Subject:
|
Why are christians persecuted? Or are they? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:47:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{lpieniazek@novera.com}spamless{}
|
Viewed:
|
1374 times
|
| |
|
|
Peter Callaway wrote:
> > Because christianity is one of the most obnoxious religions in many different
> > ways, and shutting it down might result in a little less strife and more
> > freedom for everyone?
>
> You really don't like Christians, do you?
Hardly.
I was speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm perfectly fine with anyone
of any creed as long as that person doesn't get in the habit of
violating my rights. Most christians don't. Heck, some of my best
friends are christians <GD&R>.
But the few that do spoil it for everyone else. Christians are NEVER
going to live down the Spanish Inquisition, which is too bad, really, as
it's not 100% representative of the conversion approach most christians
use.
> Freedom? <looking around in confusion> I don't see a ball and chain on my
> ankle.
Right, because you conform. Look into why the US founding fathers put so
much thought into the separation of church and state. BTW, OZ isn't as
free as the US. Not by a long shot. That you don't recognise your
shackles is because you won't open your eyes to see. But I digress.
Theocracies in general have a terrible human rights record, although
that's not just (or even mostly, nowadays... I think the church of Islam
is the biggest contemporary sinner in that regard) a christian
phenomenon. And even when the government is secular but influenced,
things are often screwed up. Just one example: It was illegal until
recently to get a divorce if you were Irish. Talk about your state
sponsored meddling into the power of contracts between consenting adults
in order to legislate a particular moral view! That law was the direct
result of untoward christian (Catholic) influence on government. There
are lots of far worse examples.
Now, perfidiousness comes in all stripes and most governments are good
at oppressing without needing a mantle of holiness to inspire them, so
if you're reading into this a "leftist" bias on my part you're all wet.
In fact to say that to be religious is to be rightist is all wet too.
There are religious fanatics on both sides of the conventional one
dimensional spectrum (which I reject, it's too simplistic...
categorising of stances is at LEAST 2 dimensional), and there are anti
religious fanatics too.
>
> Pete Callaway
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition follows. I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What then (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
