Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay


Off-Topic Discussions

901 to 950 of 1,199 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

We're heading into an area better left for a different thread, but what -objective- evidence would make you decide that "massive, constant, institutional" racism against blacks was behind us?

Well, I'd start with them not being behind bars in disproportionate numbers to their weight in the population, and then I'd probably want to see them not having disproportionate amount of unemployment, and then, probably somewhere in there, I'd want to see a

socialist revolution. For starters.

Honest question, do you have statistical data that shows that between a white and a black from the same neighborhood and socio-economic class, the black is more likely to be falsely arrested?


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:


Well, I'd start with them not being behind bars in disproportionate numbers to their weight in the population, and then I'd probably want to see them not having disproportionate amount of unemployment, and then, probably somewhere in there, I'd want to see a socialist revolution. For starters.

You might need to start with a revolution, which in turn puts in place a social security safety net, decent State run education, and decentralised public housing.

You might also need to look at the drug laws a bit more closely to ensure that the focus is on rehabilitation of drug users, rather than incarceration, and you also need to take back the prison system to public control to ensure they are not a for profit institution - as if there could be an uglier way to make an honest living.

I'd also float the idea that it is becoming less a racial issue, but more than ever its a socio-economic one, in that whether you are a poor black or poor 'white trash' the cards are heavily stacked against you, only the problem is that we just simply blame it on the other guy rather than look to who's really doing all the shafting.

I don't think, however, that a Socialist Revolution is due any time soon, though a separation of Church and State would be nice.


thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
We're heading into an area better left for a different thread, but what -objective- evidence would make you decide that "massive, constant, institutional" racism against blacks was behind us?

I'm not going to answer that. I'm not an expert on testing racial attitudes and any answer I could give would just lead to endless nit-picking.

Do you want to claim that such racism is behind us?
Is there another reason for asking your question?

I've seen the word "racism" bandied about so freely that in many cases it becomes as ludicrous as "mini-rape". My question was meant to remove ambiguity and make sure we were talking about something specific and actionable, not nebulous spin.


Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I'd guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

Or when the default description of whites is "European-American."


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I'd guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

So, between a white poor who has never experienced institutionalized power and a black poor who has never experienced intitutionalized power, would you support giving the black more social mobility so that blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, Citizen Duck, I would EDIT: support a socialist revolution to smash capitalism and dissolve class society.

Edited a word to make the answer more reflect the question.


But now we're getting pretty far afield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No, Citizen Duck, I would propose a socialist revolution to smash capitalism and dissolve class society.

Because every socialist country most comparable in size to the United States (forex. the USSR) did/has done so well in improving quality of life for its people.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I'd guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

So, between a white poor who has never experienced institutionalized power and a black poor who has never experienced intitutionalized power, would you support giving the black more social mobility so that blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower class?

Well, I'm a big lefty like Doodlebug, but I think anyone who hasn't experienced institutionalized power should receive social aid rather than die in a ditch; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.


Hitdice wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I'd guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

So, between a white poor who has never experienced institutionalized power and a black poor who has never experienced intitutionalized power, would you support giving the black more social mobility so that blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower class?
Well, I'm a big lefty like Doodlebug, but I think anyone who hasn't experienced institutionalized power should receive social aid rather than die in a ditch; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

We were discussing racism. What sort of aid should we offer which would end "massive, disproportionate" racism towards blacks?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Honest question, do you have statistical data that shows that between a white and a black from the same neighborhood and socio-economic class, the black is more likely to be falsely arrested?

I don't.

I have read a study recently that sent out fake job applicants with equivalent resumes and found that black applicants were much less likely to be hired.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No, Citizen Duck, I would propose a socialist revolution to smash capitalism and dissolve class society.
Because every socialist country most comparable in size to the United States (forex. the USSR) did/has done so well in improving quality of life for its people.

I would say that, when Stalin wasn't killing tons of people left and right, the Soviet Union did raise the quality of life for its people. People forget how backwards Tsarist Russia was. It certainly wasn't headed for #2 World Power on the trajectory it was headed.

Pre-1991, comparison of Soviet Central Asia to, say, Afghanistan or India, would, imho, demonstrate quite clearly that a planned economy, even one disastrously misrun by hacks and bureaucrats, does improve the quality of people's lives.

One can only imagine what one democratically-run and covering the whole globe could accomplish...

[Bubble bubble bubble]


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

Class has a large part to do with it, I wouldn't disagree. I am Comrade Anklebiter's religious thread avatar after all.

So, I'd guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

So, between a white poor who has never experienced institutionalized power and a black poor who has never experienced intitutionalized power, would you support giving the black more social mobility so that blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower class?
Well, I'm a big lefty like Doodlebug, but I think anyone who hasn't experienced institutionalized power should receive social aid rather than die in a ditch; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
We were discussing racism. What sort of aid should we offer which would end "massive, disproportionate" racism towards blacks?

If I can only choose one, it'd be a quality public education system. Then comes housing and medical care.


thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Honest question, do you have statistical data that shows that between a white and a black from the same neighborhood and socio-economic class, the black is more likely to be falsely arrested?

I don't.

I have read a study recently that sent out fake job applicants with equivalent resumes and found that black applicants were much less likely to be hired.

I'm trying to figure this out. Is the argument that the resume had one of those "black names" like D'Shayne or Tawanna?

I'm not sure that controls for class. How many upper class blacks (not including those who made their money in sports or entertainment) have names like that? Or were those names compared to "Billy Bob" and "Lucinda"?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Well, I'm a big lefty like Doodlebug, but I think anyone who hasn't experienced institutionalized power should receive social aid rather than die in a ditch; it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

We were discussing racism. What sort of aid should we offer which would end "massive, disproportionate" racism towards blacks?

I'd guess: none.

You can't end racism by whites, by giving stuff to black people. That may lessen the effects of racism, but it also feeds into the racist's perception that he's being held down and blacks given special privileges.

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer, other than time and hope and maybe education. Of the racists and their children, not of those discriminated against.

We have to stop the "dog whistle" appeals to racism by politicians, but I don't know how to do that.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Honest question, do you have statistical data that shows that between a white and a black from the same neighborhood and socio-economic class, the black is more likely to be falsely arrested?

I don't.

I have read a study recently that sent out fake job applicants with equivalent resumes and found that black applicants were much less likely to be hired.

I'm trying to figure this out. Is the argument that the resume had one of those "black names" like D'Shayne or Tawanna?

I'm not sure that controls for class. How many upper class blacks (not including those who made their money in sports or entertainment) have names like that? Or were those names compared to "Billy Bob" and "Lucinda"?

No. Resume may have been the wrong word. These were actual in-person visits. Either scheduled interviews or walk-ins, I'm not sure and don't have the article in front of me.

Since they also compared to applicants with criminal records, I suspect it was walk-ins.

The people hiring could see the color of the applicants, they weren't relying on names.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

We're heading into an area better left for a different thread, but what -objective- evidence would make you decide that "massive, constant, institutional" racism against blacks was behind us?

Well, I'd start with them not being behind bars in disproportionate numbers to their weight in the population, and then I'd probably want to see them not having disproportionate amount of unemployment, and then, probably somewhere in there, I'd want to see a

socialist revolution. For starters.
Honest question, do you have statistical data that shows that between a white and a black from the same neighborhood and socio-economic class, the black is more likely to be falsely arrested?

I can tell you as someone who works in law enforcement that the white youth is less likely to be arrested for the same offense.

DWB is a real thing.


What's a 'dog whistle' appeal to racism?

The education you speak of would have to be towards blacks to. If they keep seeingthemselves as victims, no amount of change in the world will have a positive affect.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

What's a 'dog whistle' appeal to racism?

The education you speak of would have to be towards blacks to. If they keep seeingthemselves as victims, no amount of change in the world will have a positive affect.

I'll let Lee Atwater, Republican strategist describe it for me:

Quote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*+@!+, n%*&&%, n#!#!!." By 1968, you can't say "n&&#$&" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N&$~#%, n&!%#@."

Your second point is a classic "blame the victim" schtick.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:


So, I guess I'd add to my answer: when blacks aren't disproportionately in the lower classes.

Better,

And I'd also aim for the bottom rung of the class structure having a better basic standard too. I don't want to get to a position that we are thrilled with having nice proportions of dirt poor and destitute, I'd like to see nice proportions of people enjoying a better quality of life :)

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Its funny that you don't see it for yourself. This is real persecution.

The United States has a kind of Fabian style persecution against Christians. A slow & gradual covert persecution.

Really? Try this on for size: I KNOW what religious prosecution is like. I'm a buddhist. I was called a satanist. When a graveyard was vandalized, my friends and I were arrested for it even though we didn't know about it. I found out that I had been up for promotion to management on several occassins, but was passed over because I wasn't "christian". I joined the navy to get away from that. My friends and I were harassed by the police simply because we weren't the right kind of "christian".

Unlike you, I don't have to look outside the country to find oppression. I can find it here in the U.S.


@Shifty--Your post was, um, posted while I was composing that reply to Citizen Duck.

So, a delayed response:

I agree with everything in the first three lines of your above post, except for the capitalization of the word "state". I might quibble about decentralized public housing, but once we adjusted for American vs. Australian population density, we'd probably agree.

Race in America, from the auction block to the pink slip to the lookout on the corner has always been a socio-economic thing.

As for the inevitable, impending international proletarian socialist revolution--I heard it's scheduled for 2014. [Sigh of relief] I've been waiting a long time.


thejeff wrote:


Your second point is a classic "blame the victim" schtick.

Really?

Do you think that this is "blame the victim"?

http://elegantblackwoman.blogspot.com/2012/04/victim-mentality-may-be-limit ing-your.html


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Its funny that you don't see it for yourself. This is real persecution.

The United States has a kind of Fabian style persecution against Christians. A slow & gradual covert persecution.

Really? Try this on for size: I KNOW what religious prosecution is like. I'm a buddhist. I was called a satanist. When a graveyard was vandalized, my friends and I were arrested for it even though we didn't know about it. I found out that I had been up for promotion to management on several occassins, but was passed over because I wasn't "christian". I joined the navy to get away from that. My friends and I were harassed by the police simply because we weren't the right kind of "christian".

Unlike you, I don't have to look outside the country to find oppression. I can find it here in the U.S.

The question asked about Christian persecution worldwide, my examples are relevant. I also gave you my opinion on domestic persecution with the Fabian analogy. I believe I answered the question.

I don't want to sound insensitive to your post, but do you have any records or evidence about your persecution, arrest, complaints about been passed over for promotions? If you don't, as much as I appreciate your struggles I have to be sceptical about what you are saying.


So, Aretas can't provide examples of significant harm to Christians in the United States and didn't mean that Christians are suffering significant harm in the United States.

That clears things up.

Andoran

Aretas wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Its funny that you don't see it for yourself. This is real persecution.

The United States has a kind of Fabian style persecution against Christians. A slow & gradual covert persecution.

Really? Try this on for size: I KNOW what religious prosecution is like. I'm a buddhist. I was called a satanist. When a graveyard was vandalized, my friends and I were arrested for it even though we didn't know about it. I found out that I had been up for promotion to management on several occassins, but was passed over because I wasn't "christian". I joined the navy to get away from that. My friends and I were harassed by the police simply because we weren't the right kind of "christian".

Unlike you, I don't have to look outside the country to find oppression. I can find it here in the U.S.

The question asked about Christian persecution worldwide, my examples are relevant. I also gave you my opinion on domestic persecution with the Fabian analogy. I believe I answered the question.

I don't want to sound insensitive to your post, but do you have any records or evidence about your persecution, arrest, complaints about been passed over for promotions? If you don't, as much as I appreciate your struggles I have to be sceptical about what you are saying.

Would you be equally skeptical if he was a Christian saying it? That said, what he has described is often found among pagans as well though I haven't experienced much personally (*knock on wood*). The fact that I keep my religion to myself unless I'm either anonymous or with someone I trust helps with that, as does the fact that I work at a place where being Christian isn't the default assumption. (Native American Tribe.)

In my time at my job (8 years), however, I have seen 1 significant attempt by Christians to oppress non-christians, specifically the followers of the tribal religion. It was very promptly nipped in the bud and I haven't seen anything like it since. That was probably one of my favorite moments working there.

Shadow Lodge

Aretas, if christian persecution in America is so vague, subtle and insidious that you can't even point to it have you considered the possibility that its not actually there? It wouldn't be the first time the right stirred up strong feelings over a complete non issue.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Its funny that you don't see it for yourself. This is real persecution.

The United States has a kind of Fabian style persecution against Christians. A slow & gradual covert persecution.

Really? Try this on for size: I KNOW what religious prosecution is like. I'm a buddhist. I was called a satanist. When a graveyard was vandalized, my friends and I were arrested for it even though we didn't know about it. I found out that I had been up for promotion to management on several occassins, but was passed over because I wasn't "christian". I joined the navy to get away from that. My friends and I were harassed by the police simply because we weren't the right kind of "christian".

Unlike you, I don't have to look outside the country to find oppression. I can find it here in the U.S.

The question asked about Christian persecution worldwide, my examples are relevant. I also gave you my opinion on domestic persecution with the Fabian analogy. I believe I answered the question.

I don't want to sound insensitive to your post, but do you have any records or evidence about your persecution, arrest, complaints about been passed over for promotions? If you don't, as much as I appreciate your struggles I have to be sceptical about what you are saying.

Would you be equally skeptical if he was a Christian saying it? That said, what he has described is often found among pagans as well though I haven't experienced much personally (*knock on wood*). The fact that I keep my religion to myself unless I'm either anonymous or with someone I trust helps with that, as does the fact that I work at a place where being Christian isn't the default assumption. (Native American Tribe.)

In my time at my job (8 years), however, I have seen 1 significant attempt by Christians to oppress non-christians, specifically the followers of the tribal religion. It was very promptly nipped in the bud and I haven't seen anything like it...

Yes I would be skeptical.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aretas, if christian persecution in America is so vague, subtle and insidious that you can't even point to it have you considered the possibility that its not actually there? It wouldn't be the first time the right stirred up strong feelings over a complete non issue.

There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

Michael Newdow a big proponent of the separation of church and state, is against the Pledge of allegiance. He wants it banned from schools because it contains the words "under God."
He claims that because the pledge contains those words it is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and atheist children are supposedly being forced to recite it.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.

Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
War memorials displaying crosses in honor of our nation's fallen fighters are under legal attack because the cross is also a Christian religious symbol.
Catholics and other denominations are being called "hateful" and "callous" for opposing gay marriage.
Christmas trees are being turned into "holiday" trees and the words of Christmas carols are being changed to "winter" and "holiday" songs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
If they keep seeing themselves as victims, no amount of change in the world will have a positive affect.

None of the examples you cited strike me as persecution Aretas; no offense, but they seem to me to be a step back from out and out endorsement of a particular religion by the government.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aretas wrote:


Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state.

Insofar as they address state policy, your choice of examples testifies to the opposite.


Aretas wrote:
There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

Quite right. I'm one of them. What's your point?

Aretas wrote:
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.

As they should. Again, what is your point?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aretas, if christian persecution in America is so vague, subtle and insidious that you can't even point to it have you considered the possibility that its not actually there? It wouldn't be the first time the right stirred up strong feelings over a complete non issue.

The idea that Christians are persecuted in the modern United States is utterly inane. Though it is interesting that the withdrawal of special treatment is perceived as persecution.

But really, what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aretas wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.

If two people own a billboard, and one wants to put 'God Bless You' on it, and the other doesn't, what should be done?


Aretas wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.

Please explain to me how making me pledging allegiance to your god (I am an atheist, I disavow the existence of God) is not promoting your religion?


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.
Please explain to me how making me pledging allegiance to your god (I am an atheist, I disavow the existence of God) is not promoting your religion?

Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words of the Pledge echo the conviction held by the Founders of this Nation that our freedoms come from God. Congress inserted the phrase 'One Nation Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth, and to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognize no higher authority than the State.

Antonin Scalia: "The phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance reflect the true tradition of religious freedom in America, a tradition of neutrality among religious faiths. Government will not favor Catholic, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, but the tradition was never that the government had to be neutral between religiousness and non-religiousness."

The Pledge of Allegiance does not mandate a religious belief in God, establish a religion, or constitute a government endorsement of a religion. Rather, it is an affirmation of allegiance to a nation which describes itself as being 'under God.' If an individual (Iron Tusk) does not believe in God, they can still be a loyal citizen of a republic that does.

Barack Obama:
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation, context matters."


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.
If two people own a billboard, and one wants to put 'God Bless You' on it, and the other doesn't, what should be done?

I really don't know. Are they equal partners?

Details please & your remedy for the situation.


bugleyman wrote:
Aretas wrote:
There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

Quite right. I'm one of them. What's your point?

Aretas wrote:
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
As they should. Again, what is your point?

My response was part of a dialogue with Bignorsewolf. That was my point. Whats yours friend?


I am confused now. Am I living in an evil socialist state or a theocracy?

In Norway we have a state church. The result is that we get a watered-down religion because (secular if not atheist) politicians control so much of it. The only party that might want to enforce religious beliefs has maybe 0.1% of the votes and no representatives.
(The Christian democratic party does not want to enforce beliefs)

So, the (only?) country with state religion, 90%+ nominal christianity and a strong state is completely failing to become a theocracy.
The only path to theocratic dictatorship I can see is the Iranian way which requires a religious dictator with support from the army and a population that generally accepts the dictatorship side as well as the religious side of it.

Note: as a christian, I interpret the term 'christian beliefs' to include only actual religious beliefs and not ignorance-based prejudice that contradicts those beliefs. I aplogoise for any confusion caused by this.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aretas wrote:

I really don't know. Are they equal partners?

Details please & your remedy for the situation.

The details are that the billboard represents the U.S. government, which every citizen owns equally. We cannot promote one religion over another, and thus we cannot promote any religion. Please notice that I do not say we must discourage religion, only that we must not promote it. In the same way military service members are not allowed to wear uniform items with discernible logos, as we are not allowed to promote specific companies.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words of the Pledge echo the conviction held by the Founders of this Nation that our freedoms come from God. Congress inserted the phrase 'One Nation Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth, and to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognize no higher authority than the State.

Antonin Scalia: "The phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance reflect the true tradition of religious freedom in America, a tradition of neutrality among religious faiths. Government will not favor Catholic, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, but the tradition was never that the government had to be neutral between religiousness and non-religiousness."

The Pledge of Allegiance does not mandate a religious belief in God, establish a religion, or constitute a government endorsement of a religion. Rather, it is an affirmation of allegiance to a nation which describes itself as being 'under God.' If an individual (Iron Tusk) does not believe in God, they can still be a loyal citizen of a republic that does.

Barack Obama:
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation, context matters."

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist Christian Socialist, and did not contain the phrase "Under God".

Under God was added to the pledge of Allegiance in 1951 by the Knights of Columbus, the worlds largest Catholic Fraternal organization. It was made official in 1954 by Eisenhower as a part of an anti-communist push.

The founding fathers had nothing to do with it. I would argue most would be aghast at the idea of a pledge to the flag, given they overthrew a government themselves.

So a Baptist Socialist wrote it without "Under God" more than 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, about 50 years later a Catholic Organization added "Under God", and then during McCarthyism it was made officially a part of the Pledge, so as to root out all the atheists and communists.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

Michael Newdow a big proponent of the separation of church and state, is against the Pledge of allegiance. He wants it banned from schools because it contains the words "under God."
He claims that because the pledge contains those words it is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and atheist children are supposedly being forced to recite it.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.

Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
War memorials displaying crosses in honor of our nation's fallen fighters are under legal attack because the cross is also a Christian religious symbol.
Catholics and other denominations are being called "hateful" and "callous" for opposing gay marriage.
Christmas trees are being turned into "holiday" trees and the words of Christmas carols are being changed to "winter" and "holiday" songs.

You can't support the things above and support a separation of Church and state.

In certain areas of Michigan where there is an Islamic majority, would you be ok with having tablets of Sharia Law in front of the courthouse?

Would you be ok if in those areas public schools, school was stopped several times a day so children could kneel and pray toward Mecca?

I personally don't think Christmas Trees (Ironically Pagan, but that is a whole other thing...) shouldn't be paid for out of my tax dollars, but I'm willing to shrug my shoulders if some polite concession is made to make it non-denominational.

You can do whatever you want and worship however you want. But when it is on public land with public taxes, the 22% of us who aren't self identified Christians aren't so keen on our tax dollars going toward paying for it.

Particularly since Churches already don't pay taxes and get their donations to be a tax deductible.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

...Dude, that is not persecution in the least. "We're going to treat you just like every single other religion" is the exact opposite of persecution.

You are promoting yet another false Dichotomy: Either the government actively endorses your god or its persecuting you. It doesn't work like that. There's at least three options

1) Put in God we trust on the money
2) Either leave the spot blank or put E pluribus unum
3) Have the money say "There is no God"

Now, how or why is 2 persecuting you... by not promoting you? You think its the governments job to promote your religion? Why isn't option 1 persecuting atheists? Heck, why isn't option TWO persecuting atheists for not advancing our point of view.

Quote:
He claims that because the pledge contains those words it is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and atheist children are supposedly being forced to recite it.

There's a few problems with your argument here.

I got detention for not saying it. There's peer pressure to say it. There's also the simple fact that people don't know that they can not say it: it would be kind of random for kids to assume that you have to do what the teacher does and do what everyone else is doing all day every day... except for that 2 minutes.

The pledge is "One nation, under God, indivisible" Which has a few religious connotations.

1) That God exists (just one)
2) That he is above us, ie, sovereign over us.

Neither of these ideas are the governments to promote. Just because Christians Muslims and Jews all agree on them doesn't mean that all Americans do.

Secondly, the court performed some rather interesting legal acrobatics in the Nedow case by dismissing his standing. Even if you consider removing the pledge from school persecution the government went out of its way to avoid doing it. What do you think should be done in the future to avoid the "persecution" of an atheist showing up in front of the supreme court and asking his case to be heard? Deny atheists access to the legal system in the name of stopping oppression?

Quote:
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.

GOOD! Its not the governments job to tell me that there are no other gods but Yawey.

Quote:
War memorials displaying crosses in honor of our nation's fallen fighters are under legal attack because the cross is also a Christian religious symbol.

What else would it be? Its only a religious symbol.

Quote:
Catholics and other denominations are being called "hateful" and "callous" for opposing gay marriage.

Because they're being hateful and callous. Someone using their right to free speech when you use your freedom of religion isn't persecution.

Why is calling them hateful and callous discrimination but calling anothers proclivities sinful not?

Quote:
Christmas trees are being turned into "holiday" trees and the words of Christmas carols are being changed to "winter" and "holiday" songs.

Would you like to explain to me what an evergreen tree has to do with a guy born in a desert?

Christianity is far and away given preferential treatment in public discourse. The fact that people are pushing for religious neutrality fact based solution to our social problems is not persecution.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.

I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.


Aretas wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Aretas wrote:
There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.

Quite right. I'm one of them. What's your point?

Aretas wrote:
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
As they should. Again, what is your point?
My response was part of a dialogue with Bignorsewolf. That was my point. Whats yours friend?

My point is that your position is irrational -- I apologize if that was unclear.


Maybe Aretas isn't as totally devoid of compassion and so completely full of himself as he appears. Maybe he's just expressed himself poorly. It happens.
Maybe his experiences in the world have been so limited that he just doesn't really grok the difference between "persecution" and "removal of special privileges".

Maybe, from his view, it it totally legit to claim that, for example, the high rate of homelessness among gay teens (not just homelessness, but homeless without family) due to a hostile home place is no worse than having the phrase "under God" removed from the pledge.

So, Aretas, here's the difference. Does removing "under God" from the pledge end up with the government treating different people differently? How would you feel if the phrase "under God" was replaced with the phrase "without God"? So, now you know how atheists feel about the phrase "under God". When the government does something so as to make its treatment of people more equal, that's not persecution. Its removal of special privileges.

Contrast that to politicians taking action to remove non-discrimination requirements from funding projects.


MeanDM wrote:

As to treatment of homosexuals by Christians historically, here is an interesting article about homosexuality in the middle ages written by a professor at Fordham University.

This article is hawt!!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
MeanDM wrote:

As to treatment of homosexuals by Christians historically, here is an interesting article about homosexuality in the middle ages written by a professor at Fordham University.

This article is hawt!!

...And should definitely be included in the Detailing Your World section of the GMG!

But seriously, I've said it in other threads and will here: when homosexuality changed from a sin that could tempt anyone (which is pretty well what sins do, definitionally) to a sexual preference exhibited by a segment of the population, the religious conception/treatment of homosexuality must have gone through some changes. Of course, that was also a world where you had to wear a scarlet letter around if you sinned, so I'm not claiming it was better so much as subtly different.

Osirion

Aretas wrote:

The question asked about Christian persecution worldwide, my examples are relevant. I also gave you my opinion on domestic persecution with the Fabian analogy. I believe I answered the question.

You've been arguing about the suppression of christians in the U.S. and yet you can't give a single example of a christian being oppressed. Instead, you have to go outside the countryto support your argument.

As for this:

Aretas wrote:
I don't want to sound insensitive to your post, but do you have any records or evidence about your persecution, arrest, complaints about been passed over for promotions? If you don't, as much as I appreciate your struggles I have to be sceptical about what you are saying.

Like what? Charges were dismissed once we established alibis. I never knew I was even up for promotion to management until I was leaving for bootcamp. One of the owners told me. I didn't sue simply because I was gone. I was done with the area.

And it wasn't like we didn't look into suing the city. We would have had to have gone out of state to find an attorney. We also saw what happened to a greek orthodox family that did. It cost them everything. Their home and place of business was constantly being vandalized. In the end, they "won" but they had to move. They could afford it. We couldn't.

I talked my a couple of friends into suing the school district. One had to sue because he was a roman catholic taking a course on mormonism. He took it for four years (12 credits), as did most of the football team. It turned out that IF you were mormon, you got all 12 credits and they, in turned, were 12 free college credits if you transferred to any mormon college. If you weren't mormon, then you only got one credit so he had to end up staying an additional year. The other lawsuit was to remove prayer from school events. I couldn't attend my graduation when people found out I was involved.

901 to 950 of 1,199 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.