Are Christians being persecuted in the US?

[msmcneal]

I'm not sure where the best forum would be for this debate, so if it's in the wrong spot, the mods should feel free to move it.

We've been hearing about Christians being persecuted alot lately in the USA. However, is there any truth to this? And if not, are Christians, mainly the conservative branches, actively trying to push their agenda on the rest of the American population? And as a bonus question, is this form of forcing conservative Christianity on the populace the idea the founding fathers had in mind?

[Nilloc James]

My answers,

1: No they have a victim comples, they are a fairly discriminatory bunch and are angry that they don't have the same amount of power as before.

2: No, how about the line, freedom of religion.

Or those international rights giving religous freedom.

[Cephus]

Of course not. In a nation that is 80-85% Christian, there's no way large scale persecution can possibly take place. You have to keep in mind that Christians, in general, have a massive entitlement complex, they think they DESERVE to be able to trample on other people's rights because they have God on their side. Stopping them from persecuting others is often seen as persecution by the Christians.

And that's utterly idiotic.

[micatala]

I'm not sure where the best forum would be for this debate, so if it's in the wrong spot, the mods should feel free to move it.

We've been hearing about Christians being persecuted alot lately in the USA. However, is there any truth to this? And if not, are Christians, mainly the conservative branches, actively trying to push their agenda on the rest of the American population? And as a bonus question, is this form of forcing conservative Christianity on the populace the idea the founding fathers had in mind?

No, there is no case to be made for any sort of wide spread persecution of Christians in the U.S. I think this charge is based on a few fallacies.

One is that some Christians tend to confuse people disagreeing with them or opposing their actions with persecution.

Another is, as has been pointed out, that some Christians wish to drive public policy 'their way' and use 'playing the victim' as a political ploy to energize the base.

Finally, some Christians forget that there are good reasons to oppose certain policies, and even good reason to consider some behaviors illegal. When a Christian engages in a behavior that would be considered illegal regardless of who it is done by, they should not try to claim that they are being persecuted for being a Christian. Being a Christian is not a license to break rules.


Having said that, Christians are not the only ones who like to play victim. I believe in separation of church and state. However, separation of church and state does not in my view mean 'no public expression of religion.' Michael Newdow's recent attempt to stop the two pastors invited to pray at Obama's inauguration seems to me to be a bit over the top. I frankly do not buy that these prayers constitute some kind of 'persecution' of Newdow in particular or non-believers in general. I do not think such prayers amount to 'an establishment of religion.'

People on both sides should lighten up a little, IMHO.

[McCulloch]

[S]eparation of church and state does not in my view mean 'no public expression of religion.' Michael Newdow's recent attempt to stop the two pastors invited to pray at Obama's inauguration seems to me to be a bit over the top. I frankly do not buy that these prayers constitute some kind of 'persecution' of Newdow in particular or non-believers in general. I do not think such prayers amount to 'an establishment of religion.'

I disagree. The inauguration of a president is not just a public event. It is a ceremony of the formal recognition of the beginning of the term for the head of state. Prayers at such events necessarily exclude people attending who do not share the religious views expressed in such prayers.

People on both sides should lighten up a little, IMHO.

Here I agree with you. Prayers at the inauguration are small potatoes and not really worth raising a stink about. Especially, since the prayer offered will probably be carefully chosen to be about as inclusive as it can be. Can anyone remember Jeremiah Wright? I don't think that Barack Obama wants more of that kind of controversy.

[Cephus]

Michael Newdow's recent attempt to stop the two pastors invited to pray at Obama's inauguration seems to me to be a bit over the top. I frankly do not buy that these prayers constitute some kind of 'persecution' of Newdow in particular or non-believers in general. I do not think such prayers amount to 'an establishment of religion.'

People on both sides should lighten up a little, IMHO.

Yes and no. The specific inauguration text is spelled out specifically in the Constitution, it should be followed verbatim. If they want to pray outside of the actual inaugural address, then that's fine with me, so long as everyone accepts that *ANY* content would likewise be fine. That means if the next President wants to get up there and have Muslim prayers, it's fine and dandy too.

[cnorman18]

There are places in the world where Christians (and members of other faiths as well) are being persecuted. The US is not one of them.

Being prevented from dictating public policy, e.g. in educational curriculum and laws regarding private sexual activity, from indulging in hate speech and discrimination against others, and from imposing one's beliefs on others (especially at public expense) is not the same as "persecution."

[micatala]

[S]eparation of church and state does not in my view mean 'no public expression of religion.' Michael Newdow's recent attempt to stop the two pastors invited to pray at Obama's inauguration seems to me to be a bit over the top. I frankly do not buy that these prayers constitute some kind of 'persecution' of Newdow in particular or non-believers in general. I do not think such prayers amount to 'an establishment of religion.'

I disagree. The inauguration of a president is not just a public event. It is a ceremony of the formal recognition of the beginning of the term for the head of state. Prayers at such events necessarily exclude people attending who do not share the religious views expressed in such prayers.

What exactly do you mean by "exclude?" What effect is being produced on those who do not share the expressed religious views? Can those who feel excluded choose not to feel that way, or do they have no choice in feeling they are excluded?

Would you consider any of the following inappropriate at an inauguration? If so why?

1) Telling a joke that includes religious, ethnic, hair color, or other categorizations of individuals?

2) Quotations from the Humanist Manifesto?

3) Quotations from a poem, speech, or essay. For example, would it be OK to quote from a speech of Martin Luther King or a writing of Maya Angelou or Adam Smith or Karl or Groucho Marx?

I understand I have made these examples rather non-specific and not put in any "content" but the point I am bringing up is that it is probably nigh on impossible to have an event which includes public speaking and not have anyone feel somehow "exluded."

Why would prayer be in a different category, or would it be, with respect to public events like this?

People on both sides should lighten up a little, IMHO.

Here I agree with you. Prayers at the inauguration are small potatoes and not really worth raising a stink about. Especially, since the prayer offered will probably be carefully chosen to be about as inclusive as it can be. Can anyone remember Jeremiah Wright? I don't think that Barack Obama wants more of that kind of controversy.

Well, I just read today that he has invited Bishop Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. I believe, to pray at a pre-inaugural celebration. He certainly seems willing to face some kinds of controversy head on.

[McCulloch]

What exactly do you mean by "exclude?" What effect is being produced on those who do not share the expressed religious views? Can those who feel excluded choose not to feel that way, or do they have no choice in feeling they are excluded?

Would you consider any of the following inappropriate at an inauguration? If so why?

1) Telling a joke that includes religious, ethnic, hair color, or other categorizations of individuals?

2) Quotations from the Humanist Manifesto?

3) Quotations from a poem, speech, or essay. For example, would it be OK to quote from a speech of Martin Luther King or a writing of Maya Angelou or Adam Smith or Karl or Groucho Marx?

I understand I have made these examples rather non-specific and not put in any "content" but the point I am bringing up is that it is probably nigh on impossible to have an event which includes public speaking and not have anyone feel somehow "exluded."

Why would prayer be in a different category, or would it be, with respect to public events like this?

I would have no problem if the Head of State, at his inauguration were to thank his God or quote from humanist philosophy. I might have a problem with the joke, but for a completely different reason.

No, the difficulty I have is where a religious ritual, performed by a religious official is done at a state occasion, sponsored by the state. When the state sponsors a religious ritual, the line has been crossed.

Well, I just read today that he has invited Bishop Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. I believe, to pray at a pre-inaugural celebration. He certainly seems willing to face some kinds of controversy head on.

I see that as progress.

[micatala]

What exactly do you mean by "exclude?" What effect is being produced on those who do not share the expressed religious views? Can those who feel excluded choose not to feel that way, or do they have no choice in feeling they are excluded?

Would you consider any of the following inappropriate at an inauguration? If so why?

1) Telling a joke that includes religious, ethnic, hair color, or other categorizations of individuals?

2) Quotations from the Humanist Manifesto?

3) Quotations from a poem, speech, or essay. For example, would it be OK to quote from a speech of Martin Luther King or a writing of Maya Angelou or Adam Smith or Karl or Groucho Marx?

I understand I have made these examples rather non-specific and not put in any "content" but the point I am bringing up is that it is probably nigh on impossible to have an event which includes public speaking and not have anyone feel somehow "exluded."

Why would prayer be in a different category, or would it be, with respect to public events like this?

I would have no problem if the Head of State, at his inauguration were to thank his God or quote from humanist philosophy. I might have a problem with the joke, but for a completely different reason.

No, the difficulty I have is where a religious ritual, performed by a religious official is done at a state occasion, sponsored by the state. When the state sponsors a religious ritual, the line has been crossed.

OK. If I am understanding you here, you view such a ritual as an unconstitutional (albeit minor) establishment of religion.

To me, this is different then "feeling excluded", which is why I asked for the clarification.

Now, I might be persuaded to accept the prayer as a violation of the establishment clause with some further argument.

However, if "exclusion" means something other than "violation of the establishment clause" then I would argue that none of us have a right to expect others, or even the government, to perform no action that "makes us feel excluded." We do have a right not to be excluded from actual rights like voting, equal access to the courts, etc. but I don't see any actual "material exclusion" occurring due to an inaugural prayer.

I would suggest that, while the "exclusion" is not entirely subjective and is the result of an intentional action, it is partly subjective and depends on how a person feels about and responds to the action.

Well, I just read today that he has invited Bishop Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. I believe, to pray at a pre-inaugural celebration. He certainly seems willing to face some kinds of controversy head on.

I see that as progress.

As do I. I know one could look at this cynically and think that Obama is just trying to 'make nice' with as many people and groups as possible. But I think, or at least hope, that there is a method to the madness. I think he trying to show by example that people that have even vehement disagreements can get along and that we are all part and parcel fo the same American community. He is hoping to break down walls, while still acknowledging that people will still have their different views.