Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if they say "Happy Holidays" it's persecution of the poor evangelical Christians.
The original War on Christmas was waged by Puritans in the colonies. Marry making and publically acknowledging Christmas was banned.
Christian immigrants from the rest of Europe refused to assimilate and chose to celebrate according to their cultures. It took 240 years for Christmas to become a Federal holiday.
I hear this often from Republicans. They believe that 'secularism' is being shoved down their throats by liberals. Examples they will often give include the fact that religious displays such as the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene are prohibited on state property, the fact that state-sponsored prayer or Bible reading in public schools is prohibited, or the fact that they cannot teach religious explanations for the origin of life alongside scientific evolution. Things like legalized gay marriage, legal marijuana, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, and the War on Christmas also are typically a part of this conversation. Mike Huckabee has even referred to what we have now as a "secular theocracy" that is opposed to God's law.
So in essence, many people believe that a government that doesn't favor Christianity and is neutral towards religion is oppressive to Christianity. However is that really the case? Do you believe that a neutral government is oppressive to Christians?
The relevant section of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
religious displays such as the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene are prohibited on state property
This is governed by Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court held that
Quote:
the crèche did not violate the Establishment Clause based on the test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). They ruled that the crèche is a passive representation of religion and that there was "insufficient evidence to establish that the inclusion of the crèche is a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious" view. They also stated that the Constitution "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."
So, the contention that religious displays such as the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene are prohibited on state property, is fully undercut by the fact that they are not prohibited.
The fact that state-sponsored prayer or Bible reading in public schools is [are] prohibited
Schools generally may not advance any specific religion, but they also must not inhibit the expression of religion. As such, public schools may not require students to pray. However, they may not prohibit students to pray on their own. I find nothing unfair about that.
Public schools also may not require a student to read the Bible, unless it was an elective literature class. Schools also cannot (and don't) prohibit students from reading the Bible on their own.
the fact that they cannot teach religious explanations for the origin of life alongside scientific evolution.
Science classes teach science. There is no scientific basis for biblical explanation of life -- just as there is no valid scientific religious explanation of how the earth, sun, day/night and stars were created -- unless you think that the Earth is at the center and had no understanding that the Earth is a globe and rotates (that's why there is day and night.)
The view that the American government is hostile to Christians, not because it denies Christians any personal liberties, but because it prevents Christians from imposing their religion on everyone else, is mere hypocrisy.
Tax breaks for the church in itself is passive aggressive oppression. It is a way to control what churches teach and preach.
Christians are constantly mocked publicly and in the media for what they believe.
The left wants the Christians silenced about the very things that they themselve are trying to force on Christians to accept and shut up.
I can somewhat see your point on the first one. I'd personally rather leave churches tax exempt but their political muscle flexing in the Trump era is really making me reconsider that position.
The rest is exactly what I'm talking about. Christians "accepting and shutting up" is basically code for allowing sinners to exist and sin legally. If you believe Christianity should be our state religion and that it should be imposed on everyone and everyone should be forced to follow the rules, amend the Constitution. Given the current political and cultural environment in this country you might be able to get away with it.
I can somewhat see your point on the first one. I'd personally rather leave churches tax exempt but their political muscle flexing in the Trump era is really making me reconsider that position.
The rest is exactly what I'm talking about. Christians "accepting and shutting up" is basically code for allowing sinners to exist and sin legally. If you believe Christianity should be our state religion and that it should be imposed on everyone and everyone should be forced to follow the rules, amend the Constitution. Given the current political and cultural environment in this country you might be able to get away with it.
That's why I don't believe Christianity should be our state religion -- nor any other religion. I think the courts have had a good balance between establishment and prohibition.
But if they say "Happy Holidays" it's persecution of the poor evangelical Christians.
Saying 'happy holiday' is still acknowledging Christmas...that IS the 'holiday'...which is the celebration of Jesus being born into our world as a human being.
Because Christianity is a missionary religion, so any government intervention to stop it's spread is considered "oppressive". I'm of course generalizing Christians but that's the gist.
You'd be surprised. I'd like to explain my view of "male privilege". It's not that just because someone is born male that they get things handed to them. It's just that they don't get denied things based on their gender. For example, I was denied a job based on being a woman. The men that they did hire still had to have the qualifications. A man with the qualifications was given a job and a women with them was not. The men still had to go to work and earn that money after being hired. Men just have one less road block.
I gave up my dream of being a professional bra fitter due to rampant discrimination against males in the industry.
Because Christianity is a missionary religion, so any government intervention to stop it's spread is considered "oppressive". I'm of course generalizing Christians but that's the gist.
Would not government intervention to stop the spread of a religion be unconstitutional?
Has any boycott ever really brought a company down?
No.
It makes people feel better that's all.
I'm too lazy for a boycott.
Well I lie, the one thing I was consistent about for the last 10 years -- turning off the TV or changing the channel every time Trump was on. And that's the truth.......I just can't take him.
The relevant section of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
religious displays such as the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene are prohibited on state property
This is governed by Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court held thatSo, the contention that religious displays such as the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene are prohibited on state property, is fully undercut by the fact that they are not prohibited.
The fact that state-sponsored prayer or Bible reading in public schools is [are] prohibited
Schools generally may not advance any specific religion, but they also must not inhibit the expression of religion. As such, public schools may not require students to pray. However, they may not prohibit students to pray on their own. I find nothing unfair about that.
Public schools also may not require a student to read the Bible, unless it was an elective literature class. Schools also cannot (and don't) prohibit students from reading the Bible on their own.
the fact that they cannot teach religious explanations for the origin of life alongside scientific evolution.
Science classes teach science. There is no scientific basis for biblical explanation of life -- just as there is no valid scientific religious explanation of how the earth, sun, day/night and stars were created -- unless you think that the Earth is at the center and had no understanding that the Earth is a globe and rotates (that's why there is day and night.)
The view that the American government is hostile to Christians, not because it denies Christians any personal liberties, but because it prevents Christians from imposing their religion on everyone else, is mere hypocrisy.
So does this standard also apply to atheists who are up for religious persecution or other religions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
