Peer Pressure

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It seems to me that agreement within Christianity is often used to determine whether a person is a Christian or not. If you agree with the loudest person in the room or on the board you are ok for the moment, but just like any kicker in the NFL, you are only as safe as the last kick you make. Any controversial topic posted can be used to reevaluate your status as a Christian.

On the same note, I think many Christians believe that the Constitution should protect against disagreement and social persecution from nonbelievers, rather than simply protect against criminal prosecution or discrimination. Being a Christian sometimes includes being labelled intolerant or close minded - it happens - I am not sure why there is shock and protest from Christians about it. I think this is what Christ meant when he said that we would face rejection. The answer is not to get all mad about it and deny the accusations. In fact, this reaction often results in a 'persecution complex', which is used to justify all Christian behavior - they are going to reject us anyway, right?

Instead, I believe the answer is to turn the other cheek and exercise our sanctification by continuing to love the person who is socially rejecting us.
 

religusnut

New Member
Oct 19, 2010
242
10
0
It seems to me that agreement within Christianity is often used to determine whether a person is a Christian or not. If you agree with the loudest person in the room or on the board you are ok for the moment, but just like any kicker in the NFL, you are only as safe as the last kick you make. Any controversial topic posted can be used to reevaluate your status as a Christian.

On the same note, I think many Christians believe that the Constitution should protect against disagreement and social persecution from nonbelievers, rather than simply protect against criminal prosecution or discrimination. Being a Christian sometimes includes being labelled intolerant or close minded - it happens - I am not sure why there is shock and protest from Christians about it. I think this is what Christ meant when he said that we would face rejection. The answer is not to get all mad about it and deny the accusations. In fact, this reaction often results in a 'persecution complex', which is used to justify all Christian behavior - they are going to reject us anyway, right?

Instead, I believe the answer is to turn the other cheek and exercise our sanctification by continuing to love the person who is socially rejecting us.

So if we disagree with them that means we don't love them?
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"I think many Christians believe that the Constitution should protect against disagreement and social persecution from nonbelievers" - aspen


-- Anything to support that opinion? Because I find that downright silly. I have never even heard of a Christian demanding that the Constitution defend them from being criticized. Please.
My experience has been that Christians expect to take heat and have never expected. the Constitution to protect them from criticism.
They do however (and rightfully so) expect the Constitution to protect their right to speak their opinion and practice their faith.




"Being a Christian sometimes includes being labelled intolerant or close minded - it happens - I am not sure why there is shock and protest from Christians about it." - aspen

-- Again, a personal opinion. Not fact.
Most Christians are not surprised that they are called "closed minded' or "intolerant" considering the people hurling those accusations.
What they are shocked at is a Liberal judiciary's attempts to silence Christians.
Again, I refer you to the book "The Criminalization of Christianity" by Folger. Detailed examples of judges making non-Constitutional decisions on the bench to prevent the practice of their faith.



" In fact, this reaction often results in a 'persecution complex', which is used to justify all Christian behavior" - aspen

-- Again, another baseless blanket accusation that you cannot support.



Christ warned that Christians would face rejection. It does not come as a surprise.

Honestly Aspen, how many different threads are you going to start to keep floating this silliness?
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All I am saying is that a disagreement over doctrine does not mean one person is a Christian and the other person is not a Christian. Also, social rejection is part of the package of being a Christian - if we are called intolerant or whatever, so what. Christ never said it was going to be easy.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Aspen, most Christians, including those here understand that they may be called "Intolerant" and why. Especially when you look at the people claiming that.
Being called 'intolerant' is not the problem.
The problem that Christians have is being told that they are not allowed to voice their opinion, period.
That and the threat of being fined or imprisoned for speaking what someone else would call "intolerance."
Do a quick perusal of some of the Hate Crime legislation being put forth in this country as well as possible penalties.
THAT is what Christians are concerned about. Their freedom.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- Anything to support that opinion? Because I find that downright silly. I have never even heard of a Christian demanding that the Constitution defend them from being criticized. Please.
My experience has been that Christians expect to take heat and have never expected. the Constitution to protect them from criticism.
They do however (and rightfully so) expect the Constitution to protect their right to speak their opinion and practice their faith.


Interesting - it seems to me that you, Veteran and religusnut complain the most about being called intolerant......and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally so that you will not have to be called bigoted for discriminating against certain groups.

[font="tahoma][size="2"]-- Again, a personal opinion. Not fact.
Most Christians are not surprised that they are called "closed minded' or "intolerant" considering the people hurling those accusations.
What they are shocked at is a Liberal judiciary's attempts to silence Christians.
Again, I refer you to the book "The Criminalization of Christianity" by Folger. Detailed examples of judges making non-Constitutional decisions on the bench to prevent the practice of their faith.
[/size][/font]

[font="tahoma][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="3"] [/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="3"]This is an opinion board. Why are you shocked? Paul would not have been shocked - he was actually jailed without cause. I have never faced anything close to being stopped from practicing my faith. Have I faced some social pressure against being a Christian - yes......big deal.[/size][/font]

[font="tahoma][size="2"]-- Again, another baseless blanket accusation that you cannot support.[/size][/font]

This board is covered with opinions regarding the rights that Christians are losing - it is a persecution complex. We are losing to homosexuals, we are losing to minorities - people are taking, taking, taking.....

Christ warned that Christians would face rejection. It does not come as a surprise.


Sure looks like you guys are surprised to me.

Honestly Aspen, how many different threads are you going to start to keep floating this silliness?


I will start as many threads as I feel compelled to start. How many times are you going to follow me around complaining about how silly I am being......you know it is bordering on trolling. You are adding nothing to the conversation except that I am being silly and just posting useless opinions.

Aspen, most Christians, including those here understand that they may be called "Intolerant" and why. Especially when you look at the people claiming that.
Being called 'intolerant' is not the problem.
The problem that Christians have is being told that they are not allowed to voice their opinion, period.
That and the threat of being fined or imprisoned for speaking what someone else would call "intolerance."
Do a quick perusal of some of the Hate Crime legislation being put forth in this country as well as possible penalties.
THAT is what Christians are concerned about. Their freedom.

Have you ever been fined or imprisoned for being a Christian? Has anyone on this board? Name one hate crime legislation that will fined a person for being a Christian.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"This board is covered with opinions regarding the rights that Christians are losing - it is a persecution complex." - aspen

-- Opinions backed up by facts. Facts you choose to avoid or ignore. No surprise there.
If you were truly interested in facts you would check books like "The Criminalization of Christianity" by Folger or "America's War on Christianity" by O'Leary.
They give specific concrete examples of attempts by people, including the courts, to silence Christians and to prevent them from practicing their faith -- Here in America.


"Sure looks like you guys are surprised to me." - aspen

-- Sure looks like you see what you want to see.


"you know it is bordering on trolling." - aspen

-- Someone responding to your unsupported comments that you make repeatedly throughout the board is...trolling.
Poor guy. Are you feeling.... "persecuted?"
Gosh, are you calling me "intolerant?" Now that hurts. No, really.



"and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally " - aspen

-- Care to share where Christians are not treating someone "equally" based on a Constitutional decision as to their position by the Supreme Court?
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Foreigner - I am sorry you think that your opinions are all facts and my posts are all opinions. All you've done so far is give me a source that I do not have access to. Oh yes, you also answer my questions with questions. The only rights I have seen violated on this board have taken place in England and Canada and for at least the third time, neither Canada or Europe have the right to free speech. Once again, if you do not like my posts, why don't you ignore them?

I am not feeling persecuted, but I am getting tired of being followed around the board by people who are not interested in a discussion, but rather a commentary on the topics I choose to talk about.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"All you've done so far is give me a source that I do not have access to. " - aspen

-- It's called Google. G-O-O-G-L-E.
You can also check Amazon or a number of other sites.
A quick perusal of the book at Barnes & Noble or Borders book stores will also educate you.
They detail issues in other countries but also provider multiple specific incidents right here in the U.S.


"but I am getting tired of being followed around the board by people who are not interested in a discussion" - aspen

-- It is only discussion if they agree with you. If they don't they receive criticism and sarcasm.



"Once again, if you do not like my posts, why don't you ignore them?" - apen

-- Hmmmm. Wouldn't that apply to you, as well?


What it comes down to is this. You accuse Christians of intolerance and of feeling oppressed, but you refuse to investigate information that shows they are - right here in the U.S. - having their rights curtailed.
You willingness to claim a specific point while not bothering to investigate the other side of the issue speaks volumes.



and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally " - aspen

-- You make the accusation. Please support it.
Please share where Christians are not treating someone "equally" based on a Constitutional decision as to their position by the Supreme Court?
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- It's called Google. G-O-O-G-L-E.
You can also check Amazon or a number of other sites.
A quick perusal of the book at Barnes & Noble or Borders book stores will also educate you.
They detail issues in other countries but also provider multiple specific incidents right here in the U.S.


Oh there I go spelling out words again I am being so sarcastic....wait a minute!

So why am I supposed to research on a topic you are trying to prove to me?

-- It is only discussion if they agree with you. If they don't they receive criticism and sarcasm.

I have had many discussions on this board where I didn't agree with the topic.

-- Hmmmm. Wouldn't that apply to you, as well?

Why should I ignore my own threads?


What it comes down to is this. You accuse Christians of intolerance and of feeling oppressed, but you refuse to investigate information that shows they are - right here in the U.S. - having their rights curtailed.
You willingness to claim a specific point while not bothering to investigate the other side of the issue speaks volumes.



The burden of proof is not on me.

-- You make the accusation. Please support it.
Please share where Christians are not treating someone "equally" based on a Constitutional decision as to their position by the Supreme Court?



Well, I guess you could follow your own advice and go G-O-O-G-L-E it.

It really is amazing to me that I am the person who is being accused of being critical and sarcastic - have you looked at your posts lately? I am not the person following you around commenting on the value of the topics you are choosing to talk about instead of engaging in a discussion. In fact, I think I have been quite patient dealing with all the attempts to shut down the conversation on my threads - for example, labeling my peacemaker thread a bait thread - even Hammerstone agreed that it was not a thread posted to bait anyone. Please refer to the log in your own eye before you criticize me.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Aspen, most Christians, including those here understand that they may be called "Intolerant" and why. Especially when you look at the people claiming that.
Being called 'intolerant' is not the problem.
The problem that Christians have is being told that they are not allowed to voice their opinion, period.
That and the threat of being fined or imprisoned for speaking what someone else would call "intolerance."
Do a quick perusal of some of the Hate Crime legislation being put forth in this country as well as possible penalties.
THAT is what Christians are concerned about. Their freedom.

Actually, most Christians on this board - not all - have a hard time admitting they are, in fact, intolerant regarding specific issues. I have admitted I am intolerant. You can voice your opinion, but you may hear some opposition - it doesn't mean you have to stop talking about it. The only thing I find to be annoying is when the legitimacy of my topic is commented on without even an attempt to engage in conversation - as if what I am choosing to talk about is stupid or silly and shouldn't even be brought up - especially on a Christian board.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"So why am I supposed to research on a topic you are trying to prove to me?" - aspen

-- So why are you dismissing it outright without even bothering to see if it is true?



"I have had many discussions on this board where I didn't agree with the topic." - aspen

-- And a number of them you handled with criticism and sarcasm.




"Why should I ignore my own threads?" - aspen

-- Ah, so you only visit your threads here. Interesting.




"The burden of proof is not on me. " - aspen

-- I have noticed that. You have yet to prove a single thing you have claimed.
Generalize? Yes
Accuse? Yes
Provider proof....not so much.




"Well, I guess you could follow your own advice and go G-O-O-G-L-E it." - aspen

-- I have. Have been unable to find one single piece of evidence to support your claim that there are groups that Christians feel they are protected "from having to treat equally" even though the practices for these specific groups are Constitutionally protected. I hope you realize that YOU feeling it is Constitutionally protected does not automatically make it so.

("......and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally so that you will not have to be called bigoted for discriminating against certain groups." - aspen)



"Actually, most Christians on this board - not all - have a hard time admitting they are, in fact, intolerant regarding specific issues." - aspen

-- You mean they are human? I would agree with that.
Where I disagree is your floating definition of intolerance. Not putting the seal of approval on someone's lifestyle or choices because God calls it an abomination is hardly being intolerant...unless you are saying that God is intolerant.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- So why are you dismissing it outright without even bothering to see if it is true?

I am not dismissing anything. I am waiting for you to prove your point. See, you don't get to demand that I prove my points AND prove yours. I am just not motivated to research your point and I think it is really funny that you expect me to go out in the snow to prove your point!


-- And a number of them you handled by you with criticism and sarcasm.

So how come you get to give your opinion, on my posts, but refuse to recognize my opinions regarding your posts - just wondering. If I have been sarcastic or criticized anyone, I apologize for doing so. It is very possible that I allowed other people's sarcasm and criticism to bother me and bleed into my comments.

-- Ah, so you only visit your threads here. Interesting.

So, do you really believe that? A brief glance at the rest of the board will prove this statement false. But if it was true - who cares?

-- I have noticed that. You have yet to prove a single thing you have claimed.
Generalize? Yes
Accuse? Yes
Provider proof....not so much.


I am primarily interested in discussing ideas. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Nor I am not obligated to prove anything. This is not a court of law - it is not even a place for formal debate. The fact is, I already know that you would never be persuaded to believe anything I write - and it is not my purpose anyway. This whole conflict has nothing to do with whether I use facts or opinions - it is about whether I have the right to my opinion or to start threads here - here is the answer: Yes, I do. Your opinion about what I write carries no weight. You see, I have been posting on different Christian message boards for a long time now, and it usually takes about a month before a conservative population of the board gets worried about what I am talking about - you are right on schedule, Foreigner. So, here is what I tell them - I am a Christian and I am going to continue to post about issues that impact my walk with Christ - even if you do not like it.

-- I have. Have been unable to find one single piece of evidence to support your claim that there are groups that Christians feel they are protected "from having to treat equally" even though the practices for these specific groups are Constitutionally protected. I hope you realize that YOU feeling it is Constitutionally protected does not automatically make it so.


So we don't have free speech in this country? All I have ever said is that Christians have a right to their opinions. Of course, their opinions might carry some peer pressure from opposition groups - but not legal action - and I say that we just have to lump it. My entire point on the homosexuality thread was the all people SHOULD be treated equally - why would I say that Christians do not have to treat people equally?

-- You mean they are human? I would agree with that.
Where I disagree is your floating definition of intolerance. Not putting the seal of approval on someone's lifestyle or choices because God calls it an abomination is hardly being intolerant...unless you are saying that God is intolerant.



I think it is Pride that stops people from admitting that they are intolerant - God created us human, which is the goal of sanctification - to be fully human as we were created to be. You choose to ignore the fact that I believe homosexuality is a sin - this is part of the reason I think you may never be persuaded to believe anything I write. I cannot be any clearer on this topic. Homosexuals are sinners / citizens that are sinners have the same rights as the rest of us (as long as they do not forfeit their rights by breaking the law)
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"I am not dismissing anything. I am waiting for you to prove your point." - aspen

-- I have. You just refuse to look at where I am directing you.
You have the ability to post in the middle of the day (just like me) but you don't have time to actually read facts it seems.



"So how come you get to give your opinion, on my posts, but refuse to recognize my opinions regarding your posts - just wondering." - aspen

-- I have recogbnized them. I thought the point was that you didn't like that I did. Make up your mind.




"So we don't have free speech in this country?" - aspen

-- No one has said otherwise. When exactly have Christians said they can give their opinions but others can't. Please be specific.



"All I have ever said is that Christians have a right to their opinions. " - aspen

-- No, you also made the accusation about Christians: "and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally "
I simply asked for a specific example. Am still waiting...



" I am a Christian and I am going to continue to post about issues that impact my walk with Christ - even if you do not like it." - aspen

-- Straw man. Never said you shouldn't post. But if you post, you shouldn't be shocked if people reply.
And as for the "troll" there have been multiple posts on multiple threads from you that I haven't felt the need to comment on.
Today in any other thread you have participated in for example.

 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- I have. You just refuse to look at where I am directing you.
You have the ability to post in the middle of the day (just like me) but you don't have time to actually read facts it seems.


Providing a source that is unavailable to me is not proving your point. Until you actually provide some real information, I am finished arguing over this point. I do not do the leg work for people who are trying to convince me of their point.

-- I have recogbnized them. I thought the point was that you didn't like that I did. Make up your mind.

Here we go again - are we talking about peer pressure - which is the topic of the thread or are we posting about how to talk to each other.

-- No one has said otherwise. When exactly have Christians said they can give their opinions but others can't. Please be specific.

Once again, I am the only person apologizing for being sarcastic or critical - you simply gloss over that part of the post and latch onto more contentious content.

-- No, you also made the accusation about Christians: "and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally "
I simply asked for a specific example. Am still waiting...


I would like to say that we would not be having this conversation if you recognized that homosexual citizens are entitled to the same rights as all American citizens, which is the context for the quote you used - but unfortunately, I am sure you would be choosing to argue over something else.

-- Straw man. Never said you shouldn't post. But if you post, you shouldn't be shocked if people reply.
And as for the "troll" there have been multiple posts on multiple threads from you that I haven't felt the need to comment on.
Today in any other thread you have participated in for example.



This is not a formal debate. I am not shocked when people reply to the content of the post, but the topic of the post? I am still waiting for you to respond to the topic. As far as I am concerned, you are more interested in proving me silly, wrong, or stupid, rather than talking about peer pressure.

Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently engaging in a rather nasty religious debate. Here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)

3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is an article I found on Janet Folger - the author of the book you recommended. She is a former lobbyist, not a scientist or psychologist - she is trained to whip up opposition to the gay agenda. The first few pages of her book sounded like scare tactics from a lobbyist - no surprise. Also, it is interesting that conservatives hate the word gay as a substitute for homosexuality, yet they have no problem using it pejoratively, like the religious right did when they coined the phrase in 1992.

New York Times, August 13, 1998

229 W. 43rd Street, New York,NY,10036
(Fax 212-556-3622 ) (E-MAIL: [email protected] )
( http://www.nytimes.com )
Woman Behind Anti-Gay Ads Sees Christians as Victims

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

WASHINGTON -- Over the last two and a half years, leaders representing about 25 conservative Christian groups have been meeting for private strategy sessions to discuss how to counter what they see as the increasingly powerful "homosexual lobby" and its legislative victories.

The conservatives believed that their position was getting clobbered: Gay people were adopting children, coming out on television shows and persuading politicians to vote for anti-discrimination laws.

"The final straw," said Janet Folger, a member of the strategy group, came in June when Michael McCurry, the White House press secretary, denounced Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the majority leader, as "backward" for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and "kleptomania."

So, in a conference call to the group of conservative strategists in Washington on June 24, Ms. Folger proposed taking out full-page newspaper advertisements that would show "former homosexuals" who "overcame" their sexual orientation through prayer and the help of Christian "ex-gay ministries."

The advertisements, which ran recently in seven major newspapers with a combined circulation of nearly 8 million, infuriated gay rights advocates and ratcheted up the intensity of the debate over homosexuality. The advertising campaign also drew attention to its architect, Ms. Folger, who raised more than $400,000 to pay for it, and is now placing more ads.

Ms. Folger, who has recently appeared on "Nightline" and the "ABC Evening News," has no formal training in human sexuality, psychology or science. She has a master's degree in communications from Cleveland State University, and once worked for a Christian radio station writing and producing commercials.

"Janet is an example of what I like to think of as an issue entrepreneur," said Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition. "Some entrepreneurs try to figure out what the new hot stocks are. Janet is an ideological entrepreneur, someone who tries to pick the hot new issues."

In a recent interview here, Ms. Folger said she is convinced that conservative Christians are victimized by a popular culture that ridicules and dominates them.

The debate over homosexuality illustrates her point, she said. Gay rights groups have persuaded Americans that Christians who condemn homosexuality are intolerant, she said, while actually it is gay people and their supporters who are intolerant of Christians.

"They're not advocating tolerance," Ms. Folger said. "If that were the case, they'd live and let live. Instead, they do things like demand that the Boy Scouts change their position by accepting homosexuality. And they will sue anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's basically forcing people to embrace their behavior."

For the last four years, Ms. Folger has traveled to churches and conferences presenting a seminar and slide show on "the assault against Christians." She lectures that the media, the courts, popular culture and the politicians are "chipping away" at the rights of Christians.

"Prayer police are roaming the halls" of schools, she told the "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" in Florida earlier this year, "looking not for guns, not for drugs, but for children praying."

Until recently, Ms. Folger was a lobbyist for the Ohio Right to Life Society and the major force behind Ohio's becoming the first state to ban partial-birth abortion. She rallied state legislators by referring to the procedure as "brain suction abortion" and displaying gory posters.

"She is a very effective advocate, very articulate," said Doug Johnson, federal legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Yet Ms. Folger was so relentless that several legislators barred her from their offices, newspaper reports say. State Rep. John Garcia, R-Toledo, who said he usually votes against abortion and was not among those who evicted her from his office, recalled that "she got me so frustrated that I was ready to vote for abortion and get it out of the way."

"Janet is good at what she does, but she comes on a little too harsh," Garcia said.

After nine years with Ohio Right to Life, Ms. Folger said she wanted to broaden her repertoire. When Reed left his job leading the Christian Coalition in 1997 to become a political consultant, Ms. Folger says she sought to replace him. But the job was given to Donald Hodel, who was secretary of Energy and later secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration.

Last September, Ms. Folger moved to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to become national director of the Center for Reclaiming America, a fledgling advocacy group started by the Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries, a multimedia evangelical organization.

As a startup in the already crowded field of conservative Christian public advocacy organizations, the Center was in search of a strategy and a focus. Ms. Folger had been at work developing a series of "animated cartoons for children promoting biblical values," she said, when she realized that the advertising campaign on homosexuality was more timely.

"She's looking for a way to influence the debate," Reed said, "and she's smart enough to know that it's easier to dive into a topic that people are already talking about than to try and start a new conversation."

The advertisement that ran in The New York Times featured a photograph of Anne Paulk, with a caption that read, "Wife, mother and former lesbian," and showed a portrait of men and women gathered at a convention for Exodus, an ex- gay ministry. Ms. Folger said she wanted to strike at the assumption that homosexuality is an immutable trait and that gay people therefore need protection under anti-discrimination laws.

Gay rights groups quickly composed an opposing newspaper advertisement to refute the claims. They maintain that only a small percentage of those who seek help from ex-gay groups permanently alter their sexuality, and that many more are emotionally scarred by trying to change something they cannot.

"There are definitely some people who sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that you should have compassion, but I think that the advertisements are not being put out by those people," said Cathy Renna, director of community relations for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "The ads are being put out by political operatives and religious extremists who are trying to influence public opinion and political candidates, who know that a very strident approach is not going to work."
 

religusnut

New Member
Oct 19, 2010
242
10
0
-- Anything to support that opinion? Because I find that downright silly. I have never even heard of a Christian demanding that the Constitution defend them from being criticized. Please.
My experience has been that Christians expect to take heat and have never expected. the Constitution to protect them from criticism.
They do however (and rightfully so) expect the Constitution to protect their right to speak their opinion and practice their faith.


Interesting - it seems to me that you, Veteran and religusnut complain the most about being called intolerant......and how the constitution should somehow protect you from having to treat people equally so that you will not have to be called bigoted for discriminating against certain groups.

[font="tahoma][size="2"]-- Again, a personal opinion. Not fact.
Most Christians are not surprised that they are called "closed minded' or "intolerant" considering the people hurling those accusations.
What they are shocked at is a Liberal judiciary's attempts to silence Christians.
Again, I refer you to the book "The Criminalization of Christianity" by Folger. Detailed examples of judges making non-Constitutional decisions on the bench to prevent the practice of their faith.
[/size][/font]

[font="tahoma][size="3"][/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="3"][/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="3"]This is an opinion board. Why are you shocked? Paul would not have been shocked - he was actually jailed without cause. I have never faced anything close to being stopped from practicing my faith. Have I faced some social pressure against being a Christian - yes......big deal.[/size][/font]

[font="tahoma][size="2"]-- Again, another baseless blanket accusation that you cannot support.[/size][/font]

This board is covered with opinions regarding the rights that Christians are losing - it is a persecution complex. We are losing to homosexuals, we are losing to minorities - people are taking, taking, taking.....

Christ warned that Christians would face rejection. It does not come as a surprise.


Sure looks like you guys are surprised to me.

Honestly Aspen, how many different threads are you going to start to keep floating this silliness?


I will start as many threads as I feel compelled to start. How many times are you going to follow me around complaining about how silly I am being......you know it is bordering on trolling. You are adding nothing to the conversation except that I am being silly and just posting useless opinions.



Have you ever been fined or imprisoned for being a Christian? Has anyone on this board? Name one hate crime legislation that will fined a person for being a Christian.

There have been arrests made in Philadelphia and other places because of this legislation.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
"Have you ever been fined or imprisoned for being a Christian? Has anyone on this board? Name one hate crime legislation that will fined a person for being a Christian." - aspen

-- Interesting. Name one black man you have met in the last 40 years who has been fined or imprisoned for being black.
Or for that matter, name one homosexual who was fined or imprisoned for being homosexual.


Now there are those who think there is no difference between being told you can't do something, and being punished for what you want to do.


Having grown up in cities where they were allowed to have Nativity Scenes and post the 10 Commandments, I find it interesting now that that practice can be forced to cease by the complaint of just one single individual. "Offended" or "Non-inclusive," what have you. For better or for worse that hasn't caused me to march on city hall or call for the firing of individuals or claim that I find it offensive that that is no longer allowed in a nation formed on Christian ideals.


Likewise I have remained silent even though my daughter has been told they can no longer sing Christmas Carols in their school's Christmas Concert that refer to Jesus, Baby Jesus, Christ, God, Angels or the like.
As a matter of fact, the "Christmas" concert is now called the "Holiday" concert so as not to offend non-believers and Muslims in our community. Strangely enough a large number of Jews have come forward with the Christians demanding to know why they can't sing songs related to a government-created holiday. A holiday that the government itself calls"Christmas." If I remember right Congress voted it into existance and the President Grant signed it into law.


I Also kept silent when schools banned prayer at school functions and sporting events. Practices that have been in place for decades are now a no-no for Christians. It isn't enough that those who don't want to pray don't have to. They are offended that they even have to listen to it.


What first began to raise flags for me, though was when speakers at the High School graduation here in town were told that even though they are going to be speaking about themselves, they are not allowed to mention God or Jesus during their speeches. The reason given: Seperation of Church and State. Apparently the "or prohibiting the free speech thereof" portion of the first amendment doesn't count.
The students are speaking on behalf of themselves and not the schools, yet...


They have also been told that in their individual school music recitals they can pick any genre except Christian music. They are also not allowed to write any papers - be it for English, History, or Science - that mentions/covers anything to do with Jesus or God. Why? You guessed it. The non-existant "Seperation of Church and State."


Now if you note what the First Amendment says, it says: "Congress shal make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" but right AFTER that is say, "or abridging the freedom of speech..."


So tell me, do you really think that part in the First Amendment gives a school the right to restrict a recital song, a graduation speech, etc. just because of their faith? The powers that be sure do.
So basically, if it has to do with Christianity, the no prohibiting of free exercise and the no prohibiting of simple free speech no longer applies to you.


A simple Google will give you a litany of events where Christians are harrassed and charged...just for practicing their faith.
There were two students at Peralta Community College in CA who were disciplined by the school just for praying with a sick teacher.
They had to go to court in order to get it overturned.

From SFGate.com:


College students who pray won't be punished

EDUCATION
May 07, 2010|By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff WriterAn East Bay community college district has agreed to respect students' freedom of religious expression in settling a lawsuit filed by two women who were threatened with suspension after one of them prayed with an ailing teacher in an office at the College of Alameda.

In the settlement, announced this week, the four-campus Peralta Community College District recognized the right to "non-disruptively pray on campus." The district also agreed to remove all records of disciplinary action against the students and pay their attorneys' fees, said Kevin Snider, a lawyer with the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented the students.

Students still won't be allowed to lead organized prayers in class, but can pray in other campus locations "to the same extent that they may engage in any other free speech," Snider said.

"This was a case of voluntary prayer between consenting adults," the attorney said.

A spokesman for the college district in Oakland was unavailable for comment.

The case dates from the fall of 2007, when the students, Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga, were studying fashion design at the Alameda college.

According to their suit, they took breaks from class to pray with each other and other students on a balcony. On two occasions, in November and December 2007, Kyriacou prayed with a teacher, Sharon Bell, in an office Bell shared with other faculty. The second time, when Bell was feeling ill, another teacher came in and told Kyriacou, "You can't be doing that in here," the suit said.

Both students received notices saying they faced suspension for "disruptive behavior." Omaga was accused of praying disruptively in class. After disciplinary hearings, school officials did not suspend them but warned them they would be punished if they prayed in a teacher's office again.

District lawyers argued that the school was entitled to designate faculty offices as workplaces that would be free of disruptive activities such as "protests, demonstrations (and) prayer."

But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston refused to dismiss the suit in March 2009. She said a college student has the right to pray in private outside the classroom, and the plaintiffs could try to prove that the school treated religious expression more harshly than other speech.


-- Now you might say "See, the system works" and my question is, for how long?
And how did our society come to this point?


If you were to look at either of the books I have referred you to more than once you would find scores of cases here in the US of A where Christians are being oppressed.


If you were to Google "hate crime legislation anti-Christian" you would be able to read several examples as to why, if passed, Christians will be forced into silence or face fines or jail.


It is not too much of a stretch to say that this is how it started for the Jews in Germany. It was the government's aggressive persecution, starting small but crecendoing, combined with apathy of non-Jews (and some Jews) until it was too late.


The Supreme Court is basically a one-justice swing from changing everything for Christians.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,110
4,778
113
54
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- Interesting. Name one black man you have met in the last 40 years who has been fined or imprisoned for being black.
Or for that matter, name one homosexual who was fined or imprisoned for being homosexual.


Interview any black person and you will hear about the racism that is embedded in our justice system. It is a fact that black on white crimes result in stiffer sentences, especially in the south. OJ Simpson was a guilty man, but he was framed by the LA police department. Rodney King ran from the police, but he was beaten close to death when the police caught up to him. How about the black man that was dragged to death behind a pick up truck in TX? This board is not large enough to list the crimes perpetuated on black people and the lack of assistance they have received from our justice system. The fact is, being black or homosexual removes the benefit of the doubt that white heterosexuals receive from law enforcement - it is the white privilege white people do not recognize. Here is an interesting fact, I really got to see what it was like to have white privilege removed when I went to Hawaii - if you have ever been, you know that all natives get served first, get the benefit of the doubt and receive help when needed - whites are second class citizens.

Having grown up in cities where they were allowed to have Nativity Scenes and post the 10 Commandments, I find it interesting now that that practice can be forced to cease by the complaint of just one single individual. "Offended" or "Non-inclusive," what have you. For better or for worse that hasn't caused me to march on city hall or call for the firing of individuals or claim that I find it offensive that that is no longer allowed in a nation formed on Christian ideals.

It is a bit ridiculous to complain about a nativity scene - however, having Christian items in public places is a privilege! Now that we are a more diverse culture, we need to recognize other people.


Likewise I have remained silent even though my daughter has been told they can no longer sing Christmas Carols in their school's Christmas Concert that refer to Jesus, Baby Jesus, Christ, God, Angels or the like. As a matter of fact, the "Christmas" concert is now called the "Holiday" concert so as not to offend non-believers and Muslims in our community. Strangely enough a large number of Jews have come forward with the Christians demanding to know why they can't sing songs related to a government-created holiday. A holiday that the government itself calls"Christmas." If I remember right Congress voted it into existance and the President Grant signed it into law.

A privilege, which is not being honored any longer. It is funny to me that you cannot see that getting to display Christian symbols or sing Christian songs in a multicultural society is a privilege.


I Also kept silent when schools banned prayer at school functions and sporting events. Practices that have been in place for decades are now a no-no for Christians. It isn't enough that those who don't want to pray don't have to. They are offended that they even have to listen to it.


Another Christian privilege that is having to be rethought. Are you in favor of having voodoo ceremonies in New Orleans school districts, where the majority of people believe in so sort of voodoo religion?


What first began to raise flags for me, though was when speakers at the High School graduation here in town were told that even though they are going to be speaking about themselves, they are not allowed to mention God or Jesus during their speeches. The reason given: Seperation of Church and State. Apparently the "or prohibiting the free speech thereof" portion of the first amendment doesn't count.
The students are speaking on behalf of themselves and not the schools, yet...



Are you comfortable if they mention Jesus along with Allah, Krishna, and Buddha?


They have also been told that in their individual school music recitals they can pick any genre except Christian music. They are also not allowed to write any papers - be it for English, History, or Science - that mentions/covers anything to do with Jesus or God. Why? You guessed it. The non-existant "Seperation of Church and State."


I think it goes beyond separation of church and state - I think it is trying to stop an exclusive practice of incorporating only Christian ideas and symbols into a public arena.


Now if you note what the First Amendment says, it says: "Congress shal make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" but right AFTER that is say, "or abridging the freedom of speech..."


I agree that the school systems have chosen to interpret the separation of church and state in the wrong way - it is supposed to protect religion, not the state from religion - however, we are a multicultural country now. We either need to incorporate all religions or no religions in the public arena.


So tell me, do you really think that part in the First Amendment gives a school the right to restrict a recital song, a graduation speech, etc. just because of their faith? The powers that be sure do.
So basically, if it has to do with Christianity, the no prohibiting of free exercise and the no prohibiting of simple free speech no longer applies to you.



All or none.


A simple Google will give you a litany of events where Christians are harrassed and charged...just for practicing their faith.
There were two students at Peralta Community College in CA who were disciplined by the school just for praying with a sick teacher.
They had to go to court in order to get it overturned.



Injustices will happen - we just need to make sure that we have a place at the table like everyone else. Black people, homosexuals and other marginalized groups would laugh and shrug their shoulders over the article you posted - been there, done that....

-- Now you might say "See, the system works" and my question is, for how long?
And how did our society come to this point?


So here is the question - is our country a Christian nation? And what I mean by Christian is Christian like the way your church teaches Christianity? If so, all of the things you posted are an outrage. Or, is this country a nonreligious nation with a hint of secularized Christian symbolism that was never taken very seriously in the first place, until some Christians started feeling like Christmas was under attack.


If you were to look at either of the books I have referred you to more than once you would find scores of cases here in the US of A where Christians are being oppressed.

If Christians believe it is their right to have Christian symbols in the public arena without any regard to other religions then I agree, they are going to probably feel oppressed. But what they are refusing to see is that other people live in the country.


If you were to Google "hate crime legislation anti-Christian" you would be able to read several examples as to why, if passed, Christians will be forced into silence or face fines or jail.

I am sure I would - if I were to google white supremacy and Christianity I would also find plenty of material.


It is not too much of a stretch to say that this is how it started for the Jews in Germany. It was the government's aggressive persecution, starting small but crecendoing, combined with apathy of non-Jews (and some Jews) until it was too late.


Our country is moving towards fascism, I agree with that - but I didn't vote for them!

The Supreme Court is basically a one-justice swing from changing everything for Christians.


The church only gets stronger and more purified when oppressed. You know, I've been reading a lot of Paul lately, and I really doubt he would be worried about the government - he would be rallying Christians in their churches - underground or above ground. The government is not going to make one bit of difference in my walk with Christ - are you going to let it make a difference in yours?