy like this. We were talking about school prayer and he proclaimed that the fact this was no longer allowed was a cause of the decline of faith in America.

Nonsense, I told him. Whether or not prayer was allowed in school, or God in we trust on our money, or whatever, has NO impact on MY faith. I believe what I believe. Period.

He had no answer for that, no one ever does. No one can actually explain to me how a lack of government sponsorship of religion impacts their personal faith.

The people you refer to being crucified, the only ones I'm aware of who do this are some folks in the Phillipines . . . and it's a practice the Catholic Church strongly discourages.

<snip>
He was persecuted to give penance for the original sin of Adam and Eve and open the way back into Heaven. Hence why He is titled the Lamb of God. He was the last sacrifice.

So, yeah, Christ said we'd be persecuted, even promised extra blessings/graces/rewards for it, but I don't think being told to knock off celebrating at a sports event really counts.

Exactly. Primarily, Christ told his apostles THEY would be persecuted, no so much other people who believed in him. What he DID say is that following him would be hard, which IS a true statement. It is very hard to live up to the standard Jesus set: how often have we talked about what we wished we could say to suckstomer or other moron . . . well, we're not supposed to say these things. We're supposed to forgive those who trespass against us. And that's a really hard thing to do. Most people, when they're wronged, forgiveness is the last thing on their minds.

The fundamental problem of course being that you can't pull the victim card when you're a 75% majority in a country where its near impossible to even be elected without at least paying lip service to God. >.>

No joke. But getting these asshats to see it is not that easy.

[Fire_on_High]

I might be too cynical here, but a part of me wonders if the kid figured he had the perfect "I win" button, just claim religion and watch everyone back off. Except it didn't work...

[Seifer]

The rule itself is ridiculous. I can see getting annoyed with some moron scoring a goal and running laps around the field while everyone sits on their hands and waits for the game to continue. However, I understand a player getting excited after scoring and throwing their hands up in celebration. It's almost involuntary at that point.

[Panacea]

Games are supposed to be fun. It's fun to win.

I can see a rule prohibiting scorers or winning teams from chanting "You SUCK!" to the loser, or as was mentioned from holding up the game with a display.

But the no tolerance BS is just that BS. Let people enjoy their achievements.

[CooperArt]

I really didn't get this at all, but when I saw the stuff they went through in Roman times, I can see how a persecution complex would have been built into the religion.

But in America? Yeah, no.

If I recall my history correctly, Christians were the worst about religions when they were conquering other countries. (Islam got worse later, but at first they were relatively kind to those who were 'of the book' even if that book wasn't the most updated version.)

[Signmaker]

Personal liberties are on the decline, in favor of forced compliance.
Of these liberties, religion is among them, with doing something outside the norm for the purpose of religion being frowned upon.
Christianity, in it's various forms, makes up a large percentage of religion.
Ergo, lots of news of christianity being oppressed.

Christianity is predominant in developed first world countries.
The degree of suppression of religion in first world countries pales in comparison to those of 2nd and 3rd world countries (banning private prayer during school time vs. beaten to death in the street for having the wrong religious book in your house).
Ergo, stories of christianity being suppressed is commonly written off as trivial by comparison. (aka "LOL first world white people problems")

Professional sports players are being cought in drug, sex, violence, animal cruelty, etc stories in the media.
Pro sports want to clean up their public image.
Ergo, ban minor scoring celebrations.

Er, sorry, that last one didnt really follow logic I guess. Then again, logic and pro sports dont really get along together often.

[HYHYBT]

...banning private prayer during school time...

When did that happen? How is that even logically possible?

[Signmaker]

When did that happen? How is that even logically possible?

Happens fairly frequently actually, typically by overzealous local school administrations attempting to stretch the Federal level laws against school sponsored prayers. If those affected have the resources and mindset to, they bring legal action against the school board, and those school board rulings usually get overturned.

I have no idea what logic is used during these rulings by school boards, if any, as the offending actions are usually uninvasive and supported by a large percentage of the school, and usually require an extreme stretch to label them as "school sponsored". The existing law says private school prayers are lawful, unless they are "disruptive", and some school officials have a tendency to label everything and anything "disruptive", as they see fit.

The point I was making was that they are relativley small suppressions of a majority demographic, compared to places in the world where a religion in the minority is met with open violence.

[Gravekeeper]

Personal liberties are on the decline, in favor of forced compliance. Of these liberties, religion is among them, with doing something outside the norm for the purpose of religion being frowned upon. Christianity, in it's various forms, makes up a large percentage of religion. Ergo, lots of news of christianity being oppressed.

You have a major citation needed for the thesis of your statement here. Personal liberties as a whole are not on the decline ( The NSA is another can of worms ) and religious liberties in particular are just fine and dandy.

Every time some "Christian" gets on TV and claims oppression it is inevitably always because they're mad that they ran afoul of the Establishment clause. Its not because they were actually oppressed but because the law stopped them from illegally imposing their views on others.

Its the revisionist myth of the "Christian Nation" vs the actual reality of a secular legal system and government where are all equal.

Happens fairly frequently actually, typically by overzealous local school administrations attempting to stretch the Federal level laws against school sponsored prayers. If those affected have the resources and mindset to, they bring legal action against the school board, and those school board rulings usually get overturned.

Fairly frequently where? How? The same laws that prohibit prayer in school also ensure private prayer in school. Also, the concentrated effort to overturn said laws is coming from the opposite side. Which has been constantly trying to worm its way past Church and State to re-institute prayer in school for decades.

I think you have it the wrong way around.

[Panacea]

Happens fairly frequently actually, typically by overzealous local school administrations attempting to stretch the Federal level laws against school sponsored prayers. If those affected have the resources and mindset to, they bring legal action against the school board, and those school board rulings usually get overturned.

You didn't answer the question. WHEN and WHERE did this supposedly happen?

You CANNOT forbid private prayer; it can happen anywhere at any time. I can be standing in full view of my classroom and offer God a silent, private prayer and not only can't anyone stop me, they won't even know I'm doing it.

That is the quintessential private prayer.

There is NOTHING to stop someone from offering a private prayer, say grace before a meal.

Sorry, your claim has no support and is therefore rejected.

[Kristev]

I agree. Private prayers cannot be banned in schools, merely teacher-led public ones. It's just that the fundies wish to keep pushing the envelope in hopes of breaching the wall. Rather like barbarians. Of course, once they breach the wall and put mandatory prayer back in schools, one could always counter by making those prayers Wiccan prayers to Hecate . . . The fundies wouldn't care for that much at all.

[Signmaker]

You have a major citation needed for the thesis of your statement here. Personal liberties as a whole are not on the decline ( The NSA is another can of worms ) and religious liberties in particular are just fine and dandy.

Really? I mean...take your pick, from soft drink size restrictions to magazine capacity restrictions to the war on drugs to DUI checkpoints. The government has been doing a pretty good job of telling us they know what's good for us.

Every time some "Christian" gets on TV and claims oppression it is inevitably always because they're mad that they ran afoul of the Establishment clause. Its not because they were actually oppressed but because the law stopped them from illegally imposing their views on others.

Usually it's a difference of opinion on a certain act being imposing their views, or simply exposing their views, and sometimes it is pretty difficult to draw the line.

Fairly frequently where? How?

You didn't answer the question. WHEN and WHERE did this supposedly happen??

A Google search on it would get you a night's worth of reading on news stories about religious groups clashing with local forms of government over a religious display. Some of them are the religious group wanting something that would qualify as establishing, and some of them are the government group over-reacting.

Just so no one can say I provide no example, here's a good NH case that follows the pattern I talked about: http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS04/130919770

You CANNOT forbid private prayer; it can happen anywhere at any time. I can be standing in full view of my classroom and offer God a silent, private prayer and not only can't anyone stop me, they won't even know I'm doing it.

The silent bit tends to be the snag. Many groups, and yanno myself included, do not consider hearing/reading a prayer being the same as having that religion thrust upon me. But cases come up where they argue that hearing someone recite a prayer is infringeing on my religious freedom. Which makes about as much sense as hearing you speak is an infringement of my freedom of speech.

I know people hate "slippery slope" arguments, but the next point I see in the progression is seeing someone praying will be considered infringing on someone elses freedom.

Sorry, your claim has no support and is therefore rejected.

Wait...what? You asked for supporting evidence...and then rejected my statement due to lack of evidence...in the same post? Or is it being rejected for not complying with the "dumb christians are dumb" echo chamber?

[Gravekeeper]

Really? I mean...take your pick, from soft drink size restrictions to magazine capacity restrictions to the war on drugs to DUI checkpoints. The government has been doing a pretty good job of telling us they know what's good for us.

That's all you can come up with? Seriously?

The soft drink size restriction was one city in one state and it was overturned for being unconstitutional.

High capacity magazines and DUI checkpoints are hardly a liberty issue unless you define liberty as "I can do whatever the fuck I want without consequences".

The war on drugs was certainly a colossal failure but I don't think you know exactly what the war on drugs was. Seeing as the majority of it takes place on foreign soil. As for the sentencing issues and other legal stupidity on the home front, if you'd been paying attention you'd have noticed Obama has been working to correct said problems and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has disavowed the term all together. So that situation, from a liberty perspective, has been improving.

Usually it's a difference of opinion on a certain act being imposing their views, or simply exposing their views, and sometimes it is pretty difficult to draw the line.

Its pretty damn simple to draw the line actually. You cannot use public resources for religious purposes unless ALL religions are given equal access and opportunity.

A Google search on it would get you a night's worth of reading on news stories about religious groups clashing with local forms of government over a religious display. Some of them are the religious group wanting something that would qualify as establishing, and some of them are the government group over-reacting.

You've changed the topic. We asked for examples of prayer in school which you claimed was a wide spread occurrence. As for public displays specifically, again, the law is clear:

Government conduct:
1) Must have a secular purpose
2) Must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion
3) Cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Just so no one can say I provide no example, here's a good NH case that follows the pattern I talked about: http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS04/130919770

What pattern? Public school. Public property. No religious demonstration. End of story. Despite her being in the wrong, the school offered a reasonable compromise as well. If she wants to pray openingly for her children she could just cross the street so she's no longer on school grounds.

The silent bit tends to be the snag. Many groups, and yanno myself included, do not consider hearing/reading a prayer being the same as having that religion thrust upon me. But cases come up where they argue that hearing someone recite a prayer is infringeing on my religious freedom. Which makes about as much sense as hearing you speak is an infringement of my freedom of speech.

Reciting a prayer is fine as long as you are not doing so in any capacity as a representative of the government or performing a demonstration upon others. You can go pray somewhere at recess if you like. But you can't preach in the cafeteria nor can you lead a class in prayer as the teacher.

Once again, citation needed. Do you have any examples of this occurring that would demonstrate this is a growing problem and not an anomalous blip of stupidity somewhere?

I know people hate "slippery slope" arguments, but the next point I see in the progression is seeing someone praying will be considered infringing on someone elses freedom.

There is no progression.

Or is it being rejected for not complying with the "dumb christians are dumb" echo chamber?

Its being rejected because you keep making claims you cannot prove and when pressed on the matter, you have offered weak examples or changed the topic. -.-