An Observation.......

[aspen]

As many of you know, I am interested in human behavior and when combined with religious belief, I get even more interested. One phenomenon that has captured my attention lately is the presence of a Persecution Complex amongst certain religious groups of Christians and post-protestant churches. It appears that many Christians believe that the world is our enemy and committed to rob, control, and ridicule us as much as possible because of Jesus' name. Of course, there is some precedence for this belief because of the warning Jesus gave to His disciples before sending them out, but it cannot fully explain the complex I am referring to, which often manifests as a mindset of distrust, yet can go as far as anxiety and borderline paranoia. For instance, the very idea that I am even talking about this topic will be viewed as an attempt to ridicule and attack Christianity by some who read it.

Anyway, the reason I am thinking about this issue today is because I recently read an account of Dr. Dobson attempting to teach his dog a lesson using a belt. Now this story can be found on the internet, sponsored by groups that are against cruelty to animals. This fact has apparently upset Dr. Dobson who recently reported that he was being attacked by the lunatic fringe. When I looked up the account, I was surprised to find that the story was not written by some lunatic fringe reporter who trapped Dobson into telling a story he never really wanted to share; instead the account was from one of his own books! So, Dobson is angry that his own words have put him in a bad light.

Ok....so this is fascinating to me that a person believes they have the right to express righteous indignation over information they has chosen to make public, after it is received poorly. This is certainly not what Jesus was talking about in His warning to his disciples. The strange thing is that I have run into the same thing on this board - I could reprint, word for word, a post that someone has written and when they read it - they report feeling attacked by me - but really it is due to their own words.....

I think we really need to recognize this tendency in ourselves because if we are constantly looking for attack, how are we going to love the people who we are called to serve?

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes I too see that a lot, christians running around, complaining they are being persecuted, whilstr they are doing the persecuting. When youi throw stones, should ypou not expect a few back. We are here to love, ALL, not just the few who meet your standards, if that was the case with Jesus, we would all be in hell.

In His Love

 

[Selene]

Hi Aspen,

Yes, I've seen that too. One of things I've learned is that it's easier for people to see faults in others but not in themselves. Sometimes, people accuse others of the very things that they are guilty of.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[religusnut]

Hi Aspen,

Yes, I've seen that too. One of things I've learned is that it's easier for people to see faults in others but not in themselves. Sometimes, people accuse others of the very things that they are guilty of.

In Christ,
Selene

So you are saying that Aspen is a homophobe because that is what he sees in me and others like me on here?

 

[aspen]

So you are saying that Aspen is a homophobe because that is what he sees in me and others like me on here?

I have not called you a homophobe. However, I do think you have a problem sorting out the command to love everyone and how to handle people's sinful behavior - just an opinion

 

[Martin W.]

As many of you know, I am interested in human behavior and when combined with religious belief, I get even more interested.

So am I Aspen. Very much so . I have been around a long time. I have studied people for a long time. I look for what is in their hearts and what their motives are. I look for the reasons why people do what they do.

I was blessed with a very high IQ , I was blessed with a tremendous ability to read and research , I was blessed with good intuitive skills for "reading people" . I was blessed to become a Christian in 1986. It was at that point I began to realize much of what we do has a spiritual component to it. eg: Holy Spirit , or no Holy Spirit.

I type the following slowly and carefully as a few summary points that I have come to observe.

.... there truly is a lunatic fringe in the animal welfare industry. They raise and desire huge amounts of money , very little of which they use toward protecting animals. They will open warm enclosures full of food to release thousands of animals to freeze and starve. They , and the media conveniently never mention the freezing and starving aspects . Why is that I ask.

... but if James Dobson has his own words used against him on how he disciplines his dog , nearly everybody , including the media will bash him to no end. Why is that I ask.

... I am a heterosexual , I have a white complexion , which means I am a minority in the world, I'm a western Canadian , who is a christian , votes conservative , smokes cigarettes , and I like Israel . I am continually discriminated against , mocked , laughed at , by most people and the media. Why is that I ask.

.... But if I was colored , gay , vegetarian, had aids , belonged to an animal rights group , worshiped mother nature , and had the planet as my god , beleived I was descended from apes , valued animal life more than human life , I would be readily accepted by many people , including the media . People would go out of their way to give me good reviews. Why is that I ask.

What used to be considered good , is now considered bad.
What used to be considered bad is now normal.

What has caused this change in the last 20 years or so ??? Did a bunch of people all get up one morning and decide to change black to white and white to black ??? I think not. Something else is going on.

It is invisible , it works slowly at first , it has a subtle influence and effect on people , and it appeals to the sinful side of man. It has gained great momentum , few obstacles remain.

They only real obstacle remaining are the few people who still have a measure of Holy Spirit that overrules sinful nature. They can preserve themselves but cannot stop the onslaught that sweeps everyone else away.

The world has taught us to quit caring and quit interfering and we have. Most of us could care less what anybody thinks about us. We know what they think , we know the author of their thoughts , and we recognize a losing team when we see it.
I no longer care what the losing team thinks of me. I do not have the time to be nice. Besides it never works any more.

It would be a huge task to fix all the messed up minds to properly address the Dobson-dog-belt issue.
Nearly impossible to fix a mind that wants to remain messed up. Dark spirits are clever when they get a foothold.
But we will still get blamed for everything. That I guarantee. It is part of the strategy. Observe carefully.

My opinion and observation Aspen. Thanks

Preserve yourself everybody. It only gets worse.

 

[deprofundis]

.... there truly is a lunatic fringe in the animal welfare industry. They raise and desire huge amounts of money , very little of which they use toward protecting animals. They will open warm enclosures full of food to release thousands of animals to freeze and starve. They , and the media conveniently never mention the freezing and starving aspects . Why is that I ask.

This stuff always bothers me as an animal rights activist. PETA ends up euthanizing more of the animals they "rescue" from shelters which kill animals that aren't adopted than the shelter most likely would have, given the available data. I have to disagree that the media gives a positive presentation of animal rights activists, though; rather than being ignored, the lunatic fringe is emphasized, because that's what sells. Not that those groups themselves aren't as or more responsible than anyone else, since they seem more focused on publicity than helping out animals. They give people who love animals and want to see them treated with the respect and decency due all God's creatures a bad name. I don't like to see somebody hitting a dog with a belt (and it's not the best way to train a dog, besides), but I don't like to see the hate groups like PETA preach instead of love or the hypocrisy of their actions, either.

... I am a heterosexual , I have a white complexion , which means I am a minority in the world, I'm a western Canadian , who is a christian , votes conservative , smokes cigarettes , and I like Israel . I am continually discriminated against , mocked , laughed at , by most people and the media. Why is that I ask.....

But if I was colored , gay , vegetarian, had aids , belonged to an animal rights group , worshiped mother nature , and had the planet as my god , beleived I was descended from apes , valued animal life more than human life , I would be readily accepted by many people , including the media . People would go out of their way to give me good reviews. Why is that I ask.

I'm part Pawnee but have light skin, Christian, live on the East Coast but come from a small town in the middle of the country, don't have much money, would vote waaaaay liberal if they even had options that liberal, smoke cigarettes, and want to see Israel and Palestine come to a mutual peace. People from all sides in the mainstream media mock and lambaste me; the conservative Fox News crowd is convinced I'm a Godless commiefascist who wants to see an atheist homosexual dictatorship rule the world, oh, and I obviously support terrorists and hate freedom; the leftist Huffington Post types see me as an ignorant, backwards superstitious country bumpkin who will never fit in with their culture, oh, and I'm also a Zionist tyrant who hates freedom.
I don't think it's anybody specific who's targeted, I feel like its everybody gets persecuted, any more. The world's in a sad state right now where a lot of people seem to like to be reminded of their differences and laugh at those who aren't like them, rather than be reminded of their commonalities and feel fellowship with one another. I guess it just gets more viewers or sell more papers to demonize those who aren't like you than try to find common ground, nowadays. I try and focus on what I have in common with people; you and I may not vote the same or eat the same way, but I guess we both enjoy a smoke and, more importantly, we're one through Christ. I try to focus on that, and what we can do for the world together, rather than what we can do to the world apart.

I do not have the time to be nice. Besides it never works any more.

I encourage you to hold out hope -- it's never too late, and I think things'll only get worse if somebody doesn't start being nice, soon.

God Bless

 

[Thankful 1]

I have not called you a homophobe. However, I do think you have a problem sorting out the command to love everyone and how to handle people's sinful behavior - just an opinion

(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that. It is not my business to pass judgment on those outside. Of those who are inside, you can surely be the judges. But of those who are outside, God is the judge. You must drive out this evil-doer from among you.”

 

[Martin W.]

I have been around for a long time and I participate actively on several secular forums.

I have observed that the majority of people who post on secular forums , use their full names in public and for the whole world to see.

I have observed that very seldom do people on christian forums do the same,.

They like to hide behind a fake name , copy and paste , and will never be personally accountable for anything.

I have made more Christian friends on secular forums than on Christian forums. The ratio is about 20 to 1

I often wonder exactly what it is some people are hiding from.

Especially the Christians. They hide the most.

Secular forums , where people stand up to be counted , have very few moderators. They are not necessary.

Those are some of my observations.

If Denver Hunter started a sister forum to this one , where everybody had to use their real name, I would be the first to join.

I feel it would have a small membership.

Of genuine people.

Thank you.

A. Martin M.
Woodside

 

[Foreigner]

"I have observed that the majority of people who post on secular forums , use their full names in public and for the whole world to see.

I have observed that very seldom do people on christian forums do the same," - Martin


-- I couldn't disagree more. I regularly visit a number of christian forums as well as a number of political chat sites, sports sites, news feedback sites, and even foreign language usage sites (I used to work as an Interpreter).

People rarely (and smartly) use even just their first name (let alone their full name) on a lot of these sites, instead preferring a nickname or some other identifier. The reason being that there are definitely stalkers with a lot of time on their hands who will research who and where they are and will harass them.

I would ask Martin to provide a link or two to the "secular forums" where the users "use their full names in public." I would like to see them.




"One phenomenon that has captured my attention lately is the presence of a Persecution Complex amongst certain religious groups of Christians and post-protestant churches." - aspen

- Curious. Just how many of these threads do you feel is necessary. This specific topic is being discussed on at least two other threads at this time.




"Yes I too see that a lot, christians running around, complaining they are being persecuted, whilstr they are doing the persecuting." - mjrhealth

-- Care to provide some concrete, verifiable examples? Otherwise it is (rightfully) difficult not to assume this is just your opinion and you have no more firm ground on your position than the people you are speaking about.


The key here is the definition of "persecution."

A Christian pointing out that what they are allowed to do much less in the public arena or their workplace than they could even 10 years ago seems to be classified as "complaining about persecution" while a homosexual who complains about not being able to do something is considered "a victim struggling to defend their civil rights from and onslaught of hateful and destructive attacks."

A little perspective, please.

 

[deprofundis]

-- Care to provide some concrete, verifiable examples? Otherwise it is (rightfully) difficult not to assume this is just your opinion and you have no more firm ground on your position than the people you are speaking about.


The key here is the definition of "persecution."

A Christian pointing out that what they are allowed to do much less in the public arena or their workplace than they could even 10 years ago seems to be classified as "complaining about persecution" while a homosexual who complains about not being able to do something is considered "a victim struggling to defend their civil rights from and onslaught of hateful and destructive attacks."

A little perspective, please.

Well, simply put, there's nowhere in America where it's illegal to be Christian, there are places in which sodomy laws still make it effectively illegal to be gay. Christians can get married, while most places, homosexuals can't. Christians aren't often beaten or murdered for being Christians (nowadays, in America, anyhow), homosexuals are beaten and murdered for being homosexuals with alarming frequency. Look at how many churches have been vandalized since September eleventh, and compare it to the number of mosques. Look at not only the number of Muslims who have been attacked, but the number of Sikhs physically assaulted because they were mistaken for being Muslim. How many people stand at the funerals of any given Christian with hateful, hurtful signs? So there are "holiday" parades instead of Christmas parades, but when was the last time a group of guys saw you wearing a cross and beat you until you had to be hospitalized because of it?

 

[aspen]

"One phenomenon that has captured my attention lately is the presence of a Persecution Complex amongst certain religious groups of Christians and post-protestant churches." - aspen

- Curious. Just how many of these threads do you feel is necessary. This specific topic is being discussed on at least two other threads at this time.

The focus of this thread is to point out that many Christians feel persecuted by their own words. If you feel like I am being redundant, feel free to not participate in the discussion.

The key here is the definition of "persecution." A Christian pointing out that what they are allowed to do much less in the public arena or their workplace than they could even 10 years ago seems to be classified as "complaining about persecution" while a homosexual who complains about not being able to do something is considered "a victim struggling to defend their civil rights from and onslaught of hateful and destructive attacks." A little perspective, please.


De P. made some good points, but I would like to add another; you are mistaking privilege for a right. We have the right to religious freedom, we do not have the right to infringe on other people's religious freedom by asserting our own in place of others in the public arena. What was a right in a homogeneous society 30 - 40 - 50 years ago is considered privilege in a pluralistic society.

 

[Foreigner]

"Well, simply put, there's nowhere in America where it's illegal to be Christian, there are places in which sodomy laws still make it effectively illegal to be gay. " - De

-- You are leaving out key elements in that statement.
Like the fact while there are places like Pig Knuckle, Arkansas or Dry Gulch, Texas may have these archane laws, but the number of those locations is currently extremely small and getting smaller by the day.
Also - and let's quit with the semantics, shall we? - it is not "illegal to be gay." There are a small number of towns where the old sodomy laws make the activity illegal, but as I said, those are going away quickly.
Homosexuals are protected by a wide variety of federal laws so the whole "illegal to be gay" thing is a straw man argument.

And while it isn't "illegal to be Christian" in the US, the practice of that religion is becoming more and more restrictive in the US every single day, in contradiction of the U.S. Constitution.

And with the hate crimes legislation working its way through Congress right now, it will become illegal to even voice an opinion negative to the homosexual lifestyle. That could mean fines and possible jail time.




"The focus of this thread is to point out that many Christians feel persecuted by their own words." - aspen

-- If you are talking about Christians being asked point blank what they believe and why and when they answer honestly they are ridiculed and villified for it, I agree with you.

Being accused of hate crimes for simply quoting scripture and being told that you have no right to your opinion while everyone else can say what they want is, well...

There is overt hatred towards Christians, even when the Christians simply provide an answer and act towards a person in love.

The reason is because no one wants to hear that what they are doing is wrong, let alone a sin. They feel we either accept them or we are hate mongers.

The implications - by you as well as others - that Christians are only speaking out of judgement and are using extreme criticism to ridicule and attack is inaccurate at best.



"We have the right to religious freedom, we do not have the right to infringe on other people's religious freedom by asserting our own in place of others in the public arena." - aspen

-- Exactly. But that also needs to be a two-way street.
So far ONLY Christians are being accused of this. The fact of the matter is they face this every day from homosexual groups wishing to silence them because they do not agree with them.
Again, a little perspective please.

 

[deprofundis]

-- You are leaving out key elements in that statement.
Like the fact while there are places like Pig Knuckle, Arkansas or Dry Gulch, Texas may have these archane laws, but the number of those locations is currently extremely small and getting smaller by the day.
Also - and let's quit with the semantics, shall we? - it is not "illegal to be gay." There are a small number of towns where the old sodomy laws make the activity illegal, but as I said, those are going away quickly.

Okay, so, in how many towns is it illegal to pray or go to Church? In how many of those are those laws enforced? In America, I don't know of any. Secondly, it's not a "small number of towns," sodomy laws were statewide bans in at least ten states before being overturned by the supreme court in 2003; each state had a ban until relatively recently, with only a couple states repealing theirs prior to 1970. Furthermore, anti-homosexual "conduct" laws still exist in Texas, Kansas, and (I believe) one another state. Also, if I remember the statues, these are statewide laws.

Homosexuals are protected by a wide variety of federal laws so the whole "illegal to be gay" thing is a straw man argument.

Twenty states have no provision whatsoever against employment discrimination against homosexuals, there is no federal statute against housing discrimination against Gays (state laws exist in only thirteen states), and though protected under federal hate crime law, they are not protected under hate crime legislation in twenty states (although two of those report anti-homosexual violence in hate crime statistics). They're not really protected by any more federal laws than anybody else is, in short, and less than a lot of other people are state laws.

And while it isn't "illegal to be Christian" in the US, the practice of that religion is becoming more and more restrictive in the US every single day, in contradiction of the U.S. Constitution.

The practice of that religion publicly and/or with public funds is becoming more and more restrictive. What can't private, Christian individuals do?

And with the hate crimes legislation working its way through Congress right now, it will become illegal to even voice an opinion negative to the homosexual lifestyle. That could mean fines and possible jail time.

Which hate crimes legislation is this? If you're referring to the Matthew Shepherd Act (which already passed), that is simply not the case whatsoever.

 

[Foreigner]

"sodomy laws were statewide bans in at least ten states before being overturned by the supreme court in 2003" - De

-- So you are complaining about laws...that no longer exist?


"Furthermore, anti-homosexual "conduct" laws still exist in Texas, Kansas, and (I believe) one another state. Also, if I remember the statues, these are statewide laws." - De

-- And they are efforts to have them overturned as we speak. But federal law has shown those laws to be illegal more than once.


"Twenty states have no provision whatsoever against employment discrimination against homosexuals," - De

-- Care to source that? Because Justice Stevens pointed out last there that there is no state in the union that can legally not hire, restrict promotion or fire someone because they are gay.
The one exception he mentioned is religious schools, churches or organizations that do not accept public funding. He did mention though that homosexuals understand before they apply or are hired there that one of the core beliefs of those organizations runs counter to their lifestyle.
Just as I am sure you would find that organizations like Glaad and the like would not likely hire a born-again Christian.



"The practice of that religion publicly and/or with public funds is becoming more and more restrictive. What can't private, Christian individuals do?" - De

-- I have no idea what you mean with "with public funds." I know of no Christian individual or organization that is demanding public funds to support their Christian practices. Do you?
But your statement seems to imply it is alright to restrict public religion. Why? And why then would it not be alright to do to public homosexual activities/marches/parades/rallies, as well? Or do you support a double standard?

Are you really advocating that it is alright if Christians can only practice their faith privately? The problem is that the Christian faith calls for sharing the faith. That means that if it is forced to be kept private then their faith is being restricted - their First Amendment rights are being restricted.
I am not surprised that you are okay with that, but then should it not be applied to homosexuals as well? Change the laws so that what they do in their home in just fine, but anything supporting homosexuality, be it speaking, handing out literature, etc. be restricted?

You really can't have it both ways.

 

[Foreigner]

"there are places in which sodomy laws still make it effectively illegal to be gay." - De

-- Homosexuals I speak with love to claim that sodomy isn't uniquely a gay activity.
They point out that anal or oral sex between a man and a woman is still considered sodomy, as well.
So would not that law apply to them, as well?

When the scandal about the huge number of priests molesting children broke, most people were struck by the fact that the male priests had chosen mostly male children to molest.
Homosexuals were quick to claim that pedophiles were heterosexual as well as homosexual and that some homosexual men practice anal sex, as well.
So wouldn't that law apply to those straight males, as well?

Organizations such as GLAAD let NAMBLA march in their parades. Seems strange that they would let an organization that advocatiosn felonious homosexual activity be given a voice, don't you think?
Yet GLAAD points out that not all members of NAMBLA are 'strictly' homosexual.
If that is the case then aren't those sodomy laws affecting heterosexuals, as well?

The fact of the matter is that homosexual sex is a very dangerous kind of sex that can cause a wide litany of health issues to those that practice it.
It is indeed their right. And that means there should be no laws restricting that activity - at least between consenting adults.

But that doesnt' remove the right to say they do not agree with that lifestyle. Just like homosexuals have the right to say they do not agree with Christians.

 

[deprofundis]

-- So you are complaining about laws...that no longer exist?

I'm pointing out that the change was relatively recent. Plenty of people still alive, in fact, the majority of homosexuals, knew and experienced that persecution in their lifetime. Many of us here also witnessed the laws in place and the protests against them, which make those protests relevant to a discussion on the discourse of persecution. Protests against sodomy laws certainly came to my mind. I suppose they didn't come to yours, but I suppose you didn't even realize laws banning sodomy but which are not specifically sodomy laws still exist as statewide laws in three states, so perhaps I was simply paying more attention.

-- And they are efforts to have them overturned as we speak. But federal law has shown those laws to be illegal more than once.

That they still exist and and are somehow not overturned speaks to the exact sort of persecution to which I refer, does it not?

-- Care to source that? Because Justice Stevens pointed out last there that there is no state in the union that can legally not hire, restrict promotion or fire someone because they are gay.

You can download a colour-coded map of the information here, which shows different types of sexual orientation discrimination law in different colours, which states that lack any such statewide protection in grey. As to their source, you can check the statues of any given state.

-- I have no idea what you mean with "with public funds." I know of no Christian individual or organization that is demanding public funds to support their Christian practices. Do you?
But your statement seems to imply it is alright to restrict public religion. Why? And why then would it not be alright to do to public homosexual activities/marches/parades/rallies, as well? Or do you support a double standard?

Municipally organized Christmas parades, displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings, etc. Church and state are separate, but beyond that, I know of essentially no restrictions put on Christianity or the public practice thereof. No religion may be endorsed or condemned by the state or its institutions. I use "public" and "private" in the sense of "public sector" and "private sector," meaning state-sponsored events, programs, and institutions versus private events, programs, and institutions, respectively.

I am not surprised that you are okay with that, but then should it not be applied to homosexuals as well? Change the laws so that what they do in their home in just fine, but anything supporting homosexuality, be it speaking, handing out literature, etc. be restricted?

Speaking and handing out literature are both still perfectly legal for Christians to do, so I don't see your point, at all.

 

[Foreigner]

"I'm pointing out that the change was relatively recent. When it comes to the discourse of persecution" - De

-- But they HAVE changed. That is the point.
It is changing for Christians, as well...but in the other direction. While homosexual practices and lifestyle are becoming accepted, Christianity and its practices are being restricted.



"That they still exist, ever existed in the first place, and are somehow deemed constitutional speaks to the exact sort of persecution to which I refer, does it not?" - De

-- That's just it, they aren't considered Constitutional. That is why they are being overturned.

But I do notice you used the word "persecution." That seems like a rather low threashold for the word usage, does it not?
Aspen would criticize Christians who use the word "persecution" for something at that level. That is the main theme of this thread, is it not?

Myself, I do not see Christians in America being persecuted but their activities are being restricted. And that is how it starts.
There are forces actively restricting their activities and those forces are gaining strength. With that strength comes boldness and so I do see a day where Christianity will indeed be persecuted, not just restricted. It is prophecied so to say it isn't going to happen goes against Scripture.

One would have to be intentionally blind to see how things aren't already moving that direction. Slowly but steadily...



"Municipally organized Christmas parades, displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings," - De

-- You do know that Christmas is a national holiday here in the US, voted into law by President Grant, don't you?
And you do know that the Christmas parades are secular "Santa Claus, Reindeer, Candy Canes and Elves" events, don't you?
I have never seen Christmas parade, paid for by the city or not, that was centered around the birth of Christ.
As far as the 10 commandments, they are being yanked out off of public property faster than the sodomy laws are changing in this country. I think you know that,.



You completely skipped the point I made in reference to you seeming to feel that as long as Christians can practice their faith in private they should have no complaints.
I wonder why...

 

[deprofundis]

-- But they HAVE changed. That is the point.
It is changing for Christians, as well...but in the other direction. While homosexual practices and lifestyle are becoming accepted, Christianity and its practices are being restricted.

My only point is that a lot of the complaints of persecution we all remember were made before that change and should be taken in context of such. You still haven't really explained to me how Christian practices are being restricted. Nobody's ever told me I can be a Christian, or even openly be a Christian. They've only told me that

-- That's just it, they aren't considered Constitutional. That is why they are being overturned.

Well, I mean, no, they aren't. Those three states (Oklahoma is the third, by the way) still have those laws in place. When they are overturned, it'll be a different story, but right now, they're still laws, and they still make it illegal to be gay.

But I do notice you used the word "persecution." That seems like a rather low threashold for the word usage, does it not?
Aspen would criticize Christians who use the word "persecution" for something at that level. That is the main theme of this thread, is it not?

Their existence is considered a crime in three states, or at least any practice whatsoever of that existence is. I just don't see how that's a low threshold.

Myself, I do not see Christians in America being persecuted but their activities are being restricted. And that is how it starts.
There are forces actively restricting their activities and those forces are gaining strength. With that strength comes boldness and so I do see a day where Christianity will indeed be persecuted, not just restricted. It is prophecied so to say it isn't going to happen goes against Scripture.

I'm not saying it isn't going to happen, I'm just saying that there's not too much reason to assume it's going to start right now.

-- You do know that Christmas is a national holiday here in the US, voted into law by President Grant, don't you?
And you do know that the Christmas parades are secular "Santa Claus, Reindeer, Candy Canes and Elves" events, don't you?
I have never seen Christmas parade, paid for by the city or not, that was centered around the birth of Christ.

They may seem secularly focused to us, but that doesn't change the fact that "Christ" is in the name of Christmas, and it is a Christian holiday, even if President Grant made it a federal holiday and it may seem secular to us. Besides, I think a lot of Christmas parades have a Nativity present somewhere. If it is purely secular and not Christian, then I see no reason to objecting to them being renamed as "holiday" parades.

As far as the 10 commandments, they are being yanked out off of public property faster than the sodomy laws are changing in this country. I think you know that,.

Maybe so, but considering that it took a couple hundred years for any change in sodomy laws to start occurring, I hardly think that's particularly noteworthy.

You completely skipped the point I made in reference to you seeming to feel that as long as Christians can practice their faith in private they should have no complaints.
I wonder why...

Actually, I directly addressed it: "No religion may be endorsed or condemned by the state or its institutions. I use "public" and "private" in the sense of 'public sector' and 'private sector,' meaning state-sponsored events, programs, and institutions versus private events, programs, and institutions, respectively." Essentially, by "public" I meant state-sponsored, official, or whatever other term you'd like to use, not that Christians shouldn't be allowed to practice their beliefs in public; it was used in the same context as my earlier statement about "public funding" or in the sense of "public school." Basically, beyond the separation of church and state being enforced, I don't see any restrictions being put on Christian faith or practice. The only actual example you've offered is speaking and passing out literature, both of which are still legal for Christians to do.

 

[aspen]

"We have the right to religious freedom, we do not have the right to infringe on other people's religious freedom by asserting our own in place of others in the public arena." - aspen


-- Exactly. But that also needs to be a two-way street.
So far ONLY Christians are being accused of this. The fact of the matter is they face this every day from homosexual groups wishing to silence them because they do not agree with them.
Again, a little perspective please.

It sure seems like it when you count all the times Christians seem to lose their rights and discount all the times other groups seem to lose their rights. The fact is, most of these "rights" are actually privileges mislabeled - it is sort of the same deal as the Bush tax cuts - if they are ever considered for repeal in the future, people are going to call it a tax hike rather than what it really is. It is fun to cheer for your team - even when you are completely bias, but I think that kind of thinking should be confined to sports. Also, where in the Bible did Jesus, Paul or Peter mention that Christians should get a "two way street"?