Why Christians must support religious freedom for everyone
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(RNS) — The fundamental human right of religious freedom is under attack around the globe today like never before. While this disturbing trend should concern everyone, it should be particularly alarming for Christians, because a Christian worldview requires us to care about religious freedom — including the religious freedom of others.
Christians believe that God is sovereign over the affairs of man, but he also gives us the freedom to choose to follow him. Just as God provides all human beings that freedom, we must ensure that others have the same ability to decide their religious beliefs and live according to those beliefs (or lack of belief), whether the attacks come from governments forcing people to believe a certain way or nongovernment groups using violence or pressure to push people to adopt or abandon certain beliefs.
This understanding of the freedom that God has given mankind to make the most significant decision of life is why, as Christians, we must care about the plight of those suffering for their religious beliefs — even when those beliefs are very different from our own.
As the head of a Christian organization, I have the responsibility of advocating on behalf of Christians when their ability to freely practice their faith is inhibited by bad government policies or social pressure. It is essential work, and I will continue to highlight these issues.
Yet this same faith also compels me to defend the freedom of others. Advocating for the religious freedom of non-Christians, far from being incompatible with the Christian worldview, is actually required by it. The promotion of the fundamental human right of religious freedom is the product of a fully formed Christian worldview.
This is why, as Christians, we must care about the plight of those suffering for their religious beliefs — even when those beliefs are very different from our own.
My time as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has exposed me to a wide range of religious freedom concerns around the world.
Jewish tombstones are seen desecrated with swastikas in the Herrlisheim Jewish cemetery, north of Strasbourg, in eastern France, on Dec. 13, 2018. Dozens of tombs were defaced. (AP Photo/Jean-Francois Badias)
In China, the government has detained over 1 million Muslim Uighurs and subjects them to Communist Party indoctrination, forced labor and torture. Increasingly violent anti-Semitic attacks against Jews are on the rise in France. In Russia, Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly face criminal charges for practicing their faith. Iran’s Baha’i community is attacked for its religious identity. Yazidis in northern Iraq have been hunted mercilessly by ISIS, all for simply what they believe.
These examples are all gross violations of the fundamental human right to religious freedom. In the face of such religious freedom violations and atrocities, it is my duty as a Christian to pray for these people and advocate for their religious freedom on their behalf.
Americans — and I would argue the entire world — benefit immensely from the religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution. At the core of the American experiment is the idea that a human being’s obligation to God is sacred and deserves protection from any encroachment of government power. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case in many other countries, and the abysmal state of religious freedom has caused much suffering worldwide.
Not every country needs to adopt a government system like the United States. However, every country is morally obligated to protect the right of conscience of its citizens — and that means ensuring that people are not persecuted because of their religious beliefs, and are free to live them out in community with others.
That freedom necessarily includes the ability to change one’s faith as well as to share beliefs with others without fear of reprisal. Governments must adopt and enforce legal protections for people of all faiths, and societies must be sure to cultivate a culture of understanding and protection of religious freedom.
In the effort to promote international religious freedom, Christians must remain informed, advocate for policies protecting religious communities and submit these issues to God in prayer.
Religious freedom is not merely an American right. It is a human right that we are compelled to protect and promote for all people of all faiths everywhere.
(Tony Perkins is the newly elected chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and is also president of the Family Research Council. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.)
Tags
Who is online
208 visitors
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: Religion News Service (RNS) is a news agency covering religion, ethics, spirituality and moral issues. Based at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., RNS has a network of correspondents around the world, providing news and information on all faiths and religious movements to the nation’s leading newspapers, news magazines, broadcast organizations and religious publications. RNS wire reports are distributed to more than 170 media outlets that include The Washington Post, Huffington Post, National Public Radio, and Chicago Tribune as well as religious outlets. The total circulation of these outlets exceeds 100 million readers. In review, Religion News Service has a left-Center bias through story selection that tends to favor issues of concern to the left. All articles are well sourced to credible media outlets. Editorially, there is also a left leaning bias, such as: “President Trump, this is no time for prayer.” Overall, we rate Religion News Service (RNS) Left-Center biased based on story selection and editorial view point and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing. (D. Van Zandt 10/12/2017)
Source: http://religionnews.com
“Americans — and I would argue the entire world — benefit immensely from the religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution. At the core of the American experiment is the idea that a human being’s obligation to God is sacred and deserves protection from any encroachment of government power. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case in many other countries, and the abysmal state of religious freedom has caused much suffering worldwide.
Not every country needs to adopt a government system like the United States. However, every country is morally obligated to protect the right of conscience of its citizens — and that means ensuring that people are not persecuted because of their religious beliefs, and are free to live them out in community with others.
That freedom necessarily includes the ability to change one’s faith as well as to share beliefs with others without fear of reprisal. Governments must adopt and enforce legal protections for people of all faiths, and societies must be sure to cultivate a culture of understanding and protection of religious freedom.”
Does this include LGBT in businesses?
LGBT is not a religion but a choice. Religious liberty involves protecting individual business persons with religious beliefs from the vicious whims of LGBT people coercing the creation of art, speech, expression against their will in violation of given belief.
When did you choose to be straight?
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Bigotry is, as is choosing to support bigots.
[deleted]
I'm sure that fits in with a determination to feel persecuted, but when "secular progressives" are on a regular basis declining to do business with the religious, which would be pretty damned stupid considering the percentage of their likely customer base who are religious, get back to me. We both know which group is denying service.
How can it be a choice when people didn't choose to be LGBT?
His religious liberty does not include the right to discriminate against others. Our religious freedoms are the right to or not to believe in god and the right to worship. Not only did the customers not violate his religious but they cannot possibly violate his religious beliefs because it is impossible for them to either force him to convert or to prevent him from attending services or praying on his own by requiring him to obey secular law of equal service in a public business. Jack Phillips is just another bigot who thinks that his religious beliefs can permit him to ignore secular law.
Your arguments of religious discrimination against LGBT people is no different from racists who claimed that the Bible does not support race mixing and that blacks are inferior to whites as a way to oppose civil rights protections in the 1950s-60s. The country has mostly moved on from racism, so religious conservatives have chosen to target another minority, and this time it is LGBT people, and again they want to use their religious beliefs as a way to keep them second-class citizens. The actions of religious conservatives aren't Christian because Jesus was adamant not to act in the way that they are doing. Is obeying the gospels of Luke and Matthew also an infringement of your religious liberty?
There are still some Christian bigots who make the argument that racism is condoned by the Bible. Why do you ignore those parts of the bible if you claim that the Bible is the literal word of your god?
and
The day you find the ability to change your sexual orientation is the day you have actual data to offer. Until then how could you possibly declare with such certainty that a person's sexual orientation is a mere choice? As a heterosexual (presuming you are) my guess is that you find it inconceivable to ever be attracted to men. You really could not choose to be gay, right? So think about that when you cavalierly declare that the sexual orientation of LGBT individuals is the result of a conscious choice.
He is probably convinced that all people are born hetero, so in his mind, LGBT chose to be that way so it is acceptable to hate them because it was a choice to act in the way that they do. It's a common argument to defend bias. It's also very wrong, but since they think that their god commands them to act in this way their religious beliefs supersede morality and law.
Wrong! Sexual orientation is not a choice!
You confuse religious liberty with free speech.
Well there's a surprise.
Not really. It was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I stand by and meant every word of what I said.
I was referring to your usual violation.
You mean speaking my mind while conservative? What exactly did I say that wasn’t true?
No, your usual sweeping generalization. I thought that was clear.
I never made any such thing. And no you weren’t clear about anything.
Evidence would indicate otherwise, but as you've made clear your beliefs are more important than evidence.
Obviously you did, as it was tagged for that exact violation. Look, it even says so right there in black and white, "sweeping generalization." If you don't even understand that, it's no wonder you think I wasn't clear, even though I was, which is also obvious, especially after I specifically pointed it out.
What evidence? Point out the exact words of my posts that you feel are that! My beliefs and values are very important to me, well, they are me and I freely speak my mind in the expression there of. I’m just glad I found a way to talk about a great American, Tony Perkins who in addition to leading the awesome family Research Council also has this government position.
See 1.1.4 or read Gordy's post at 1.1.10, 1.1.12, 1.1.14, 1.1.17. These are all pretty obvious and one would almost have to deliberately try to miss them, either that [deleted]
I stand by all of what I said, your personal attacks on me notwithstanding.
From your own source, please see the following:
Tony Perkins is the wrong pick to lead religious freedom efforts
(RNS) — The Family Research Council is well-known for its discriminatory views and actions against the LGBTQ and Muslim communities and misusing religious freedom as a license to discriminate. Its views are so harmful that it’s been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the country.
Yet, the organization’s leader, Tony Perkins, was recently elected chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
He has no place on a commission designed to protect religious freedom at home or abroad.
Perkins has built his career on spreading alarmist and exclusionary rhetoric against vulnerable communities. In a recent piece for Religion News Service, he seems to claim that his position as the “head of a Christian organization” excuses his actions and rhetoric.
RELATED: Why Christians must support religious freedom for everyone
He asserts in the same article that his organization is merely engaged in “advocating on behalf of Christians when their ability to freely practice their faith is inhibited by bad government policies or social pressure.”
But as head of the FRC, Perkins isn’t advocating a defense of Christian beliefs; he’s advocating for his particular beliefs. Further, he has regularly advocated for legislation that would impose his particular beliefs on the rest of the country, whether we agree with his brand of Christianity or not.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, speaks during the final day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 21, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
What Perkins calls “bad government policies or social pressure” is really a cultural shift toward acceptance of marginalized communities and civil rights legislation that further protects the most vulnerable.
It’s also important to note that while taking up USCIRF’s chair, Perkins remains president of the FRC. Days after his selection as chair of a commission tasked with protecting religious liberty, the FRC sent out an email in Perkins’ name emphasizing how its “influence is being felt in Washington, D.C. and across our nation.”
While already serving as chair of a commission tasked with calling out the persecution of gay men by governments acting at the behest of conservative religious authorities, he has signed FRC emails promoting “Biblical masculinity.”
How can Perkins be trusted to stand against religious persecution at a time when people in this country and around the world are being killed because of their faith, while still working for an organization that devalues the realities of persecution by continually asserting that evangelical Christians are “under attack” in this country?
As this White House continues to carry the baton for the religious right – which many now consider intertwined with white Christian nationalism — the administration is standing alongside hatemongers and bigots. The version of religious liberty it seeks to enshrine privileges one brand of religion over all others.
Instead of accepting this twisted definition of religious freedom, Americans ought to see Tony Perkins for who he is: a right-wing figure who has dedicated his life to pushing for the legalization of discrimination – particularly against the LGBTQ community.
Congress ought to reverse Perkins’ appointment. Anything less is an affront to the Constitution, damaging the separation between religion and government at the expense of both.
(Rabbi Jack Moline is president of Interfaith Alliance . The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of the Religion News Service.)
RNS is a left leaning source. I disagree with it and think that Perkins is exactly the right person for the job he has. He is also a great leader of the Family Research Council as well.
Wasn't he the one who hired serial molester and violent adulterer Josh Duggar?
Great choice, there.
'RNS is a left leaning source. I disagree with it and think that Perkins is exactly the right person for the job he has. He is also a great leader of the Family Research Council as well.'
Then why is this seed sourced from RNS???
I think you're right.
I imagine Perkins is a serial molester and adulterer as well.
I also think it awesome that the more people like the SPLC hate group and it’s brainless sycophant followers attacks social conservative and Christian conservative groups as so called hate, the more powerful the groups they attack become and the greater roles they play in our government they have. Groups like Concerned women for America, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, etc. have grown exponentially in influence since the SPLC and the merry band of defamers, slanderers, and libelers who stupidly follow after their designation did so. We openly mock the SPLC.
That’s where I seeded it from. [deleted]
[Nice try]
All I said was that I was speaking my mind while conservative and many progressives or liberals call such expressions sweeping generalizations.
“His religious liberty does not include the right to discriminate against others. Our religious freedoms are the right to or not to believe in god and the right to worship.” It is the LGBTQ community that is engaged in discrimination and retribution against certain believers by making task demands upon them and using the power of government to compel and coerce people into acting in clear violation of their religious beliefs. The free exercise thereof means much more than the right to hold to a belief in ones mind and to worship in a building for a couple hours a week. It means living those beliefs in day to day life. It is the people compelling actions against ones biblical beliefs who are the hate filled bigots in these cases.
Those requirements are part of equal accommodation protections. They are not in any way religious. The customer neither knows what his religious beliefs are and they do not care. He can dress like Jesus as he bakes the cake, but he still must wear a hairnet and gloves. You cannot be permitted to hide bigotry behind your religious beliefs. Jesus wasn't a bigot.
He can hate LGBT people, but if he voluntarily chooses to open and operate a business that serves the public his religious beliefs do not in any way exempt him from obeying secular law. If we give this religious bigot the right to deny LGBT people equal service then why should anyone else be required to serve blacks, women, Jews or any other gender or race because of their bigoted religious beliefs? Giving him this exemption opens the way to allowing anyone to claim that their religious beliefs are being violated by obeying any secular law because these protections must apply to all people equally? Did you see Buzz's thread on this subject?
The Constitution would be void by religious belief at that point. People could attack and kill you or anyone else because they would not need to claim that their religious beliefs do not support your right to be a person. Did you consider that possibility?
And?
Because I chose to seed it from there. I enjoyed using a left leaning source to quote the words of one whom the SPLC falsely labels as a hater.
Jesus said to go and sin no more. He never ever encouraged sin or did anything to assist others in committing sin. He would never have baked a cake or arranged flowers for people about to commit an abomination before His Father.
Kinda mixing the old with the new testament there to produce a bit of a Jesus mess (the God of Love turning away a 'sinner' and labeling the sin an abomination like in the OT). Roll your own religion as you go?
Was my post not clear for you?
And you know this how?
Jesus never said that being LGBT was a sin. Why is it that you willfully ignore 99% of Leviticus? Did you think that we didn't notice your very obvious hypocrisy?
The interfaith alliance is a combination of ultra liberal mainline Protestant denominations that find other Christians to be their greatest enemy. They are the rapidly shrinking denominations or branches of them that have members leaving either for evangelicals or for nones or abandoning the faith altogether. This article shows clearly that Perkins is the right choice and that his group and others that your article maligns are growing quickly in membership and influence because of people like the author of the article and of the SPLC and those who drink their kool aid.
You are actually describing the fired co founder of the SPLC. Mr. Dees.
as Christians, we must care about the plight of those suffering for their religious beliefs — even when those beliefs are very different from our own.
Does that include supporting religious freedom for Muslims as well?
For example, those sects which believe in honor killings, female genital mutilation, death for apostates, death for homosexuals, ... , death for infidels.
Those often do the persecution when they are in the majority of a population. They would be the ones having to provide religious liberty to others within their midst. But government doesn’t have to allow people to do those things while they have religious liberty where they are not a majority. Or even where they are. No one has a religious right to kill or mutilate another person.
Other religious people disagree with you. Different cultures, different religious beliefs.
It is not possible to please all religions. So clearly society will necessarily intrude on religious freedom.
Right?
That might be your preference. Mine is for the vision described by Tony Perkins in the article above. He’s the elected chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and is doing a great job as is Ambassador Brownback.
You avoided the question.
Try this: is it possible to allow all religions to freely act on their religious views even if those views (e.g. honor killings) go against the laws of civil society?
Is it an example of protected religious freedom to discriminate against Jews, blacks, Catholics, and Muslims in a public business?
It is a protection of religious freedom to not be coerced, compelled, or enslaved into acts in violation of religious belief even in the act of operating a business. No one is talking about discrimination against another race or religion.
How are race and religion different from sex and gender? In the 1960s racists claimed that they shouldn't be forced to serve black and interracial people equally with whites because of the conservative Christian views, so why should their religious views be ignored but your religious bigotry should be legitimized in law?
People who support the KKK say that Catholics and Jews are not equal with white protestant Christians, so why should their conservative Christian beliefs be ignored?
There are Christians who say that Islam is not a religion but instead is a terrorist organization, so why should they be forced to serve Muslims and respect their religious beliefs?
Sikhs and Hindus often hate each other so should they also be forced to respect the religious views of others in the US, if you get the right to trample the constitutional rights of LGBT people?
Not all Christians agree with you, so can they ban you from their stores because of your bigotry? Do Drs and Nurses get to refuse you care if they don't agree with your religious beliefs or they oppose your bigotry because of their religious beliefs? Can LGBT cops/fireman/EMS treat you differently because of your religious bigotry of them?
How much longer do I have to wait for XXXJefferson to address the questions in this post?
You know he won't.
What does the top picture and the actual story say on that issue? Something about everyone having religious freedom.
What does he say in the article Perkins wrote? What does the picture of Chinese Muslims above imply?
and Freedom from religion?
They support religious freedom for people like themselves. They do not support or defend religious freedom for people who disagree with them.
Agree. It is like "My way or the highway" kind of 'religious freedom'. As long as others agree with their own idea of what a Christian should be, or their religious or Spiritual values agree with their own, then they will accept them. Otherwise, no. They talk acceptance out of one side of their mouth, while the other side rejects them for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, being different.
They talk the talk, but, their own actions and words prove they don't walk the walk.
That is a laughable claim of religious freedom, but they ignore the direct teachings of their own savior, so their hypocritical actions do not surprise me in the least.
The only ones they are impressing is themselves, as their own words and actions prove otherwise.
I agree.
What you wrote is absolutely false and flies in the face of the actual content of the seeded article which clearly states that all in every country should be able to practice any religion they want or none at all and be free to talk about their beliefs and change them without consequences from any government. It doesn’t get any clearer than that for those willing to open their eyes 👀 and or listen 👂.
From the seeded article:
“a Christian worldview requires us to care about religious freedom — including the religious freedom of others.
Christians believe that God is sovereign over the affairs of man, but he also gives us the freedom to choose to follow him. Just as God provides all human beings that freedom, we must ensure that others have the same ability to decide their religious beliefs and live according to those beliefs (or lack of belief), whether the attacks come from governments forcing people to believe a certain way or nongovernment groups using violence or pressure to push people to adopt or abandon certain beliefs.
This understanding of the freedom that God has given mankind to make the most significant decision of life is why, as Christians, we must care about the plight of those suffering for their religious beliefs — even when those beliefs are very different from our own.
As the head of a Christian organization, I have the responsibility of advocating on behalf of Christians when their ability to freely practice their faith is inhibited by bad government policies or social pressure. It is essential work, and I will continue to highlight these issues.
Yet this same faith also compels me to defend the freedom of others. Advocating for the religious freedom of non-Christians, far from being incompatible with the Christian worldview, is actually required by it. The promotion of the fundamental human right of religious freedom is the product of a fully formed Christian worldview.
This is why, as Christians, we must care about the plight of those suffering for their religious beliefs — even when those beliefs are very different from our own.
My time as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has exposed me to a wide range of religious freedom concerns around the world.” It really can’t be made more clear than that.
The bottom line and final word on the matter.
See how wrong you both are and the error of your words in 3.1.6.
How shocking!
Read the article which answers that very question.
I read the article and know the authors opinion. I'm asking you for your opinion as your purported views seem to support the populous having to follow a religious vice secular laws/lifestyle
What exactly are you trying to ask me? My opinion on the matters expressed here is the same as that of the Family Research Council leader and author, Tony Perkins.
It's a basic 4 word question, I am unable to make it any simpler. Maybe get a friend with a better understanding of the language to help you out
The opinion of the author of the seed here and those of the Family Research Council which he leads on the issues and mine are in full one and the same.
Thank you, nice to see you don't believe yours or any religion has the right to enforce their opinions/views on anyone else
(RNS) — The fundamental human right of religious freedom is under attack around the globe today like never before.
You continue to state this, one has to ask where this is taking place exactly?
What you may refer to as an attack on religious freedoms, appears to be nothing more than ones religious intolerance for another's differing choice of religion. The majority of folks that I am acquainted with could care a wit about another's beliefs or lack there of them.
The persecution of Christians around the world is known to all. Check out voice of the martyr and open doors to get an idea how extensive the bigotry, discrimination against, And outright persecution of Christianity really is.
Who is persecuting Christians?
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/ https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/
No one
1.) Your source is laughably biased.
2.) Your source has no evidence of Christians being persecuted in the US. Being forced to obey laws that allies to all people is not persecution because your religious beliefs do not exempt you from secular law.
[deleted]
I wish that they would focus on each other and leave the rest of us out of their first century age sibling rivalry. I have a fully functional frontal lobe and I am not about to donate it to science anytime soon.
The US has about 4% of the worlds population. There is lots of persecution of Christians elsewhere and too much of it here as well. https://htp.org/?gclid=CjwKCAjwmNzoBRBOEiwAr2V27c-PTWBDhZtsxzMtvLpuptJmb7IKN6pWdi8Gyac7atXxsZL1_9EqtxoCu38QAvD_BwE
You continue to state this, one has to ask where this is taking place exactly?
Perhaps you missed the above question the first time around, I'll ask again: Where?
You missed the link above to the top 50 nations where persecution against Christians is taking place?
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 1955, Open Doors is a non-denominational mission supporting persecuted Christians in over 70 countries where Christianity is socially or legally discouraged or oppressed. The organization also publishes an annual World Watch List which ranks countries by the severity of persecution that Christians face for actively pursuing their faith. The WWL is based on the research and comparison of field researchers, external experts, academics, and publicly available research documents.
The founder is Andrew van der Bijl, who is more widely known as Brother Andrew, when he decided to smuggle Bibles to discriminated Christians in Communist Poland. In 2015, Open Doors (including its affiliates) delivered 3 million Bibles and literature, and delivered relief and aid to 239,164 people.
Funded by / Ownership
Open Doors is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and charter member of ECFA, the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability. Open Doors is funded through charitable donations. They offer full disclosure here. You can learn more about their charity through Guidestar.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Open Doors’ primary mission is to empower Christians who are persecuted for their beliefs. They do this through providing financial help and Bibles to those in countries with significant Christian minorities. They also report news about Christian persecutions around the world. For example, in this article: A DARK REALITY—CHRISTIAN WOMEN IN 73 COUNTRIES FACE HIDDEN PERSECUTION EVERY DAY, they write a detailed and compelling account of persecution of Christians, but they do not provide a single link or source to validate these claims. Sadly, these claims may be true, but the reader has no way of knowing without further unnecessary research. In another article that you can view here, they again do not provide linked evidence, but rather offer prayers.
Open Doors has rarely been criticized for not delivering donated to money to their causes, but according to the Orange County Register “A campaign for Open Doors With Brother Andrew of Santa Ana raised $7,753 – of which the charity got $7.75.”
In general, Open Doors is considered a reputable charity with an 88% rating from Charity Navigator. While they obviously hold pro-Christian views, they do not publish politics on their website, but rather focus on Christian Persecution and the establishment of Christianity in places that are currently hostile.
Overall, we rate Open Doors Right-Center biased based on being non-denominational in their Christian mission as well as reasonable at distributing money to support this mission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a complete lack of sourced information. (D. Van Zandt 1/29/2019)
Source: https://www.opendoorsusa.org
So, in a nutshell, Christians are claiming they are being treated as they treated others for the past 2000+ years and they don't like it.
This is to be a one-way street and only for their benefit. The Bible says so...................
The question is, which version?
They are all written by men with an agenda, so take your pick.
Who cares? BS is BS, no matter what version it is.
Religious Persecution Overview | Office of Social Justice
The were all written by men and women who were inspired by God to write the thoughts they wrote.
Actually no, persecution of Christians is still persecution of Christians in cases with or without an ethnic component to it.
I believe you meant "inspired by their belief in God" it's close but not the same thing. Although it's as likely they were inspired by a desire for power in what at the time was an up and rising cult.
How could they possibly be inspired by God, instead of admitting that they are actually the ideas of man but claimed to be the ideas of god to give them divine credence to people who don't understand logic?
The Bible is the work of mortal and a political man, until you can empirically prove to a neutral 3rd party that you god has fact-checked it for accuracy. Your faith or religious beliefs don't count as proof.
Exactly. A fairy tale that they all demand must be respected "or else".
And no different than any other religion's texts.
Which god? Egyptians had something like 1500 gods.
Then there are the Greek/Roman gods, the Hindu gods, the Polynesian gods, ect.. When you think about it, the Abrahamistic god is a more recent addition to the pantheon of gods imagined by various cultures throughout history. And yet, those monotheistic religions have the audacity to think their "god" is the only god or the "true" god? What sanctimonious arrogance!
I meant what I actually wrote so stop trying to speak for me.
They do count and not one person on this planet that ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future will be found in the kingdom of heaven after the judgement who relied only on logic and had no faith.
The Abrahamic God, the only true God is the creator of all who is. The one in whose image Adam and Eve and thus the rest of humanity were created in.
Ok I can accept that you supposedly believe that god directly acted upon the authors of the bible (even though many parts were written centuries to millenia after the fact) I however will continue to believe they were inspired by their belief in god (or some ulterior motive). Anyway we'll have to agree to disagree, that's cool.
Lol I could never even attempt to speak for you, that would require a mental view/outlook I do not possess.
That's nice. Prove it! Many other religions also make similar claims with their main deity/ies as well. What makes your god THE "true" god over all others? Empty claims like yours is meaningless, laughable, and summarily dismissed without evidence to back it up!
And you know this how, exactly? Or are you making baseless assumptions again?
The usual BS!
Perhaps you should let him. At least Free speaks more rationally and logically.
Oh THAT is an understatement.
So then you accept that the Abrahamic "God" is also responsible for every atrocity you attribute to "Satan".
This "God" brought on the plague, cancer, HIV / AIDS, every infectious / incurable disease and the likes of Hitler and every other despot the world has seen.
Does that include the suffering of Native Americans at the hands of Christians, or don''t they count? You blindness of what Christians in the US did to American Indians is appalling, but not surprising.
The article is about the present world as it is now, not a rehash of old grievances. Please try to stay on topic here. I’m sure you could vent all you want to blame us for that virtually no one now living did on your own seed.
My comment is addressing a situation that you are desperate to avoid....It's sad that your inability to address it with nothing but a smokescreen is the best that you can do.
BTW, there are hundreds of thousands of Indians alive today that lived through it...Your total lack knowledge on the subject is quite amazing.
From the late 1800's until the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (codified into federal law in 1996) Indian religions were outlawed and severely restricted.
Please continue on with comments that show no knowledge of current history or that are used to ignore/hide the acts by Christians against Indians.
In summation you have no idea of what your talking about or you don't have the courage to defend the BS you spew.
Of course there are the ''Indian Boarding Schools'' run by Christian organizations that were active until the 1980/90's....I'm sure that thousands of those Indians affected by the the so called ''schools'' are still alive..
Except the 'rehash of old grievances' are a simple continuation of the same issues in a different time with a more modern perspective. Nothing has changed. Maybe the faces and the targets but it is still the same old 'boiled down to' my beliefs are better than your beliefs.
Why are you standing the their way of spreading their good news and converting people? This is persecution Kav'!
They are trying to save you from Hell and eternal damnation you don't even appreciate their efforts.
s/. obviously.
Pretty much so.
Do you support religious freedom for witches?
(giggles)
Crickets.
That was amusing
The non-answer speaks for itself.
Deafening silence.
No surprise there.
I support the religious freedom for the practitioners of all religion under the 1st amendment of the constitution including those spawned by the Devil itself such as the one you asked about.
Your words:
Ohh well done Sandy, can't wait to see the dancing around that. I predict deflections, goalpost moving and word games
Oh really? Care to explain your contradictory statement Sandy pointed out in her reply?
Which religions would those be?
I predict no response at all, as that seems to be the standard procedure when backed into a corner when confronted by logic and/or questions. You only need to look to post 2.1.8 for proof of that and note the lack of any reply.
LMAO you may be right Gordy but from what I've seen it could go either way
Perhaps. But if there is a reply, it'll probably have nothing to do with the point brought up or be some emotional platitude.