Christianity Is Not Under Attack

[Proud_Democratt]

First, "Christianity under attack" is when the Romans used to throw you to the lions. Don't even try to equate that with not being allowed to put a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse. It is beyond ridiculous.

Second, I know of no case where anyone has been thrown in jail for mentioning God in school or putting up a nativity scene... except in your dreams.

Third, if you are under attack, why don't your churches have to pay taxes like I do? Seems a funny way to oppress someone, don't you think?

Fourth, why do you feel the need to open your mouth about your psycho fantasy where there are people who don't want to have it shoved down their throats? Have you ever thought how it must feel to be an atheist and have religion shoved down your throat?

http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/relattack.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Fundamentalist Christianity's paranoia is in full bloom this time

of year... smell the incense, the mhyrr (sp) the frankinsence (sp) they need to look in the mirror iffin they are looking for people who are aggressively pushing their agenda (attacking) on someone who would rather be left alone.

[cain_7777]

34. Christianity is on the attack!

"They are trying to stifle education and the sciences because our increasing understanding of reality is their undoing." -DD

edited for grammar

[Proud_Democratt]

35. I definitely concur!!!!

[William769]

2. Yes it is,

By SWINE.

[Proud_Democratt]

7. By Swine....as you say?

Is "swine" your definition of ones that refuse oppression?..... Or is it just a "name-calling" gesture that suggests arrogance, which is very apparant in today's American Christian circles?

Better to fight than to forgive, right?

[Bill McBlueState]

8. well, if you think barnyard animals are after you

You'll probably believe anyone's out to get you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. Is that an acronym or do you mean pigs?

[Zhade]

22. Are you referring to Christians like Falwell and Robertson?

If so, I'd agree - their version of Christianity is attacking the liberal version.

[Proud_Democratt]

3. Some "founding fathers "thoughts...

James Madison, in an 1803 letter complaining about using public land for churches, wrote "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." In 1774, he wrote "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

John Adams asked "Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?" He also said "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."


In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

[Arkansas Granny]

4. Most of the "Christian Right" does not realize that freedom of

religion also means freedom from religion. While many of our ancestors came to these shores in order to practice their religion freely, many also came to escape the dictates of state religion. That is why the separation of church and state is so important. It protects both.

As far a Christianity being under attack, it is a ridiculous argument meant to stir up the masses just as many of their other "issues".

[Zhade]

14. Neither does Joe Lieberman. He's said as much.

NT!

[Ready4Change]

57. Or "freedom of ALL religions."

Many of them seem to think it only applies to Christianity.

[zeemike]

5. Your question is basically why are the fundies saying this.

And it has to do with what they have been preaching on for the last 40 years or so.
And that is the second coming of Jesus. And in the prophecies that predict this is the persecution of the "true Church".
So you see they must have this or it blows there whole story line, and so they just make it up out of little pieces of fabric.
But one who takes the prophesies seriously and does the necessary study of them sees a very different picture. They also talk about a false religion who is symbolized by a harlot riding on the back of the beast that rules the earth in the latter days.
Now that one can be make out of whole cloth as it appears like the fundies have a saddle on the back of the corporate controlled government today.

[Golden Raisin]

6. Blonde-haired, English-speaking Jesus

is SO gonna smite your ass. We are busy fighting the Taliban in foreign lands and not right here at home.

[Proud_Democratt]

33. He doesn't exist.

[bloom]

9. If Christianity is under attack at all

it is under attack by reason and liberalism (at least as far as the people who are concerned about such things - ie. it's not the liberal Christians).

Some Christians felt very threatened by the liberalization that was influencing churches. That is how some people explain the rush to fundamentalism - that the liberal ideas were making Church too irrelevant. Liberal Christians were not feeling hostile to outsiders - they were not concerned about hell - they were not running around evangelizing people. Liberal Christians are not the ones who want the 10 commandments in the Courthouses or the other things that are mentioned.


I don't know if some people don't recognize the difference between liberal and right-wing Christians - or if they just don't bother mentioning it.

[Proud_Democratt]

10. In most states Christians aren't restricted from holding

political offices....There are many states in which Atheists cannot be an elected official.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Honest to God?

ummm...or something. No way?! Really?


I had no idea. Which states??? How amazing. In 2006.

[Proud_Democratt]

16. Here's an excerpt from the Tennesee Constitution.

TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE IX. DISQUALIFICATIONS

§ 1. Clergy; eligibility to serve in legislature

Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

§ 2. Atheists holding office

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/IX.html#2

[Proud_Democratt]

17. Texas also!!....no surprise there.

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

[okasha]

18. PD--I'm going to say to you what I used to say to students:

Check your sources!

If you go a little further down on that very same religioustolerance.org page you've quoted re: the Texas Constitution, you'll find that all such restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins in 1961:

A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961:
In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso to be a Notary Public. According to Atheism.About.com:

"When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God."

"Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: 'o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God'." 3

Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for his lack of belief in God. He argued that the religious test had violated his rights under U.S. Constitution -- both:

The 1st Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion) and
The 14th Amendment (which makes certain provisions of the Federal Constitution binding on the individual states).

He lost. 4 He appealed to the State Court of Appeals 5 and lost again. Finally, he won before the U.S. Supreme Court. He had the support of the American Ethical Union and the American Jewish Committee, who filed amici curiae ("friends of the court" briefs).

The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Black, writing for the justices stated:

"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."

This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court presumably makes all of the religious tests for office in the various states listed above to be unconstitutional.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the state tried to make the case that the religious test did not impinge on Torcaso's religious freedom. They stated:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

However, Mr. Justice Black ruled:

"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."

When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....."

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -304, we said:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'....."
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." 4

The full ruling is well worth reading, It describes the religiously oppressive culture in some of the early colonies, and the vital importance of the separation of church and state in a religiously diverse country. The U.S. may well be soon reverting back to a culture of religious oppression similar to that found in the early colonies.



A footnote about a footnote:
Footnote 11 in Justice Black's ruling states:

"Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." 4

This footnote is often quoted by religious conservatives to prove that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes Secular Humanism as a religion. Some then interpret this to mean that any teaching of Humanism in the school violates the principle of separation of church and state. Since the vast majority of Humanists believe in the theory of evolution of the species, many religious conservatives conclude that the teaching of evolution also violates this principle.

They appear to be unaware that footnotes in a court ruling have no force in law. They are merely additional comments added by the author of the ruling.

[Proud_Democratt]

19. So the restriction had been lifted

in all states?

[Proud_Democratt]

20. My bad error...

I thought it only applied in Maryland.:banghead:

[okasha]

21. Nope. Unless the Supremes themselves restrict the scope of a ruling,

it will apply across the board. This particular nasty bit of discrimination has gone into the septic tank of history, where it belongs.

[okasha]

15. Not by statute, there aren't.

Now, persuading the voters to vote for you--that's something else and something you'll just have to work on, just as other minorities do. As you're no doubt aware, there are also venues where an openly gay person cannot be elected, or a person of color, or a woman, or a Jew or Hindu. You're not uniquely singled out, by any means.

[Zhade]

23. No, we're just THE most distrusted minority in the U.S.

And we have nothing to work on - THEY hate us for no good reason.

I hope you're right about the ruling, that would be a welcome bit of information.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. I go to church when I want

I give whatever money I want to my church. I wear a cross pretty much every day. My church pays no taxes and nobody is listening to our sermons via electronic bugs (that I'm aware of, that is.) Probably nobody listens to them anyway!

Nope. Can't find any attacks. Nobody has ever stopped me from doing the above; nobody has even ever suggested that I not do these things. I say Merry Christmas and Happy Easter and Happy Feast of the Circumcision to whomever the heck I want and nobody has ever shot me. However, men do run from me at times.

Still can't find the attack. Four of the TV channels on Dish TV are Christian. There's a church on every corner in my town. I can send my kids to Christian schools. Still can't find the attack.

Am I missing something here?

[J Williams]

24. Yes, it's not persecution, but a backlash against BIGOTRY

Here’s something very appropriate to this discussion, speaking of the “Christian” Right:

I quote: “Criticism doesn’t effect them either. They have a ready answer for their critics, and they are prepared in case even more people criticize them and reject their political efforts to control society. In fact, they are expecting that, and for quite some time they have already been claiming that they are suffering from the ‘persecution’ of Christians that Jesus predicted for his followers. But they don’t realize that this prediction was already fulfilled during the first four centuries after the death of Jesus, when generations of the early Christians were not only persecuted but tortured and sometimes killed because of their beliefs. That’s what Jesus foresaw and predicted, but even though that is clear, the Christian Right today ignores that fact. Instead, whenever anyone opposes and criticizes them for their hypocrisy, arrogance and aggressive imposition, they say they are being persecuted as Jesus predicted. It’s a very convenient claim that enables them to simply dismiss legitimate criticism, as if their critics were misguided and wrong, when in fact it is the Christian Right that is misguided and wrong.”

That’s from “Getting From Babylon to New Jerusalem,” by Joseph J. Adamson.

In his latest book, Memoirs of a Prodigal Son of Man, he wrote this about the Christian Right, in response to their false claim that the founding fathers wanted America to be “the land of Jesus”:

“They ignore that Madison also wrote: ‘During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.’”

“They also ignore the writings of Benjamin Franklin, a founding father and a genius who became a Deist after educating himself and turning far away from his rigid and oppressive Calvinist Protestant Christian upbringing. For example, Franklin wrote an essay on ‘Toleration’ in which he stated: ‘If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. (The Puritans) found it wrong in the Bishops (of the Church of England), but fell into the same practice themselves in New England (in America).’”

There’s much more, but you get the idea.

[NMMNG]

25. Poor, persecuted Christians

:sarcasm:

Christian Privileges in American Society

[Proud_Democratt]

26. Great info site!!

[NMMNG]

31. Thanks

I found it very informative and useful myself. :thumbsup:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

27. When you're 83% of the country, of COURSE you're being persecuted.

:crazy::crazy:

[ozone_man]

28. It's under attack by reason.

I doubt it would have survived much past the Age of Reason if it didn't find a new beginning in the New World. That new beginning on fertile soil created the most religious country in the developed world and sprouted Protestant evangelism, which has swept through South America and Africa.

But it may also be the most susceptible of the major religions due to some of the more unbelievable claims such as the Trinity. Our rationalist founders saw through such absurdities, but with the aid of free religion, and even tax free religion, it survived and flourished. But I think the future doesn't look good. Eventually, reason will prevail.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Proud_Democratt]

29. Your post has a good insight of what seems to

be the nucleus of what others cite as "persecution". Is this the beginning of a new era of Christianity, which may not include the old time evangelicals?

[ozone_man]

30. Age of Reason II.

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams

I think when you remove the knowability of god, you're left with the Deism of our founders.

[MemphisTiger]

32. I am a Christian and do not believe it's under attack

the current headliners for the religious right are trying to play the professional victim role. They think it gets them more milage and attention. They need to face the fact that the religious right runs washington. What more do they need?

[SPKrazy]

36. I Have To Pay Taxes Too

does that mean I'm under attack?

My Church doesn't, because it is a charitable organization.


the only place Christianity is probably under attack in this whole country is on this forum

:grr:

[beam me up scottie]

37. Oh brother.

[SPKrazy]

38. LOL, I Have A Fan! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

39. Wrong.

You did.

But that was when your posts were intelligent and thoughtful, much like the posts by T.Grannie, Straightshooter, Hunter or any of the other tolerant christians who come here.


Since you accused me of intolerance, not so much.

[SPKrazy]

40. Okay, You Say I'm Not A Tolerant Christian

and that's your right to say that

it's my right to disagree

[beam me up scottie]

41. You were.

And I hope still are.

I just felt you went overboard with the whole atheist thing.

A few bad apples and all that.

I certainly don't think liberal christians are anything like the fundies around here.

It's like these people are from another planet.

[SPKrazy]

44. Hey, I Live And Work With Fundies Too

and I don't think they are the same as the rest of us

I think they are prone to black and white thinking, and want things to be decided for them.

I guess that's why they like the "decider"?

[beam me up scottie]

52. Oooooooooh, I hate that word!

How much of a simpleton do you have to be not only to come up with that as either he or his handlers did, but to think it's absolutely brilliant like the fundies do?

They worship the guy no matter HOW stupid he proves himself to be.

The man could trip over an old lady's wheelchair, send her off into heavy traffic, cause a 91 car pile-up that kills a bus load of kinder-gardeners, and they'd still be cheering and waving their little "Made in Taiwan" paper flags.
:mad:

[bluesbassman]

53. Ain't that the truth.

You know it's an old joke, but I really think when you look up "embarrassment" in the dictionary you should find dimson's picture. I'd laugh myself, but my stomach is still in a knot from having to shell out $45.00 to fill up a 13 gallon tank today!

[salvorhardin]

55. Historian Richard Hofstadter called fundies "one-hundred percenters"

In Anti-Intellectualism In American Life. The only problem is that back in the early 1960s Hofstadter saw their influence as dying out:

America had been largely taken away from them and their kind. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals.

Hofstadter died in the early 1970s so he never saw the rise of the religious right, but I like to think if he were alive in the 1980s he'd have been warning us about their influence.

[Strong Atheist]

47. the only place Christianity is probably under attack in this whole country

is on this forum" EXACTLY!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=69094&mesg_id=71068

[Random_Australian]

56. Nope. Wrong on both counts IMO.

Fundies will attack your church, but most of the atheism/theism crap boiled down to people not understanfing what each other was saying.

[Igel]

42. Depends where you are.

When a Christian girl's beheaded on her way to school and her head left on the church step, and the only plausible reason is that she was Christian, plausibly Christianity (= 'set of people calling themselves Christian') is under attack.

In the US? Nah. Just a spirited debate.

In Western Europe? Plausibly Christianity (= 'set of beliefs standardly accepted as a codified system') is under mild attack, but mostly the attack is one of indifference and not so much a separation of church and state, but keeping the church qua 'defender of Christianity' out of public life.

I'm a Xian, but was in a group that rather starkly diverged from most standard doctrines. Yes, we believed that God said not to eat shrimp, or pork for that matter; but we left people alone. And yet I had the set of standard doctrines shoved down my throat, and I've had atheists call me 'idiot' and 'Nazi'. My father called in a presbyterian minister to try to 'set me straight', and my mother was a militant atheist who delighted in torturing me over it. I've been insulted and badly treated by Muslims and Christians who thought I was Jewish, and by reformed Jews who assumed I was mocking them when I didn't join them in eating ham sandwiches during passover; I had a roommate in college who made it his goal to 'convert' me, and called Campus Crusade for Christ down upon me--and kicking them out of my room, also his room, was a source of constant conflict and stress. I have no 'holiday' in December or January--'happy holidays', whatever the holiday, is just offensive to me, it's both wimpy and misguided.

And yet I really don't care about Xmas, or public prayers, crosses in public parks, or any of the other pointless trappings that I find moderately offensive. Perhaps because I'm such a minority in the secular/religious wars that I'm forced to be tolerant: my side has no chance of winning this debate, and if I denounce intolerance and others' trying to impose their will on me, I'd pretty much make enemies of everyone.

[Proud_Democratt]

43. Very intriguing post.

Could you classify yourself as Jews for Jesus???

[bluesbassman]

45. Good post P_D, until point #4.

Do you really believe I have a "psychotic fantasy"? Also, I'm pretty sure that I have never tried to shove religion down your throat, yet you have included this rather abrasive comment in a post that seemed to be aimed at all Christians, but was otherwise on the money. In light of the recent posts you have made denouncing this sort of severe remark, I find your use of it a little distressing. Believe me, I understand the point your making - I don't want to be forced to listen to something I've made clear that I'm not interested in either. I'd be interested to hear the rationale for your choice af verbiage in that comment. Fair enough?


edited for spelling and grammer.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. I don't shove it down anyone's throat, either.

Or up their butt or any other part of their anatomy.

I wear a cross. I celebrate Christian holidays. And when confronted with something awful, like an accident in the street, I make the sign of the cross on my chest and say a silent prayer.

I am who I am. If you ask me, I'll tell you what I believe, but I'll be a bit embarrassed to do so.

Strangely enough, I have never been evangelized to in my life. We've had the occasional person at the door and we just say politely "not interested, thanks" and they go away. Maybe five or ten in 34 years?

I've encountered a few altar call at funerals. I don't go up to the altar and nobody seems to mind. I change the channel on the TV except on Sunday morning the little black church from Two Egg, FL is awesome and I watch them sometimes.

I hear a lot of folks fussing on here about having faith shoved down their throats and it is so interesting to me that my personal experience does not include that at all. I don't know if it is where I am, or what I do for a living, or what. It just doesn't happen. And I live in the deep, deep South. The real Bible Belt for sure.

[Proud_Democratt]

50. It was a snip of an article. ..not my wording.

I realize that 'psychotic fantasy" is a fairly strong term. However it is a mild term when compared to other comments that I've read here. However I'm still the poster responsible for this.
I apologize for this oversight.

About "shoving religion down our throats"....you, T. Grannie, and a few others do not force your beliefs upon me, and I've never witnessed the two of you doing so. It does happen to me however, in situations where a Fundamentalist-type clergy has an upper hand by speaking to a group, like funerals, etc. This is something I pick up on easily.

[bluesbassman]

51. OK P_D, I get your intent.

Just didn't see it in the OP. I certainly don't have a beef with the points you made, fundies tick me off too. It just helps when one defines who one's ranting at, then we can all join in the fun.:party:

[Strong Atheist]

46. IBTL! nt.

[Dorian Gray]

49. What led to this rant?

I'm actually pretty interested in knowing why you felt that yet another topic was needed in this vein.

Ho hum... just another day in R/T!

[beam me up scottie]

54. Um, could it be the article he links to in the op?

Just another day? This thread is well over a week old.

Here's a hint: stop kicking it if you want it to go away.