Persecution (Dec 2)

[Tom Mazanec]

What about New Testament (specifically Christian) views on such topics? I do not believe it was anything like the Quran (or most of the Old Testament). How would the Crusades fit in with the Just War doctrine?

[Namrepus221]

I may be horribly late for the discussion, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

I believe that when some people, such as myself, hear the word "Christian", they think of one of more of the following: Intelligent Design, prejudice against homosexuals, choir boy molestation, the Ten Commandments in(front of) government buildings, Jack Chick, and Jack Thompson.

Jack Chick is the only one in my list that was in the public spotlight two (or was it three?) years ago. My point? There's been a lot of misbehavior going on by people associated with Christians lately. I realize that there's nothing wrong with the faith itself but I do have solid reasons for my desire to have its influence reduced.

In conclusion, I believe that RHJunior is just making a "straw man argument". Christians aren't being persecuted, they've just got a lot of bad publicity.

Acctually Jack Thompson is the one you are thinking about.

Chick has been doing his little cartoons for years, but nothing has hit the main stream like what Thompson has been doing.

And honestly I'm glad for that because alot of Chick's views are bizarre and downright offensive (Claiming that the catholics were behind the Holocaust, that Playing D&D is a sure ticket straight to hell and that dying in the game means you should die in real life, and even using the death of Dale Earnhardt as a backdrop for a story)

Thompson on the other had has been trying to get video games banned and has gone so far as to personally attack individuals to try and get his point across.

[MikeVanPelt]

The crusades?

Granted that the Crusades were a horribly bad thing...

It isn't quite fair to talk about them in a vacuum, wrenched from their historical context. Which is a reaction to 400 years of Jihad.

[Setesh]

The crusades?

Granted that the Crusades were a horribly bad thing...

It isn't quite fair to talk about them in a vacuum, wrenched from their historical context. Which is a reaction to 400 years of Jihad.

What jihad, the Turks were conquering muslim and christian territory alike. Tales of massecres of christians were midevil propaganda. They had massacred arabs pretty much anyone who fought them. Thier wars of conquest weren't because they were muslims. The turks were like the mongols conquoring because they could. They had converted to islam but most of them couldn't read and it was pretty much a 'follow the leader' conversion.

They started taking Alexis lands not because he was christian, but because his lands were rich compared to theirs. The wars had actually been over for 20 years when he sent to the pope for military help.

His letter didn't even get to the pope he sent it to, Urban's had taken over for his boss who had died while the letter was in transit.

[TMLutas]

I'm curious about the whole church burning thing? When I google it, I can find stuff on it easy enough, but haven't been able to find any numbers. 300 is a big number, I would say 30 seems much closer but I don't know what the number is derived all from?

On the topic of christians feeling their beliefs to be oppressed as of late... it really is entirely nonsense. Christianity is dominant, and all the attacks upon it have been collective (though not specifically collective) efforts to bring it down to a level playing field with other religions. Christianity is still dominant, however, so there's nothing to complain about when it's still king.

The notion that christianity is under attack in such a way that threatens its survival... I would liken this to arguments of reverse racism. When a white person uses the N-word, it is scorned as racist remarks.. yet when a black person calls a white person a honky, it isn't. Why is that? It doesn't seem fair, right? Well it is fair. "Honky", or whatever like term, doesn't have the stigma that the N-word has. When we're called that, we're basically being lumped in with a view of white people in general. But woe is us, white people hold the majority of power anyways. Any notion of us not being in an advantageous position because we're white is foolish illogic.

Same deal with christianity, as my second paragraph there said. The majority often likes to find reasons to make itself the victims of minority, as it's defense against it. It's a fundamentally flawed logical error, that only seeks a means to keep the upperhand -- not equality.[/b]

Ah yes because the minority alawites could never take over majority sunni Syria, for instance, wait a minute....

The truth is that while hatred may have more successful outlets when expressed by a majority against a minority, there are plenty of times where the global minority is the local majority. When I was walking through Harlem and heard "white boy, you in the wrooong neighborhood" I didn't cease to be part of the 90% non-black population but I was definitely a minority at the time and knew it and felt threatened.

Occasionally, as my Syria example demonstrates, minorities do rule majorities even in a global sense. The normans were not a majority over the saxons in 1066 yet the court language very quickly became french nevertheless. There are plenty of examples of minorities attacking majorities and not succeeding as well but the lack of success does not make the effort not an attack.

The majority traditionally restrains minority attacks by simply pogromming or genociding the minority into submission or oblivion. The 1st amendment rightfully restrains that in exchange for a neutral rule of law that protects majority and minority equally. But you are explicitly arguing against equal treatment to the detriment of the majority. Eventually, if the bargain does not get honored long enough, the bargain will break down entirely and we're right back to square one. That's a horrible place to be and it would be the end of the United States.

[TMLutas]

The basic problem here is backlash. Christians in general have shoved their view of how everyone should live down our throats for so long that now that we can do something about it, some think we should at every turn. The problem is the opposition have spawned its own fanatics. Years of fighting the christian fanatics have forced them to follow the same tactics if they want to get heard. Does this mean its right? No, extremism on either side is wrong.

Could you elaborate on "now that we can do something about it"? I'd be fascinated to hear how you think this is sustainable.

I could go on for hours. I boils down to this.

Christians has oppressed and literally persecuted non-christians in this country for decades. Now that your not allowed to push it in certain places you complain its 'persecution'. The other side is using your own tactics against you, and you complain its 'unfair'. Get over it. Its not going to change until christianity does.

Does this apply to any christians on the board personally, I don't know, but it does in general.

Actually, the current situation of a partial abrogation of the 1st amendment most likely change with the full abrogation of the 1st amendment. The rule of law can't long stand being partially enforced.

[TMLutas]

Technically even BEFORE conception it's two bodies, isn't it? The ovum is seperate the moment it leaves the ovary.

The ovum and the sperm are not human beings. They are genetically distinct and unviable. Or did you really think that anybody took Monty Python seriously? "Every sperm is sacred" is supposed to be a joke!

[TMLutas]

My logic is mostly ABC logic here. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C. Stem Cells are identical to Cord Cells, Cord Cells have no soul, therefore Stem Cells have no soul. Potential is not really the same as the end product.

Yet if someone shoots a pregnant women, many jurisdictions count it as a double homicide and no pro-choice efforts are made to strike those laws...

[Axelgear]

It depends heavily actually. If a person kills a woman who has passed the point of no allowable abortion for the state, then yes, it's a double homicide. It's also often the situation if it's the father trying to kill the fetus/unborn child, depending on how far along it is.

Example 1: A woman is pushed down the stairs by a man (Which I may add, happened a lot before abortions became available, and in some cases still does when people don't want to reveal it to their families) to kill the fetus before the no-abortion point. This is ruled a single assault, because the woman was the victim and the fetus had not yet developed to the point of being a "Being". It was still just an amalgam of cells, no more than your skin. The potential is there, but the existance is not.

Example 2: A woman is nine months pregnant and is point-blanked to the stomach with a shotgun, and both she and the baby die. In this case, the child was a fully live and aware being, and it was just a matter of time until the timer went off for the child to be born. Therefore, it is two people killed, not one, and hence it is ruled a double homicide.

So you see, the Pro-Choicers DID make the distinction here. If there was brain activity, the person can be charged with a second murder charge. If not, it's considered to just be an attack on the mother with an obvious motive.

And as to the two bodies thing, that was about that it is seperate before conception, and the idea that it is a body automatically upon seperation is, in a way, invalid. It becomes a body, a human being, when its brain begins to function. Up until that point, it is just an amalgam of cells.

Anyway, I shall leave it at that. I'm gonna go feed Dweebit some Apple Juice.

[TMLutas]

Example 2: A woman is nine months pregnant and is point-blanked to the stomach with a shotgun, and both she and the baby die. In this case, the child was a fully live and aware being, and it was just a matter of time until the timer went off for the child to be born. Therefore, it is two people killed, not one, and hence it is ruled a double homicide.

So you see, the Pro-Choicers DID make the distinction here. If there was brain activity, the person can be charged with a second murder charge. If not, it's considered to just be an attack on the mother with an obvious motive.

And as to the two bodies thing, that was about that it is seperate before conception, and the idea that it is a body automatically upon seperation is, in a way, invalid. It becomes a body, a human being, when its brain begins to function. Up until that point, it is just an amalgam of cells.

Anyway, I shall leave it at that. I'm gonna go feed Dweebit some Apple Juice.

Actually fetal homicide charges are often opposed by pro-choicers even when the pregnancy is advanced beyond the point of viability. The actual state of the law is not unitary, certainly not in the US. You can find a summary of the 36 sets of laws here. According to that page, 15 of those 36 do not limit it to late term pregnancies.

Your distinction is wishful thinking. That's just not how the laws are written. It's much more complex than that.

added
it was further research that leads me to contradict myself here. I wasn't aware in the past that pro-choicers could be so stupid as to oppose double murder charges for an 8 month feticide on the grounds that it provides precedent to limit abortion down the road. Live and learn.

[Namrepus221]

[Deckard Canine]

I'm impressed that the wall is still straight.

[Merry]

Souls are immaterial spirits infused by God. You cannot detect one with science. That argument can become A=B, B=C, C=D...Y=Z so A=Z and you do not have a soul, so I can kill you.

So its about God doesnt like to take souls back before they are properly born (shipped). If its just about souls, he could just send it to another Couple having (successful) sex right the moment the abortion happened. No harm done, and (omnipotent) God sure can do it (afterall, fetuses just happen to die every now and then (i know, i had my daughter die at 5th month)). He can still mark the soul of the woman and man who aborted the fetus as "bad guys, ship to hell should they arrive". No need for us to intervene. Afterall, the grown Man/Woman deceide if they want to go to hell after Death or not. Or not to believe in this worldview, and go to hell by default.

Guess God just dislikes the paperwork that creates.

[Tom Mazanec]

So it is OK if someone decides to go to Hell for killing YOU?

[Axelgear]

added
it was further research that leads me to contradict myself here. I wasn't aware in the past that pro-choicers could be so stupid as to oppose double murder charges for an 8 month feticide on the grounds that it provides precedent to limit abortion down the road. Live and learn.

I have no problem with setting a limit on when a child can be aborted (In other words, before brain actvity is detected) unless it poses a threat to the mothers life (In which case the chances are it would die anyway). At about 6 months, that baby has brain activity, a heartbeat, and can react to stimuli. That seems entirely alive enough to me that killing it is deemable as murder. If that was your viewpoint all along, we've been arguing over something we agree on. However, before Brain Activity has begun, I have no issue with aborting the fetus.

[Lazerus]

The crusades?

Last time I checked...the Bible was written almost a millienia BEFORE the first crusade.

And technically, the Crusades 'official' purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land from....Ottomans? (not sure about that) Mass slaughter of the 'heathen Sarasons' they considered more a perk. Where they wrong? Yes.

The devil is in the details.

True, the bible dosn't actually say "Make war on the heathens" it just says your allowed to stone, beat, extort, kill, or enslave them. The word "war" may not actually be there, but you can read between the lines.

Granted that the Crusades were a horribly bad thing...

It isn't quite fair to talk about them in a vacuum, wrenched from their historical context. Which is a reaction to 400 years of Jihad.

Ah ah, stop. Someone, because he thought god told him too, decided a whole lot of muslems needed to die. Now'ish. You can say that's wrong, as you did, but he was, technicly, a christian.

Which is my point. Firebombing abortion clinics and the crusades are really no different. Someone has taken it upon themselves to kill someone else in gods name. If other clerics of that church don't condem it, it legitimizes it.

[BrockthePaine]

True, the bible dosn't actually say "Make war on the heathens" it just says your allowed to stone, beat, extort, kill, or enslave them. The word "war" may not actually be there, but you can read between the lines.

Oh really? I think you've mixed up your books. That's a bit more in line with the Koran.

Which is my point. Firebombing abortion clinics and the crusades are really no different. Someone has taken it upon themselves to kill someone else in gods name. If other clerics of that church don't condem it, it legitimizes it.

Then why don't you go chat to a few Muslims in the Middle East; I'm sure they'd love to tell you about their excellent methods of contraception and reducing unwanted pregnancies. They take the girl to the town square, and daddy disowns her then gets out his Hi-Power or Makarov and gives her a contraception pill to the back of the brain. But hey, those evil Christians, they burned down 173 abortion clinics since 1977! How dare they! What a terrible thing to do.

Oh wait, that's right; you can't go ask Muslims about their contraception methods because they've taken it upon themselves to kill someone else in Allah's name. But hey, if the clerics of their group don't condemn it, it legitimizes it.

[Rbos]

I wonder how modern Protestants would react to attempts by the Catholics to control the US government, the way they have. Imagine another Troubles situation.

[Axelgear]

Brock, I hate to take sides here, but there is a point to what Lazerus says. The fact is, violence is as violence does. You can condemn one for being far worse than the other, which it really is, but the fact is both acts are immoral. If someone were to firebomb your house because it is, in their eyes, an affront to the natural world, that is no different from firebombing an abortion clinic. If in that firebombing, someone dies, it is no different from stoning a woman to death in the Middle East.

The fact is, whether such violence is legitimized over there or not, the actions are wrong no matter where they take place. It just so happens Westerners realize that it is wrong, and it is our duty to prevent/oppose these wrongs.

And just FYI to you all, it's Qur'an. Koran is acceptable typically, but the proper spelling is Qur'an, just in case you wanted to know.

[Setesh]

The basic problem here is backlash. Christians in general have shoved their view of how everyone should live down our throats for so long that now that we can do something about it, some think we should at every turn. The problem is the opposition have spawned its own fanatics. Years of fighting the christian fanatics have forced them to follow the same tactics if they want to get heard. Does this mean its right? No, extremism on either side is wrong.

Could you elaborate on "now that we can do something about it"? I'd be fascinated to hear how you think this is sustainable.

Define what you mean by 'sustainable' the argument or the action?

I could go on for hours. I boils down to this.

Christians has oppressed and literally persecuted non-christians in this country for decades. Now that your not allowed to push it in certain places you complain its 'persecution'. The other side is using your own tactics against you, and you complain its 'unfair'. Get over it. Its not going to change until christianity does.

Does this apply to any christians on the board personally, I don't know, but it does in general.

Actually, the current situation of a partial abrogation of the 1st amendment most likely change with the full abrogation of the 1st amendment. The rule of law can't long stand being partially enforced.

It has so far. Just until recently (the last 40 years or so) it was done in favor of christians vs. everyone else. Nor is this truly an 'abrogation' of the first amendment as much an over enforcement of the seperation of church and state.