This is a topic that I've been considering for long time... is there a prejudice against Christianity in America?

It seems, for example, that the "separation of church and state" applies only to Christianity. There are several public schools in California that teach "Muslim Class." students are required to pretend they were Muslims, take a muslim name, pray in the name of Allah, plan a pilgrimage to mecca, memorize islamic prayers, fullfill the Five Pillars of faith, fast at lunchtime during Ramadan, and simulate their own Jihad through a role-playing game.

If anyone tried to put a Catholic class in those same districts, do you think there's any chance that they would have been able to do so without great public outcry?


Similarly (sp.), a school near my house is having it's "winter concert." The program sent home with the kids came from a Christmas concert. The word christmas was litteraly scratched out and replaced with "winter." The only christmas songs allowed were non-religious ones, such as "Frosty the Snowman" and "Rudolph." even then, the word christmas was replaced in those songs.
Yet one of the other songs referenced Kwanza, and there was an entire song dedicated to Chanukkah. (sp.)

These are just examples that I have heard in the past week.

So... do you think that this is the case? Do you think that there's some reasonable explanation to why this should be? (I certainly hope not...) Have you heard of simillar cases?

actualy the "Muslim class" you refer to is a misunderstanding started by ASSIST News Service" the public relations arm of Assist Ministries, not a real news service.

go here for full info.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm


I'm not entirely sure which schools you went to but as a child I learned a lot about many religions including Christianity, Judiasm and Islam as part of Social Studies (History and Geography) and it is impossible to talk about world history without talking about religion.

In that case of that California school they did erre on the side of Liberalism. of course it's not the first time schools have used playacting to teach something. When I was in 7th grade and we were learning about India we did one day where we were randomly devided into 5 classes that mirrored the old India social class system.

You are right. What is good for one is good for all.

Still consider how many kids would become Muslims. I'm guessing that not too many. (Still it's a foul, but little harm.)

As for your second example. No harm, no foul. (Yes there is still a foul, but c'mon Kwanzaa? Do you think Kwanzaa can replace Christmas? If a basketball team is losing by 130 points with three minutes to go do you really want to call them for traveling?)

Heck, we did playacting in my government class in high school, when we were learning about the Supreme Court.

We took a bunch of Supreme Court cases, paired up, and one was for the case, the other was against it. (In my case, it was whether Amish children would be permitted to stop attending school after ninth grade or not. I don't remember which side I was on, but I remember I won (because my darn partner didn't do her darn work and didn't show up, so I was up against my government teacher.)

"I'm not entirely sure which schools you went to but as a child I learned a lot about many religions including Christianity, Judiasm and Islam as part of Social Studies (History and Geography) and it is impossible to talk about world history without talking about religion. "
-Brian Fitzgerald

Of that I have no doubt. My question is... what about this year? (of course, that begs the question, when were you in school?) Many of these situations seem to be fairly recent ones.

Blue Berry, I get your point, but I'm more concerned about the principle. Maybe a few more extreme examples would serve?


A Hampton, Virginia school trried to force students to rename the "Easter Can drive" for the needy to the "Spring Can drive"

In Sanford, Florida, a memorial was organized several weeks after 9/11. The local church invited several members of the schoolboard along with people from all over the community, and the Seminole High School Gospel Choir was invited (and readily accepted) to sing at the church's memorial service. (The choir was one of four school choirs, the only gospel quire amoung several secular ones.) Upon seeing this, the school board members who recieved the invitations not only banned the choir (or should that be banned the band? :-)) from preforming there, they told individual members that they could not assemble there and preform voluntarily because it represented a "subversion of school policy."

Also, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Johnie Heard, who lived in Detroit, felt compelled to help anyone in the area who needed comfort after the attacks. She placed a sign reading "24 hour prayer station" in the window of her apartment. For this, she recieved an eviction notice.


Anyway, these examples are only... well, examples. What I'm trying to illustrate is a larger point. Do you think society in general has an anti-christian prejudice? Do you think that people regard "Separation of Church and State" as applying only to the religion to which the founding fathers ascribed?
And for those who say "No harm, no fowl," where do you see this leading in 5 years? In 10? Do you see this as opening the door for dangerous persuctions of not just one, but possibly all religions? Or do you think that this is just a trend that will eventually blow over?

And for those who say "No harm, no fowl," where do you see this leading in 5 years?
I predict that there will be an explosion among the chicken industry, and KFC and the likes will have skyrocketing stocks.

Hee.

Also, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Johnie Heard, who lived in Detroit, felt compelled to help anyone in the area who needed comfort after the attacks. She placed a sign reading "24 hour prayer station" in the window of her apartment. For this, she recieved an eviction notice.

I don't know diddly about zoning laws in Detroit, mind you. But I imagine that there are special zoning laws separating spiritual housing from residential housing. Thus, churches get special exemptions that residential housing doesn't. It's all very possible that by declaring her apartment to be a prayer station, she violated zoning laws by declaring it (in the eyes of the landlord) a church or other spiritual place of worship. If that were the case, the landlord was in his rights to kick her out. I would have too.

Do I think society has an anti-Christian prejudice? No. Do I think that society is perceiving an anti-Christian prejudice because non-Christians refuse to let them bend the law to suit them? Yes.

I don't see why Christians should get special exemptions just because they're Christian. I don't get special exemptions just because I'm Wiccan. Heck, I get harrassed worse because of it.

Here's how I'm seeing the situation (and I'm not necessarily saying that this is what Zarm is doing): If a school board member (George, for example) proposed new curriculum that said that all students in grade 8 must study...wait!

That whole thing Zarm mentioned about Californian students having to doing the intensive study of Islam? Christian parents screamed (even though it was untrue). If it HAD been true, surely blood would have coloured the streets. But if someone had proposed that students do an intensive study of Christianity? Christian parents would have been okay, and everyone who opposed it would be accused of having anti-Christian prejudice (and being unpatriotic and not being Real Americans). But if Christian parents had opposed a real life study of Islam like that? No one would bat a lash.

I don't think that was very coherent.

Have no fear, I get what you're sayin'.

Using the Easter Spring Can drive story above: As it originally stood, the school was promulgating an "Easter" can drive. Well, what happens to those who don't celebrate Easter? Changing the name of the drive from "Easter" to "Spring" isn't showing prejudice against Christians as much as it is removing a pro-Christian bias. Otherwise the message becomes something like, "Don't celebrate Easter? Too bad. This is an Easter Can Drive and if you want to participate you'd better realize that." That is a definite priveledge in favor of Christians and Christianity. Changing the name eliminates the bias, and as MJ points out, this elimination often gets miscontrued as a prejudice against Christianity.

Right? Right?

Just so you know.

I'm going to hire you to be my translator. I'll send all of my incoherent thoughts to you, and you can straighten them out for me.

'Cause that's EXACTLY what I was trying to say.

Zarm,

As you said yourself those are extreme examples. You are taking an extreme position exquating the TRUTH as you see it (a truth can not be proven or disproven) for truth that can be routinely proven (or disproven theoretically). (Oh, When some one decries religion as unprovable really tick 'em off by asking them to disprove it.)

The exaple of the woman being evicted was probably in public housing. (I think there are still some property rights left.) If a tennant violates rules that are known what recourse should a landlord have? My landlord has a $tupid "No pets" rule despite the proven health benefits of animal stress relievers, etc. Should he be able to evict me if I get a cat? If the landlord is Christian and says no Jewish signs can I put up a "Happy Hannakah for all the beleivers of the one TRUE religion" sign?

Is there an anti-Christian bias? Possibly. Does a few extreme examples make much difference? No. (Did feeding Christians to the lions show an anti-chriatian bias more than what exist today? If Christianity survived that I would not worry about a school committee over reacting to seperation of church and state.)

MJ,

Does it harm Wicca if the gospel choir sings in South No Place, Florida? Yes it is a foul. ("Foul" BTW) Is there harm? (You never played pick up basketball with no referees, did you?)

Blue,

No, it doesn't harm Wicca.

And no, I've never played "pick up basketball with no referees" either.

And before you ask, no, I do not like basketball.

Sorry MJ, it was Zarm who change "foul" to "fowl".

(No harm, No chickens. lol) I guess you were never the "can't jump short white kid that owns the best ball" either Zarm?

Anti-christian bias? Every president that this nation has ever had has been a christian. We still give christians most of their hollidays off (even if we call it winter break it ALWAYS coencides with christmas.) My school district almost always found a way to put a holliday around Good Friday (even if it was a teacher workday or the snow day makeup - meaning the day you come to make up a snow day if we had one, BTW I live in Georgia.)

The atorney general of our nation leads the people in his office in a volentary (sp) prayer every morning before they start working. When the 9th circut court of appeals said that the pledge can't say "one nation, UNDER GOD" (because that is the government telling kids to repeat the idea that God does exist) almost all of congress voted for a bill condeming the decision. BTW the whole UNDER GOD part wasn't added untill the 1950s to make us diferent from the "godless communists"

Our money says "In God We Trust" (all others pay cash LOL) which was added durring the civil war as an endorcement of the idea that God does exist.

Since the teacher leading the students in a prayer was made illegal in the 1960s Many states recently started making the students observe a moment of silence which is supposed to give them a chance to pray, of course it's a waste of time since any student who wants to will do so anyway, with or without the moment.

As long as there are pop quizzes there will be prayer in school. Just not organized prayer.

Heh.

"So, what do you do?"

"I'm an incoherent thought translator..."

I think not only are some of these cases purely
hypocritical,but a lot of them are also plain
silly!
I mean there was that case in Massachuetts where
an artist withdrew her drawings because the public
library didn't want any pictures of Jesus being
shown.
That despite many of her other pictures featured
Biblical figures as well.
I believe it is the case that some people aren't
so much anti-Christian as that they are just too
scared about someone being offended and suing them.

Yeah, I guess I can agree with that.

You want to talk about anti-Christian bias?
I was ridiculed all through school for being an outspoken Christian and a moderate conservative (though a relatively mild one, I might add; I'm registered Democrat).
My politics professor told me I sounded "uneducated" and to "Stop defending America so much!". He also gave me F's on all my tests and told me I couldn't write. This was despite the fact that I made A's and B's in my other writing courses, and my humanities professor recommended me to the president of the college for an exceptional essay.
I stood up for God while others bashed him in science class and after-school clubs. I was more than willing to listen to other beliefs and I understand the theory of evolution probably better than some atheist students. But I was laughed at, teased, and called almost every name in the book- many four-lettered words I can't repeat here. I was also given obscene gestures by my fellow classmates.
I have many Muslim friends who've shared their faith publicly. I have never known them to be treated with anything but the utmost respect; their beliefs are accepted and even defended by other students and teachers.
I also had some Wiccan friends who were not laughed at even though they wore unusual clothes or dressed like vampires. But my wearing a cross or a Jesus shirt to school would provoke ridicule.
There is an anti-Christian bias in this country. I know, because it has stung me.

If you say so. I havent seen it. From what I have seen and encountered it seems like christianity is not only not biased against but on the upswing to be the dominent and biasing religion.

Sure, there is an anti-Christian bias, if you go to the right places, or talk to the right people. Similarly, there is an anti-Muslim, anti-Wiccan and anti-atheist bias if you talk to the right people, even if WIT hasn't seen it. In a country as big, diverse and cliquish as this one, it takes all kinds, and you can find anyone and anything if you look in the right place.

Agreed. There is a Christian bias, but there is also a bias against pretty much everything else. I will say that Christian-bashing is one of the more "easy target" forms of bashing out there.

I became a Christian in high school. One of my friends at the time was very much not a Christian. While we're still "friends," I'm not as close to him, partly because whenever I'm around him, he enjoys making fun of Christianity. I think finally someone called him on it and he said he wasn't doing it because he actually doesn't like Christianity, he was doing it to push people's buttons. Nice.

I wonder how much of that anti-Christians bias is related to the dominance of the fundi Christians in politics and their influence on daily life of people with non-approved lifestyle?

I'm a protestant, but I certainly dislike fundies (and conservatives).

What dominance? True, Bush is conservative, as well as most of his cabinet. But that doesn't mean his every wish is carried out.
Abortion is still legal and widely practiced. Prayer is forbidden in public schools. Evolution is taught on college campuses. "Coming out of the closet" is seen as an acceptable lifestyle change. Promiscuity and profanity are featured in almost every movie playing and on nearly every television station. Disgusting images and lyrics are allowed as "free speech."
Pray tell me, where exactly is the fundamentalist domination?

Abortion is still legal and widely practiced....

Yes. As is the death penalty. Or torture in Guantanamo. Or starting a war. Do the christians protest that also? Most of the time, the fundies seem to be concerned about sex.

Prayer is forbidden in public schools.

Of course. The US is officially a seperated state, not a religious state. (That didn't prevent christian beliefs influencing a large part of public belief and the laws.)

Evolution is taught on college campuses.

What else would be taught? Why is it even necessary to mention that? In most modern countries, that debate happend a century ago, when Darwin published his theory, and religion came to a grip with it.
Do you also teach that the Sun is the center of the Universe, and not Earth? After all, that was christian interpretation of the bible once, too...

"Coming out of the closet" is seen as an acceptable lifestyle change.

Unless you get beat to death by people who don't like homos. Or you live in one of the states where you aren't allowed to marry the person you love, in which case you don't have the same right as hetero married couples. Because a marriage is based on the christians idea of one man, one woman, not two people who love each other.

And if it's acceptable, why was it such an important point of the last election campaign?
Why did so many self-declared christians tell the reporters that they would vote for Bush because of values - stopping abortion and homo-marriage, because that was more important than the war he'd started; his disrgeard of civil rights with the patriot act; his injustice towards poor with tax and social service being changed; the national debt he'd run up.... But letting homos marry would threaten the whole country.

Promiscuity and profanity are featured in almost every movie playing and on nearly every television station.

Yes. You want censors like in religious states?

Not to forget the many rantings and hate-speeches given by fundies in national media...

Disgusting images and lyrics are allowed as "free speech."

Which is probably why nude people or four-letter words are considered more dangerous to kids than images of brutality, as seen in the movie ratings. (At this point, I always remember "Last action Hero" satire, where the kid tries to convince Jack that it's a movie because Jack can't say a four-letter word - that would raise the rating - after just showing a detailed and bloody shoot-out. But there's nothing disturbing in killing people, if they are the bad guys....)

Or why it's forbidden on many beaches to sunbathe topless for women. Or why the laws about missionary positions still exist in some states. Why a president has to fear public outcry over his affairs with a woman.


Seriously, if you don't see the undercurrent of fundi/calvinist belief that has shaped America since it's beginning and never been replaced by enlightment, it's a long way to explain it.

constanze: I'm a protestant, but I certainly dislike fundies (and conservatives).
Luigi Novi: Why do you dislike conservatives? Or do you just meant the extreme ideological conservatives, as opposed to institutional conservatives?

WIT: What dominance? True, Bush is conservative, as well as most of his cabinet. But that doesn't mean his every wish is carried out.
Luigi Novi: She didn't say it was. She simply said that there is a dominance of fundamentalist Christians and their influence in American politics and on those who do not share their views, which is arguably true, at least partially.

WIT: Prayer is forbidden in public schools.
Luigi Novi: No it isn't. Organization of prayer by the school's staff is forbidden. Not prayer itself. Why do people constantly misrepresent this point?

WIT: "Coming out of the closet" is seen as an acceptable lifestyle change.
Luigi Novi: By some. By others, it isn't. As constanze pointed out, many homosexuals are targeted for their lifestyle, and do not enjoy the same equal rights as heterosexuals.

WIT: Promiscuity and profanity are featured in almost every movie playing and on nearly every television station.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. Profanity is not allowed on American broadcast network TV.

WIT: Disgusting images and lyrics are allowed as "free speech."
Luigi Novi: What's disgusting is a matter of personal taste, but why do you put the phrase “free speech” in quotation marks? Are you saying that that which you personally find disgusting should not be free speech?

WIT: Pray tell me, where exactly is the fundamentalist domination?
Luigi Novi: Constant attempts to organize prayer in public schools, putting religious laws in courthouses, mutilating the Pledge of Allegiance to include “Under God” in it, doing the same with our currency, the fact that we had a President who once stated that atheists should not be considered as citizens or patriots, the overall antipathy and contempt that too many Americans have for Separation of Church and State in general, and non-believers in particular, the manner in which another President was wrongfully targeted for an extramarital affair (despite the mendacious claim that it was really over the law and lying, which it obviously wasn't), and the fact that a lot of people vote based not on which candidate is more qualified but which candidate shares their religious views, as well as the fact that an atheist or agnostic would probably never be elected President nowadays.

Luigi Novi: Why do you dislike conservatives? Or do you just meant the extreme ideological conservatives, as opposed to institutional conservatives?


Why I dislike them would require either several pages of discussion (which could easily turn into ranting), or just the statement that I describe myself as liberal, socalist, humanitarian, and therefore dislike other, opposing, ideologies contrary to that.

Can you explain quickly what an institutional conservative is? I haven't heard that expression before.

A lot of these political discussion depends on defining what a liberal/conservative / etc. is, and due to the cultural differences, some terms/positions which are acceptable mainstream over here are already derogatory over there.

Luigi, your list does not exactly show a fundamentalist domination in my opinion:

*While there are attempts to get organized school prayer, the fact that organized school prayer remains illegal shows that "fundamentalist domination" does not exist here.

*Judge Moore's Ten Commandments were removed. Hardly an example of fundamentalist domination if it doesn't stick.

*The changing of the Pledge happened in the 1950's. The currency happened in the nineteenth century. Both were far before the fundamentalist movement really existed. You could make a decent argument that the fact that efforts to remove the line from the Pledge failed, so that shows a fundamentalist domination, but if I recall, Congress was almost unanimously opposed to that Court ruling. Is Congress fundamentalist?

*President H.W. Bush's quote would be an example of fundamentalist domination if he introduced legislation or acted on it in any way to remove the legal freedoms of atheists. As such, it is simply equivalent to saying that since we have a president who is from Texas, we have a Texas-dominated country.

*The attack on Clinton was partisan. Starr and Gingrich are conservative, but not exactly examples of fundamentalism. True, there was some fundamentalist trappings, but Bob Livingston was bushwhacked for his adultery by Larry Flynt, who is hardly a fundamentalist and was interested in playing tit-for-tat.

*The one thing I do agree with you on is the lack of understanding many Americans (from both religious spectrums) have regarding separation of church and state. If anything, the one area that is a disturbing example of fundamentalism into politics is the conflation of the Republican party with Christianity. This is a dangerous trend.

Constanze

*The death penalty and war are not inherently sinful in Christianity's eyes (they can easily be abused). The torture in Gitmo, if true (and I certainly don't believe it to the extent as Amnesty's playing-to-the-balcony theatrics make it seem), is wrong and should be stopped. I think most Christians believe this (Sean Hannity notwithstanding).

*You're also correct: Christianity has shaped the United States from Day One. But I think you're somewhat missing WIT's point. His point (her point?) is that if Christianity is as dominant as you say, then why are all those anti-Christian things still around? I don't think it's fair to say the U.S. is a fundamentalist nation; we're not the Christian version of say, Iran or Afghanistan. But we're more fundamentalist than most European countries. We're a strange nation.

Thank you Mike. I was neither arguing for or against the points I was making. I was merely stating aspects about American life that fundamentalists would change if they could. These things haven't been changed, therefore fundamentalists aren't dominant.
And I am a female, so it is "her point".

The death penalty and war are not inherently sinful in Christianity's eyes (they can easily be abused)..

Whoa, back up there. Just because most US christians go along with it doesn't mean christians generally accept it! Did you miss the centuries of discussions about christians and war? Maybe you don't know, but in the first couple of centuries, christians weren't allowed to be soldiers... when they converted, they quit the army. (And don't tell me that bunk about "just wars" - everybody claims his war is just, and his/her/its god(s) are on his side, as well as justice and the world opinion. That Augustine sanctioned just wars doesn't mean the last US wars were just!)

...But I think you're somewhat missing WIT's point. His point (her point?) is that if Christianity is as dominant as you say, then why are all those anti-Christian things still around? I don't think it's fair to say the U.S. is a fundamentalist nation..

There's a difference between a fundie nation like Iran - which the US isn't at the moment - and a fundie dominance influencing many laws and a large part of public opinion.

You don't need to stretch the point to absurdity: dominance doesn't mean nothing anti-christian exists; or that the only force acting in govt etc is christianty (and even then, there are different interpretations of how far to go, etc. Even fundie christians aren't a monolithic block about everything, just about the major ideas).

The points you made to Luigi, that not everything went the way the christians wanted, doesn't refute dominance at all - if these things had succeeded, the US would be much closer to a fundie nation. That these things crop up at all is worrying, and that it takes so much time and effort from other groups to constantly batter against things that should be plain and obvious - like stopping compulsory prayer; fighting for same rights for homos; stopping efforts to teach creationism or intelligent design in science class in school; stopping efforts to undermine evolution theory in science class; etc. - means that christian fundies play an important part in public and political life. That's what dominance means, not that every wish comes true. Not even in a fundie state does everything come true at once, as different splinters then start pulling in different directions, and there are other factors besides religion.
The fact that mainstream conservatives can take fundie's extrem religious views and use them in the election to catch a large group of self-called christians shows dominance. Or what else do you call it?

Mike,

You're also correct: Christianity has shaped the United States from Day One....But we're more fundamentalist than most European countries...

That's part of the problem. You may not know it, but European countries used to be totally christian centuries ago, like the fundie countries today. That's why we treasure enlightment and a secular state, and basic human rights for everybody, and laws based on humanism instead of the bible.
And because we're a secular society, we have no problem integrating our heritage, as teaching religion class in school (a relaxed, approved curriculum, instead of an uncontrolled fundie at sunday school), or placing the spring holidays around easter and pentecoast, and winter holidays around christmas, and calling them that.

It's because extreme groups don't try to change society back to the Middle Ages (even our conservative parties with the 'C' for 'Christian' in their name don't go bible-thumping or claim that our country would be ruined just because homos can marry. They are bad enough talking about traditional family, true...)

Oh, and one other point about abortion: maybe it's still legal because christians are having them just as everybody else?

WIT,

...I was merely stating aspects about American life that fundamentalists would change if they could. These things haven't been changed, therefore fundamentalists aren't dominant. ...

See my anser to Mike about the difference between dominance and total control like in a fundie state. (I was typing my response while you posted, which is why I didn't see it earlier).

Do you really want to live in a totalitarian state ruled by fundies? E.g. like in "The handmaiden's tale" by Margaret Atwood? Maybe you think you would be on the right side and nothing would happen to you? Think again. In any totaliration regime, nobody is saintly enough, true enough to the party line to be safe forever. Or does it not matter what happens to those who break the biblical rules, as long as you don't have to suffer taunts?

Oh, and Constanze-
I think you were a bit confused about the point I was making- that there is not a fundamentalist domination in America.
Example 1: "Yes. As is the death penalty. Or torture in Guantanamo. Or starting a war. Do the christians protest that also? Most of the time, the fundies seem to be concerned about sex."
So you do admit that Christians protest abortion. Yet it is still legal. The first example of how we don't get everything we'd like. I know of no Christian who accepts the horrendous torture in Guantanamo. Yes, we are concerned about sex, but flip on any modern movie (not aimed for kids), and you will see another example of how we Christians don't get our way.
Example 2: "Of course. The US is officially a seperated state, not a religious state. (That didn't prevent christian beliefs influencing a large part of public belief and the laws.)"
Christian beliefs influenced a large part of the public not because of brainwashing or indoctrination, but because most American citizens ARE Christians, especially in the early days of our country. They were raised that way by their parents, not by the government. And since you agree that the US is officially a separated state, than you have no cause to say that the fundamentalists are in control.
Example 3: "Do you also teach that the Sun is the center of the Universe, and not Earth? After all, that was christian interpretation of the bible once, too... "
History lesson: The Christians used to believe that the EARTH was the center of the universe, not the SUN. And no, I wouldn't teach that now because neither of them actually ARE the center. What this astronomy lesson has to do with fundamentalist beliefs is a little confusing to me, but oh, well...
Example 4: "Because a marriage is based on the christians idea of one man, one woman, not two people who love each other."
Yes and no. True, Christians believe in one man, one woman marriage. But the idea is not a predominately "Christian" one; many cultures and faiths do not condone or practice same-sex marriages.
Example 5: "Yes. You want censors like in religious states?"
Um...what I want is not the point of this disucssion. The point is that many fundamentalists would like the media to be censored, yet it is not. Therefore, once again, the fundamentalists are not in control.
Example 6: "Or why the laws about missionary positions still exist in some states."
LOL! They only exist because no one's bothered to take them out of the books yet. They aren't enforced, you know. If extremist "fundies" were running the country, you'd get people sent to prison or fined all of the time for breaking this law.
More comments later...

"Do you really want to live in a totalitarian state ruled by fundies? E.g. like in "The handmaiden's tale" by Margaret Atwood? Maybe you think you would be on the right side and nothing would happen to you? Think again. In any totaliration regime, nobody is saintly enough, true enough to the party line to be safe forever. Or does it not matter what happens to those who break the biblical rules, as long as you don't have to suffer taunts?"
Whoa- I'm feeling flames from your eyes! Did I say anything at all about wanting a fundie state? Did I say anything about "those who break biblical rules"? Where on earth are you getting these vibes from? Certainly not from me. It seems that the fact that I'm a conservative Christian automatically puts you on the defensive. You are pulling out retorts for arguments I haven't even brought up yet. And I don't intend to bring them up on this board. This board is just about whether or not there is an anti-Christian bias in America. If I want to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, homosexuality, and censorship, I will take it to another board. Which I probably will, come to think of it.

Okay, first of the answer to your second post: I wasn't trying to attack you, or flame at you. Sorry if that's the impression that got across. Not every sentence of my post was directed personally at you, but also at the points MikeC made, or that are generally made by christians.

I think you were a bit confused about the point I was making- that there is not a fundamentalist domination in America. ...

I tried to define the difference between dominance and complete control earlier. As long as christian fundies and extreme views (not moderate christian views) dominate a large part of public opinion and try to change the laws, I call that dominance.

When the christians achieve their goal and change the laws, then I'll call it a fundie state.

Christian beliefs influenced a large part of the public not because of brainwashing or indoctrination, but because most American citizens ARE Christians, especially in the early days of our country. They were raised that way by their parents, not by the government. And since you agree that the US is officially a separated state, than you have no cause to say that the fundamentalists are in control.

I didn't say they were raised by govt. that way. And I call the fundie way of teaching kids in sunday school that evolution is wrong, that rock music is satantic, and that everybody who doesn't believe in christ will end up in hell... brainwashing, since it isn't done in a moderated approach. (Note that I'm not saying all US christians are fundies. There are probably enough moderate, level-headed christians out there... but they don't cause the trouble in the courts, or give hate speeches in the media, or try to influence the legislation.)

Once again, Saying there's a dominance doesn't mean complete control.

History lesson: The Christians used to believe that the EARTH was the center of the universe, not the SUN. And no, I wouldn't teach that now because neither of them actually ARE the center. What this astronomy lesson has to do with fundamentalist beliefs is a little confusing to me, but oh, well...

I was typing to fast. I know that Christians used to believe that everything revolved around Earth, not the Sun.

I was trying to compare another part of science where word-by-word interpretion of the bible has given way to accepted science theory - that the sun is the centrer of the solar system, not Earth.

The special mention that evolution is taught in schools is to me on the level "so what else is new?", and everything else being taught in school would be as backward as the earth-is-the-center-of-solar-system-theory.

Yes and no. True, Christians believe in one man, one woman marriage. But the idea is not a predominately "Christian" one; many cultures and faiths do not condone or practice same-sex marriages.

You don't need to practice or condone it to be able to allow others the same human rights, esp. if the US is a secular country, as you claim. So why is the govt. trying everything to stop homos from marrying? Because a large part of the public is against what other people do in their private lifes, instead of living good lifes themselves first (the story about the speck in your brothers eye and the beam in your own...)

Example 5: "Yes. You want censors like in religious states?"
Um...what I want is not the point of this disucssion.

I aplogize, I misread you as pro-christian.

Example 6: "Or why the laws about missionary positions still exist in some states."
LOL! They only exist because no one's bothered to take them out of the books yet. They aren't enforced, you know. If extremist "fundies" were running the country, you'd get people sent to prison or fined all of the time for breaking this law.

That's funny, I've heard that some (activist judges is the term, I believe?) in small towns have started calling people on them. And since they weren't recalled, what's to stop officials from using them?

Whoa- I'm feeling flames from your eyes! Did I say anything at all about wanting a fundie state? Did I say anything about "those who break biblical rules"? Where on earth are you getting these vibes from? Certainly not from me. It seems that the fact that I'm a conservative Christian automatically puts you on the defensive. You are pulling out retorts for arguments I haven't even brought up yet. And I don't intend to bring them up on this board. This board is just about whether or not there is an anti-Christian bias in America. If I want to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, homosexuality, and censorship, I will take it to another board. Which I probably will, come to think of it.

Since you stretched my points about dominance into meaning total control, I stretched the fundies point a bit. Again, I didn't intend to flame you, and I apologize. I also didn't want to drive you away.

But if homos and abortion were important enough during the election campaign, I think they're part of the "christian bias" question. And people arguing in favour of fundie christianty (which I perceived you were doing) - like I said, as Protestant I thank God I live in a secular state with human rights.

Points in Order

*I didn't say anything about "just war." I am saying that war, the basic concept, is not by itself anti-Christian. There are certainly "corrupt wars," wars fought for bad reasons, and wars with brutal actions. I was making no comment about the last U.S. wars. In the first couple of centuries, Christians were not allowed to be soldiers probably because they felt they were serving an unjust empire (are you referring to the Romans?).

*Certainly fundamentalist groups are POWERFUL in the U.S. No one will deny that; there is a difference that and being a fundamentalist state. This may have just been a semantics issue. Also, I'm not sure how you use the term "fundamentalist." I suppose you would consider me a "fundie," but I don't support compulsory school prayer, I don't mind the teaching of evolution in school, and will allow civil unions for homosexuals. As you said, Christians are powerful in the U.S., but there are large splinter groups.

*One of the major reasons the U.S. was formed was for religious freedom. In a very diverse society, there will be religious tension. I don't quite understand your points about religion class or religious holidays. You seem to be suggesting that uncontrolled Sunday School (?!) is a problem; the government has no business dictating what Sunday Schools teach. Also, we do have religious holidays off; it's called "Christmas Break."

*Look, I'm a realist when it comes to abortion (like Bush). I don't think this country can return back to the pre-legal abortion days because of, yes, the vast amounts of people including Christians that partake in it. I don't think it's necessarily fundamentalist to oppose abortion on moral grounds.

*I also really don't get your point at the end. I don't want to live in a theocracy. I have never said anything like that. As a Christian, I have moral beliefs that dictate my actions; my personal struggle is applying those moral beliefs into a society that I recognize as a secular one (and I greatly respect the separation of church and state). "Does it not matter what happens to those who break the biblical rules as long as you don't have to suffer taunts?" This sets up an either-or scenario which doesn't have to be. Is there some reason why must Christians must be taunted in order to ensure that others are not being punished? As WIT has said, she does not want to live in such a society either; she is simply pointing out that if we did live in a fundamentalist state, such things wouldn't be around. It is equivalent to me claiming that the U.S. is a fascist state and having someone refute me; that person does not want to live in a fascist state, he or she just disagrees with the original assertion.

In the first couple of centuries, Christians were not allowed to be soldiers probably because they felt they were serving an unjust empire (are you referring to the Romans?).

Yes, I was talking about the Romans. But the argument wasn't about it being an "unjust" empire - the christians liked the Roman empire, just not the persecution by the emperors. (After all, they adapted the structure of it quickly enough for themselves after Constantine.)

They were forbidden to be soldiers because it was a basic of christian teaching to be pacifist - "he who raises the sword, shall die by the sword", "My kingdom is not of this world", "if somebody strikes you, turn the other cheek", to just cite the most famous ones.

Certainly fundamentalist groups are POWERFUL in the U.S. No one will deny that; there is a difference that and being a fundamentalist state. This may have just been a semantics issue. ...

Yes, it seems to be partly semantic. I agree with that statement of yours.

...Also, I'm not sure how you use the term "fundamentalist." I suppose you would consider me a "fundie," but I don't support compulsory school prayer, I don't mind the teaching of evolution in school, and will allow civil unions for homosexuals....

Well, if I had to define it, I would need several pages.. (and I'm a bit too tired for that right now..) but if you don't try to enforce your views on others in any way, change the laws or sth. like that, then I don't think I consider you a fundie. (I probably still disagree with your opinions, but as long as they're your private issue, I've got no problem).

I don't quite understand your points about religion class or religious holidays. You seem to be suggesting that uncontrolled Sunday School (?!) is a problem; the government has no business dictating what Sunday Schools teach. Also, we do have religious holidays off; it's called "Christmas Break."

That's because I was referring to the very first post on this board, where the poster complains about holidays being called winter break instead of spring break. I was using my countries apporach as an example of how religion can stay part of the culture if people are relaxed and moderate about it. But because some fundies are so vocal and aggressive in trying to make the US a fundie state, the backlash from the other side is equally extreme, and this is perceived by the moderate, non-vocal, non-theocracy-wanting christians as anti-christian bias.
As for the govt. controlling what's taught in Sunday school ... If the fundies teach hate, or discrimantion against women, homos etc, or holy war against democracy to establish a theocracy in sunday school, because there's no moderate religion class, the state will get in problems. We don't have sunday school for christians of the major denominations, only for the extreme cults, because there's an offical religion class.
And because until recently we didn't have established religion class for muslims in germany, but have about 3 to 4 mio. muslims in the country, the kids get unsupervised religion class at the mosques or private schools, some of them teaching them jihad against democracy. So now we have started a university course for islam teachers with an offical curriculum to teach in school, to even out the extremists influence with facts and modern theology findings.

..I don't want to live in a theocracy....

Glad to hear. I assumed from your defense of christians positions that you wanted to change the laws to more christians one (moral ones). My mistake.

"They were forbidden to be soldiers because it was a basic of christian teaching to be pacifist - "he who raises the sword, shall die by the sword", "My kingdom is not of this world", "if somebody strikes you, turn the other cheek", to just cite the most famous ones."
Are you sure that's the reason? I've always heard it was because you'd have to swear allegiance to the emporer as a god, and Christians couldn't do that.
As I recall, Jesus told his disciples to take up swords when He gave them the great commission. He also said, "[sic] I have come not to bring peace, but a sword."

"he who raises the sword, shall die by the sword",

Almost. It's "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." At least in my translation of the Bible. I'm not trying to be picky about a word here or there, but in this case, it changes the meaning of the sentence. The Bible says nothing wrong about "Raising a sword" to protect yourself or your family and country.

constanze: Why I dislike them would require either several pages of discussion (which could easily turn into ranting), or just the statement that I describe myself as liberal, socalist, humanitarian, and therefore dislike other, opposing, ideologies contrary to that.
Luigi Novi: I can understand disagreeing with an ideology, but saying that you don't like the people who hold them seems a bit harsh. Also, I'm wondering what you define as a conservative. I can understand a bit of harshness towards those who are against Separation of Church and State, or gay marriage, but not all conservative viewpoints, in my observation, are based on bigotry. For example, there are valid arguments, in my opinion, for why slavery reparations and affirmative action are wrong, which is a conservative position. Freedom of speech is a position that often thought of as being both liberal and conservative, and there are many on the left (mostly on student campuses) who have much contempt for it, especially when conservatives practice it and say things the left doesn't like. It would make more sense to me if someone said that they didn't like right wingers.

constanze: Can you explain quickly what an institutional conservative is? I haven't heard that expression before.
Luigi Novi: Go here. Of particular interest are the sections titled “Types of conservatism” and “"Right-wing" is not necessarily "conservative."

Mike, I sense that this will essentially be a rehash of our prior debate on the Pledge of Allegiance from (IIRC) last year. In my opinion, the fact that these things happen, or even are capable of happening, illustrates the dominant influence that Christianity has politically in the U.s. The fact that people are constantly trying to get organized school prayer into schools, that our currency and Pledge still has these things in them because Christians would cause an uproar and target politicians if they tried to remove them, that a judge (who you'd think would have an understanding of both the law and the ethics of SoCaS that the layman may lack) tried to keep the 10 C's in a court, and that a U.S. President could feel comfortable saying such a thing illustrates this dominance of Christianity, and a contempt for those who do not share their beliefs. Christianity is an idea with which one can win elections in this country. The same does not hold true for Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Shinto, or agnosticism. The idea, therefore, that dominance is only illustrated with legislation, or that it is disproved by “anti-Christian things being around,” IMO, is false, much as Constanze alluded to. On this we're going to have to disagree.

Flynt didn't initiate the impeachment nonsense. He simply responded to it, tit for tat, as you said. So how does this disprove my and constanze's point?

constanze: Do you really want to live in a totalitarian state ruled by fundies? E.g. like in "The handmaiden's tale" by Margaret Atwood? Maybe you think you would be on the right side and nothing would happen to you? Think again. In any totaliration regime, nobody is saintly enough, true enough to the party line to be safe forever. Or does it not matter what happens to those who break the biblical rules, as long as you don't have to suffer taunts?
Luigi Novi: I don't recall reading anything on WIT's part that indicated this. I agree that you were being a tad unreasonable with him/her, constanze.

WIT: LOL! They only exist because no one's bothered to take them out of the books yet
Luigi Novi: And because of this, we occasionally hear a story about some overzealous prosecutor or politician exploiting them, and selectively. For example, up until recently, laws in Georgia forbade sodomy, with prison sentences of up to 20 years. Some gays, like Chris Christianson, were targeted with this law. Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers argued the state's position all the way to the Supreme Court, which sided with Bowers in 1986, to which Bowers responded that “morality was upheld.” Bowers cited the law when he took back a job offer from a lesbian named Robin Shahar because of their sexuality. Interestingly, Georgia also has a law against adultery, but when Bowers, who has been married for almost 40 years, and is the father of three grown children, eventually ran for Governor, he was not targeted, despite having carried on an affair with a woman who worked in the state law office. He admitted to the affair, but would not talk to newsmagazine 20/20 about the hypocrisy. Fortunately, the law was eventually struck down in 1998, but when such laws are still on the books, there's nothing stopping the overzealous from using them.

I really don't have too much to add but this:

I think WIT is doing what everyone else has a tendency (an understandable one) to do - it seems to me she is taking her experience with a minority of anti-Christians and applying it to everyone.

Okay, I lied. Red Hot Chili Peppers is making me type a longer response.

The reason that you are hearing this (and this is totally IMO, so take it as you like): the minority extremists are also the most vocal. So the rest of people come to believe that Christianity is like [insert whoever you like - Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Yogi Bear? ;)]. A lot of people find their positions repugnant, repulsive, and just downright disgusting. Various denominations can also be like that. So then people get disgusted, "Why, all of Christianity must be like this!" sort of mentality.

That is not true. I am not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, and I know that this is not true (and in the end, it was a point of contention between me and my former spiritual group).

The other side is that saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (not an exact quote, I know). Christianity as a whole has done unto others that, when it is done to them, has a hissy fit. In the old days, when they had the numbers and the strength, anyone and everyone that wasn't a good enough Christian (or Christian at all) was slandered/libelled and killed for it. Inquisition, Crusades, etc. Centuries later, they're still doing it, even if on a smaller scale than back then. Those who are against Christianity - for whatever reason - are fighting back, though, and yet somehow, Christians aren't to blame for this.

My mind boggles at that.

Does any of that make sense? It's 4am and I'm running on caffeine, so I hope it does.

Just as a complete aside: WHY oh why do Christians (in my experience) have no problem with violence/blood/gore in movies/games/pictures/etc, but any hint of sexuality or plain ol' sex is a reason to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war (ie: Janet Jackson's breast vs that disgusting Blade 2 gorefest)?

WIT,

...At least in my translation of the Bible. I'm not trying to be picky about a word here or there, but in this case, it changes the meaning of the sentence....

I was translating from the german version - which is the one I'm familiar with - in my head, instead of going to an online version and searching for the quote in the KJV or another english translation (it was around midnight, and I never remember the verses, so looking up things takes some time.)

... Are you sure that's the reason? I've always heard it was because you'd have to swear allegiance to the emporer as a god, and Christians couldn't do that. ...

That was why christians in general couldn't hold civil government positions, and where viewed with suspicion by the authorities.

As for the arguments if christian belief is generally anti-war: I'm sure that there's a site or book where people with a bit more time/knowledge have collected arguments for it. I'll have to look around for some and tell you then, if you want to know in depth about it.

Luigi Novi: I can understand disagreeing with an ideology, but saying that you don't like the people who hold them seems a bit harsh.....

I guess it's similar to the question Mike asked earlier about fundies: I dislike people with textremist views who try to change other people's life (usually for the worse). If they only apply their extreme views to their own life... then I still dislike it (and tend to loose my temper), but I will try to tolerate their opinion.

...Also, I'm wondering what you define as a conservative. I can understand a bit of harshness towards those who are against Separation of Church and State, or gay marriage, but not all conservative viewpoints, in my observation, are based on bigotry....

That's why I said it would be either several pages, or the general "people who don't share liberal, socialist, humanist" views. I didn't (and can't) make a claim that every conservative viewpoint is based on bigotry (though it mostly looks that way to me, I try to remember that some people may sincerely believe that their views would be best for everybody.)

... It would make more sense to me if someone said that they didn't like right wingers.

A question of definition again, I guess. I consider most conservatives right-wing-leaning, according to what they tend to say, advocate, and esp., those they ally with.

...In my opinion, the fact that these things happen, or even are capable of happening, illustrates the dominant influence that Christianity has politically in the U.s....

Yes, I agree.

MJ,

...The reason that you are hearing this (and this is totally IMO, so take it as you like): the minority extremists are also the most vocal. So the rest of people come to believe that Christianity is like [insert whoever you like - Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Yogi Bear? ;)]. A lot of people find their positions repugnant, repulsive, and just downright disgusting. Various denominations can also be like that. So then people get disgusted, "Why, all of Christianity must be like this!" sort of mentality. ...

Esp. considering the battles the non-extreme-christians have to fight all the time to stop the extremists from turning the US into a theocracy.

A suggestion: if all of the moderate, reasonable christians who prefer a secular state and don't want to force their moral laws on others, joined forces with the atheists and other beliefs in speaking out vocally every time the extremists raise an old question again (organized prayer in schools; morality laws; not equal rights for homos; teaching of creatiniosim ...)

then there wouldn't be such a backlash against all christians, because then the normal people would see and could believe that only a small minority wants a theocracy and is a danger for democracy and equal human rights and such.

That's also what I meant by using examples of my country: because everybody, including the christians, is glad to live in a secular state based on humanism, and because everybody knows that christians here aren't extremists against democracy and for theocracy, but moderate, modern, normal people - because of this, we can have religion class in school, and easter holidays, without any resentment or backlash from the atheist/non-believers.

Just as a complete aside: WHY oh why do Christians (in my experience) have no problem with violence/blood/gore in movies/games/pictures/etc, but any hint of sexuality or plain ol' sex is a reason to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war (ie: Janet Jackson's breast vs that disgusting Blade 2 gorefest)?

That's a special problem of the puritan influence which lead to the exaggerated prudishness, coming over from england, I believe. Because over here, christians aren't puritan, and don't have that much a problem with sex, but take offense at violence much more. (See the "Last Action Hero" scene I cited above - every german I mention this scene to, only shakes his head in wonder at these strange american standards.)

MJ, I'm not sure; it's an odd double standard on violence/sex. I'm not sure if it's a religious thing or a cultural thing; I think many middle-class Americans are more comfortable talking about violent things than sexual things.

Luigi, again, it's just a semantics thing. I am not denying that Christianity has a powerful influence in politics and society; I just disagree as to the extent of said influence. America has always had a very schizophrenic relationship with Christianity. And yes, the Pledge debate was almost exactly one year ago.

Constanze, I incredibly disagree that the government should control Sunday School because kids are being taught things you don't like. It's called freedom of speech and separation of church and state. The government can tell me what to teach in my church's Sunday School the second it starts paying for my church's bills (and that wasn't a request, George).

Apparently I shouldn't type late at night in a hurry...

What I meant was: since govt. doesn't have the right to control Sundy class in the various churches, it should provide "modern" religion class in school. This way, children will be exposed not only to the extremists viewpoints on sunday, but during the week they will learn that their faith doesn't demand of them to wage war on democracy and establish a theocracy, or to put down women, or to be violent against unbelievers; or whatever else extremists tell them.
By "modern" religion I mean: the new theological theories and findings with regard to their holy book; the opinions of moderate ministers of said religions, different opinions of others, etc.

E.g. in my protestant religion class, we first studied the contents of the bible, then moved on to other religions (we learnt about Islam, Buddhism, Hindusim, and discussed several atheistic view points and criticisms of Christian belief), history of protestant church in germany.
In the upper classes, we mostly had a lot of discussions about ethics and morals.
One part was about handicapped - how to help them, what about helping the terminally ill?
Another part was about biology: what makes humans different from animals, with respect to current and older biological findings (how similar the higher animals are to us)
In the last two years - preparing for the final exam - we e.g. learned about the different authors of the two genesis stories, we discussed if Man was meant to be vegeterian, since he was in paradise (another student, who was vegetarian, brought this topic up), ...

Many of my class didn't believe in Jesus, but they liked the teacher and didn't want to change to Ethics class, which was later in the afternoon (but with mostly the same topics), but they never had a problem with the discussions, since they were always open-ended. The teacher never tried to pretend he owned an unshakeable truth, or had an answer for every tricky moral dilemma, or that we had to believe to get good grades; on the contrary, he always let the different opinions stand and everybody could make his own decision (and the test grades were how much of the facts we'd learned, like in any other subject).

But if we're afraid of moslem extremists teaching Jihad against western civ., then we equally need to be aware of christian extremists out to establish a theocracy. A democracy isn't a gift or a destiny; and kids who are taught that their belief demands certain actions need to know the alternative. Adults can be expected to know enough to get to the next library or the next expert and ask a second opinion; kids can't be expected. So they need to be taught that the extremists' view is only one of many.

By "modern" religion I mean: the new theological theories and findings with regard to their holy book

Ah, but WHO'S holy book? Jews? Christians (and if so, which variant)? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Zoroastrians? Wiccans? Animists?

You either have to teach EVERY religion (patently impossible), or teach none, because otherwise you are respecting an establishment of religion (or multiple establishments).

Dons asbestos suit and positions emergency bucket of carbonated water above head, then takes deep breath and:

In religious education classes in the UK, it is the law that half the time must be spent studying Christianity and the rest spent on other religions: for example, at my secondary school (eqv. to American high school, I think) we did Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, largely because those were the ones we had teachers for. . To be honest I'd much rather have done Islam than Buddhism for the same reason I'd rather have done Spanish or German than French in language classes - you might actually MEET SOMEONE in everyday life who has that religion/speaks that language.

The treatment of Christianity focused on different attitudes to the Bible (fundamentalist literalism, moderate-ism, liberalism) and how each viewpoint reacts to controversy, rather than looking at things on a denominational basis.

To be honest, I doubt many people are influenced in their own religion by what they learn in religious education classes: I don't buy the scaremongering of 'indoctrination' either way - (and not just in religion, but in politics, economics, etc.)

ScottN,

which religion? Depending on which religion the kid has, of course. The parents tell when the kid starts school, and then the kid is put into the approriate class. At age 14 (over here), kids become of age relating to religion, and can choose for themselves.

And those kids who belong to no major religion - say, Jesidii (which has no teachers for, in other words and doesn't want to go into a related class) goes to general ethics class, together with atheists.

Thande, what's wrong with learning French? It's not that far away from the UK, and very international with Belgium and many of the ex-colonies still using French. (I had Latin, and that hasn't any practical applications if you don't study... But I wish I could read French at least for the franco-belgian comics...)...What was the topic again?

Basically because French is only spoken in France, Quebec and a few bits of Africa, whereas Spanish is spoken both in Spain (where many people in the UK, especially the working classes, go on holiday - so it would actually be useful) and the vast Latin American countries. German, on the other hand, is useful for people going into economics or chemistry. Frankly, I think Portuguese would be a more useful language to learn at that level than French.

...German, on the other hand, is useful for people going into economics or chemistry....

Now come on. I thought you wanted to learn that language to read Goethe's "Faust II" and Nietzsche and Kant in the original!

At least with French, you can read Voltaire and Co....

I'm not sure what Sunday Schools you're familiar with; when I went, we sang "Jesus loved me" and colored. Guess I missed the part about overthrowing democracy and abusing women.

Well, I was talking about Sundy school for children older than six years.

Mike- I agree, my Sunday School experience has been wonderful, as well as my Vacation Bible School. All the way up to my adult life.
I never learned to hate anybody or be prejudiced against others. In fact, many of our lessons were about loving others, being kind to our enemies, and obeying our parents.
Personally, I think most children, Christian or not, would benefit from going to Sunday School. With all the violence and perversion in the world, a weekly break to learn morals and values is a positive thing.

Constanze: I have enough problems with Anglophone philosophers without opening THAT can of worms!

Now see, Scott, you gave me a new ambition - to write a holy book for Wiccans so that we can have one too! ;)

Of course, we all know that I kid.

WIT - I agree that learning morals and values is a positive thing, but I disagree with the rest of that statement. Such learning should not be on a weekly basis - it should be an everyday, every minute thing. I also firmly believe that morals and values are a subjective thing. I will never send any child of mine to Sunday School for that very reason. I do not believe that any child of mine would benefit from learning Christian morals and values. Rather, they would benefit from learning morals and values, period.

Profanity is not allowed on American broadcast network TV.

Really? What about d*mn, hell, ass, b*tch? In recent years they even started allowing sh*t and bullsh*t on broadcast network shows. (If you want examples, Mark Greene on ER uttered "sh*t" in his final episode when he fell out of bed, and in one of the later seasons of NYPD Blue it seemed that at least once an episode someone would utter "bullsh*t".)

Now, they may not allow the f-word yet, or the c-word, or things that far along, but you have to be completely desensitized to say there's no profanity on brodcast network TV. (I myself was desensitized enough not to notice the "bullsh*t" on NYPD Blue until it had been going on for several weeks.)

[Added after preview]

Seems they routinely utter several words on broadcast network TV that NitCentral doesn't even allow. I hope it's okay that I "bypassed" by using asterisks, but it's hard to talk about profanity without using the words as examples.

Uh, yes, saying sh1t on TV really threatens the moral fibre ...

*rolls eyes*

come on people, grow up.

Thande,

of course, if you rather want the practical application of talking the language ... wir können auch auf Deutsch miteinander reden, wenn du willst (Though that would belong onto another board...)

I didn't say they were raised by govt. that way. And I call the fundie way of teaching kids in sunday school that evolution is wrong, that rock music is satantic, and that everybody who doesn't believe in christ will end up in hell... brainwashing, since it isn't done in a moderated approach.

In other words, teach what I want, and just what I want and that's "education", but teach what you want and just what you want and it's "brainwashing".

Oh, and one other point about abortion: maybe it's still legal because christians are having them just as everybody else?

Or maybe it's legal because the majority opinion of NINE people decided their views are all that matter and the majority opinion of THOUSANDS of people in those states that voted for the legislatures which then wrote laws restricting abortion didn't matter. Abortion isn't legal in the US because of popular opinion, it's legal as a matter of judicial fiat.

come on people, grow up.

You first </cheap shot>



I didn't say profanity on TV was good or bad, merely that Luigi was incorrect to say it wasn't there.

Constanze, J never said that he (she?) thinks that the "s-word" (not to be confused with the "L-Word", heh heh) threatens the moral fiber or not. J was simply citing it to refute Luigi's assertion that profanity is not allowed on network television with no other comment at all.

"Uh, yes, saying sh1t on TV really threatens the moral fibre ..."
Do you have children, Constanze? Would you really want your three-year-old going around repeating the words and phrases he heard on television shows? Would it bother you to hear him say "S---!" when he's playing with his friends or kissing you goodnight? Would you be happy if he said "D---!" when he skinned his knee, or "FU!" when you wouldn't let him have dessert?
At what age would it be appropriate to use profanity? At what age would let your children watch shows that do? Are you really proud of what they're seeing and hearing on television?

No I don't have children. But we do have discussions of what is appropriate for children to watch on TV, and the major problem is violence, not language.

A three-year-old stepping in a dog heap on the street and saying "sh1t" wouldn't be a major matter. If the child says it when he's kissing goodnight, I would ask him if he knows what it means. Mostly, children hear the words from other kids at school or play, and use them to shock the adults (I used to call everything "Geil!", which means cool or horny, when I was a teen, because the adults always seemed to be a bit shocked about it. Likewise, when children call each other names like "Hurensohn" (son-of-a-b1tch) or "Wichser" (onanist), it was meant as an insult. We knew those weren't nice words to say in polite company.

About being proud of what they're seeing or hearing: if I had children, I wouldn't let them watch unsupervised, and I'd talk about what they'd seen. One very famous, high-quality children's show, "Sendung mit der Maus", showed a special some years ago about a handicapped girl which had died at age 7 or 9. It was done with the parents consent, and awful lot of tact, wonderful showing the brief, but intense life the child had had, how she had overcome a lot people hadn't expected her, and had influenced the people who knew her.
The producers of the show gave several hints previously that this special would deal with death and be serious, and that parents should see it together with the kids.
They got bags of letters afterwards, and the overwhelming majority of these was positive, even though many parents mentioned how disturbed their kids had been to see a child die. But by talking about a tabu theme, the children and parents had coped with it. A few parents blamed the producers for the kids being disturbed who had watched it alone.
That was a show I was proud of, because it was well done.

A lot of back-and-forth in the last two days. It almost became hot enough to require my intervention, but thankfully, the posters resolved the misunderstandings that led to the over-reactions. The only thing I need to comment on is one technical point in Constanze last post.

Likewise, when children call each other names like "Hurensohn" (son-of-a-b1tch) or "Wichser" (onanist), it was meant as an insult. We knew those weren't nice words to say in polite company.

American English does not have a direct equivalent for "Wichser" The closest it comes is "Jerk-Off" which "describes" the action rather than the actor. In British English, however there is a direct equivalent in the slang word "Wanker."

So rather than have a clean legal abortion you'd have women go through backalley coathangers?

I'd rather see women not have to have abortions at all.

<i>I never learned to hate anybody or be prejudiced against others. In fact, many of our lessons were about loving others, being kind to our enemies, and obeying our parents.</i>

I do remember thta from sunday school but I also remember being told about how Christians were the most percecuted people on Earth, and this is when ethnic clensing was going on in Bosnea.

<i>Do you have children, Constanze? Would you really want your three-year-old going around repeating the words and phrases he heard on television shows? Would it bother you to hear him say "S---!" when he's playing with his friends or kissing you goodnight? Would you be happy if he said "D---!" when he skinned his knee, or "FU!" when you wouldn't let him have dessert?
At what age would it be appropriate to use profanity? At what age would let your children watch shows that do? Are you really proud of what they're seeing and hearing on television?</i>

They don't use the S*** word (and not the F*** word at all) on broadcast TV and basic cable untill after 10:00 PM well after all 3 year olds have gone to bed or at least sould have.


<i>Or maybe it's legal because the majority opinion of NINE people decided their views are all that matter and the majority opinion of THOUSANDS of people in those states that voted for the legislatures which then wrote laws restricting abortion didn't matter. Abortion isn't legal in the US because of popular opinion, it's legal as a matter of judicial fiat.</i>

Well according to these dozens of polls in most cases people who support some form of legal abortion are nearly always in the majority, even in the Fox News polls

"Some form" of legal abortion? I'm pro-life, but I support "some form" of legal abortion in instances of saving a mother's life. Big difference between some form of legal abortion and the abortion allowed in Roe v. Wade.

If I may add my own two cents worth, I have a number of opinions about the ongoing debate.
First of all, there IS an anti-Christian bias in public colleges. I know, because I am Christian and I do go to college and I've seen it and felt it. You really have to admit that the majority of professors are atheist or agnostic, and many of them DO seem to have it out for Christian students.
I also believe there's an anti-Christian bias in many of the movies and television shows we watch. There will usually be a Christian character who is portrayed as some kind of hick or idiot, or worse yet, an extremist bent on murdering non-believers.
However, I don't think these online debates are really going to change anybody's mind one way or another. To my thinking, they're pretty useless. That's why I usually avoid topics like this and stick to movies and trivia.
Oh, and in high school, my mother told me I would be better off taking a Spanish course instead of French, but I studied French anyway and now I've gotten myself a French boyfriend! So I guess French is useful after all (I also studied Spanish to please my mother).
Guten abend, Constanze! Mertz, angenehm. Wie gefallt es Ihnen in Grobbitannien?

The majority of professors are atheist or agnostic? Really? How did you come to this conclusion? You not only met, interviewed, and/or researched the religious views of all the professors on campus in order to determine this, but did so on more than one public college, which is why you said "colleges"?

Wow, that must've been one hell of an undertaking.

LOL Yeah, it was a long three years, and it looks to be about six more long years ahead. And yes, "colleges" is meant to be plural.
This is why I like staying out of these discussions...

well at my college I didn't talk to all the professors, but out of the dozen or so I met and dealt with I would say that apathetic would be the majority only a couple of actual agnostic or aethiest, a couple where moderate christian, and one was borderline conservative christian.

And yeah for the most part these online debates can go the flame war route faster than greased lightning. I do find it interesting to observe and sometimes contribute to them if there is something that is either interesting or motivational (that can be taken however you wanna read that) enough.

As for abortion. I feel it should be kept legal because there are situations in that it would be beneficial to the mother. Rape being one of the strongest I can think of. Not every woman who is impregnated by a rapist can or could come to terms with it and the pain caused by the continuation of the pregnancy would and could be more than she could handle. So situations like that where we are talking about something other than shallow it will ruin her figure or she doesnt want it reasons.

I do agree that abortion as a form of birth control is rather stupid as that is locking the barn door after the horses have run. Better to teach responsibility and pregnancy prevention such as the pill, condoms, abstinence (for those who do wish to choose that route), or alternative pleasuring (if I have to explain that one you probably arnt old enough to be doing it;-) ).

Now as for the dirty words thing. As long as the kid is old enough to understand that certain words are only to be said at certain times then its not a big deal. I had a full vocabulary of swear words by the time I was 9 due to the fact that I grew up around farmers, mechanics and military personnel. My grandmother could swear enough that you'd go hey there are sailors around. I use this personal example to bring the point that tv and movies are not where a lot of kids learn these words. Either from each other, people they associate with or as example of their parents interactions with other adults.

As for violence kids will develop their own violence in the absence of tv. I have known and seen kids who where not allowed to watch anythign other than G rated (my inlaws kid damien) and where as violent as others who have watched the most violent thing you can think of.

But when it comes to tv and movies a parent should supervise and pay attention ot what their kid watches. As well as what they are watching in front of their kids. In other words monkey see monkey do.

As for sunday school. It was actually there that planted the seeds for my later aetheistic/agnostic outlook against religion. I found it to be rather stifling and oppressive the older I got and the more probative my questions got.

First of all, there IS an anti-Christian bias in public colleges. I know, because I am Christian and I do go to college and I've seen it and felt it. You really have to admit that the majority of professors are atheist or agnostic, and many of them DO seem to have it out for Christian students.

How exactly do you think they "have it out for christian students"? The only times I've seen some christian students think a professor is aginst their religion is when a science teacher teaches about evolution and the age/formation of the Earth/galaxey/universe. Also some students seemed upset when we read the epic of gilgimesh. because we talked about how it's flood story pre-dated the biblical flood story.

Exactly, I encounted somethign similar to that in a science class. The teacher was one of the apathetic. (ie he didn't care what religion a person was and we never discussed his or acted as if religion was even a big deal)

There was a student there who was christian (self proclaimed) and said that the earth was only 6000 years old so anything that disagreed with that number was wrong no matter how much science or evidence there was to support it.

I have had a mix of professors in college. I don't know about anti-Christian bias (I go to a midwest school), but there is a pretty liberal bias, which I guess is expected. I don't know how many times my history prof needed to tell me he hated Bush, but I got the point the first time!

As for an anti-Christian bias, I have met several very deep Christian believers. I have never been personally made fun of for being a Christian by any of my professors; most were sympathetic (note, I am a liberal arts major, so I don't take a lot of science classes). There have been a few times where professors have said things that I thought were insensitive (one prof told us to move out of West Michigan because there were too many Christians), but on a personal level, no I have not been prejudiced against. But as Luigi sarcastically pointed out, I am just one example.

TomM,

thanks for enriching my vocabulary. So now I can use the correct word if I ever need to cuss at somebody

BTW, this means "Married with children" must be very funny whenever it's mentioned that Peg is from Wanker County, or that her maiden name is Wanker...

MikeC,

the extremist christians (and the catholics, according to the pope's bull on that subject) don't allow any form of abortion, even to save the mother's life.

Mertz,

Nice to meet you, too. I like Great Britian (except when it's raining), but at the moment, I'm in Germany. (Actually, Bavaria, if you're going for exotic languages ... )

As for anti-christian bias ... I wonder if the professors are just fed up with the extremists who don't want to listen to reason - after all, a college is supposed to teach people how to think logically, and if somebody digs his heels in and says things are true no matter what because he learned them that way in sunday school (it often looks these people are afraid to allow any doubt or rational thinking about religion, because then their whole faith would crumble. I think people should outgrow their childhood-like faith at some point, anyway, and see things differently from an adult point. That doesn't mean abandoing the faith. Children also believe people are good, and they can't understand why there's so much bad stuff happening. As adult, you can still believe people are basically good - or could be - but you see things different, with more shades of grey.) - so if somebody calls himself a christian, the professor may put him into the corner of "needs an extra lot of talking to to understand logic, and even then may not get science." Of course that might be unfair to you personally, since you are a reasonable person, but stereotypes are never fair. Have you tried to tell the professors "I'm a reasonable person open to logic, I can work with science, but please don't ridicule me for my personal beliefs, because they are important to me?" People who have some basic form of politeness will respect your beliefs.

R

about violence - the worry isn't whether kids behave violently - kids will always tumble with each other. The worry is what will happen if kids get used to violence being acceptable, through TV and bad computer games. 30 years ago, it was unspoken consent that when you fought on the school yard, you didn't hit somebody who was down already. Today, kids will kick somebody on the ground. (Of course, there may be other factors for that, too.) It used to be that when people joined the army, they had to go trhough a desensitation programme, to get rid of the reluctance to kill or hurt another human being. Today, many teens no longer have that reluctance, because they've seen so many disturbing, violent images on TV and killed so many people realistically in video games.

"Some form" of legal abortion? I'm pro-life, but I support "some form" of legal abortion in instances of saving a mother's life. Big difference between some form of legal abortion and the abortion allowed in Roe v. Wade.

Wromg. According the the ruling in Roe v. Wade:

During the first three months of pregnancy, a woman and her physician may jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy. No significant state interference is allowed.

Later in pregnancy, states can restrict abortion access with laws but only if they are intended to protect the woman's health.

Once the fetus is viable, an abortion must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk. State governments are free to pass legislation that will allow or prohibit late-term abortions -- those on a viable fetus -- for other reasons.

I am familiar with the ruling in Roe. I wasn't trying to imply that Roe allowed for whenever, whatever-abortion. But I'm not sure how that makes me "wrong." I believe that abortion should ONLY be allowed if the woman's health or life is at risk. So do many in the pro-life movement. That is clearly not what Roe prescribes.

BTW, this means "Married with children" must be very funny whenever it's mentioned that Peg is from Wanker County, or that her maiden name is Wanker...



Well, only if they get the joke. The word, as I said, is British slang, and "Married with Children" is an American show.

Likewise, there are occassionally American shows with characters named "Randy." In America, "Randy" is just another name. But in the UK, "randy" means "on the prowl" or "perpetually/easily (sexually) aroused." Often the name is chosen just for that hidden dissonance.

I guess so. I'm not sure that i see it around here though where things do move at a slightly different pace. I know this sounds like a rural vs urban stereotype but in someways rural kids are not more prone to more violence in some ways as there is 1: not as much stress factors in their lives 2: Families are usually more closely knit, and 3: families and friends are usually more involved in each other's lives in a suportive fashion.

So I don't see it more as violence in films and movies is a cause of violence in life but violence in life is being reflected in movies more.

I am familiar with the ruling in Roe. I wasn't trying to imply that Roe allowed for whenever, whatever-abortion. But I'm not sure how that makes me "wrong." I believe that abortion should ONLY be allowed if the woman's health or life is at risk. So do many in the pro-life movement. That is clearly not what Roe prescribes.

If that's the case than in the 1990s why did the pro-life Republicans refuse to pass a late-term abortion ban that included the words "except where the life of the mother is at risk"?

I am familiar with the ruling in Roe. I wasn't trying to imply that Roe allowed for whenever, whatever-abortion. But I'm not sure how that makes me "wrong." I believe that abortion should ONLY be allowed if the woman's health or life is at risk. So do many in the pro-life movement. That is clearly not what Roe prescribes.

If that's the case than in the 1990s why did the pro-life Republicans refuse to pass a late-term abortion ban that included the words "except where the life of the mother is at risk"?

Well, since you asked nicely twice...

Hey, I can't speak for others in the pro-life movement. Some feel very passionately that abortion should not be allowed at any time. But I know many pro-lifers that agree with my sentiments.

While I obviously can't speak for the Republicans ...

my guess is that they didn't want a practical part-way-solution, because as long as abortion is allowed at all, they can use it to pull the christian voters to their party and demonize the Democrats who supposedly allow the open ruling.

If they took part in a practical solution, they couldn't use that angle anymore.

Hey, I can't speak for others in the pro-life movement. Some feel very passionately that abortion should not be allowed at any time. But I know many pro-lifers that agree with my sentiments.

Apparently not enough because the people who they elected to represent the pro-life movement though that wasn't an option.

I feel that there is a lot of bipartisan potential regarding abortion, specifically very late-term abortion.

I'm REALLY tired of so-called "experts" saying that Jesus did not bleed to death on the cross. The latest comes from Israel where some "expert" says that Jesus died as the result of a blood clot in His lung.

My question:

How can you die of a blood clot in your lung if there's no blood to clot?

This persistant attack on Christ is by far the worst predjudice against Christians conceived by mankind

Perhaps I'm not up on how the nature of being crucified, but I've always thought that death in these things occurred because of suffocation not by blood loss?

How in the world can anyone say that Jesus did or did not die of whatever cause, given that we have zero contemporary evidence for his existence, let alone his crucifixion?

I'm REALLY tired of so-called "experts" saying that Jesus did not bleed to death on the cross. The latest comes from Israel where some "expert" says that Jesus died as the result of a blood clot in His lung.

My question:

How can you die of a blood clot in your lung if there's no blood to clot?

This persistant attack on Christ is by far the worst predjudice against Christians conceived by mankind

The Bible itself disagrees with your view of the crucifixion.

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. John 19:32-34(AV)

If Jesus had bled out as you claim, how could blood come pouring from his side?


How in the world can anyone say that Jesus did or did not die of whatever cause, given that we have zero contemporary evidence for his existence, let alone his crucifixion?

We do know that the Romans did crucify criminals. We know the most common causes of death during crucifixion, and which ones the Bible specifically say were not the cause of Jesus' death. So it is not unreasonable to say that if Jesus existed, and if He was crucified, then he most likely died of certain causes. Sometimes the author or his publicist will leave out the italicized clauses in the press releases to sell more books, or the reporter will drop them when re-writing the release to sell more newspapers. (However, it must be admitted that sometimes the author is a believer and omits the clauses even in the book itself because to him they are true statements and not conditionals.)

Perhaps I'm not up on how the nature of being crucified, but I've always thought that death in these things occurred because of suffocation not by blood loss?

That is one cause; one of the slower causes. It is likely that the other two crucifixion victims (provisionally accepting the basic premise) would have died of slow suffocation if the soldier's had not broken their legs. After the breaking of their legs there was no way to support themselves to get the gasps of breath that could have sustained them for days, and the suffocated more quickly.

The new theory about Jesus seems to be based in the fact that the author has somehow determined that Galileans were more susceptible to embolisms than the average person. Embolisms are blood clots that form in the legs and break off to flaot freely in the blood. When they are carried to small blood vessels, the can block the vessel and deprive an area of blood, causing strokes (if it occurs in the brain), heart attacks, and other critical conditions. I have not read the new theory, but I suspect that he focussed on the clot attacking the lungs because of the nature of the blood and water which gushed from the pierced side (See John 19, above)

"How in the world can anyone say that Jesus did or did not die of whatever cause, given that we have zero contemporary evidence for his existence, let alone his crucifixion?"

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is no evidence for Christ's existence. That a figure named Jesus lived and preached in the first century A.D. is almost never disputed by experts, Christian or not.
What we know about Jesus does not just come from the Bible, but from other historic records of the time, including Josephus, the historian by which we get much of our history from that time. There are other references that I don't remember off the top of my head, but I will be more than happy to look them up for you, if you wish.

Whatever the case may be, when Jesus was removed from the cross, He had no blood. He would never have blood again. What He did, He did it ONCE.

There will be NO "Calvary: The Sequel"

WIT,

you do know, though, that a large part of Josephus' records was falsified later? Probably in the 4th to 6th century, when the early church was running a forgery business, since they had to tell the truth no matter how many lies it took (as they believed).

Even if a man named Jeschua existed as one of dozens of preachers around this time, this doesn't confirm anything about the NT, which was never meant as historical account anyway, but to preach to and convince non-believers who'd never heard of him.

90% or more of the people who lived in history can't be confirmed to have existed (from the POV of historians, who want more than a mention by some other unknown guy). The only reliable historical accounts usually are kings and suchlike, which left written stuff behind, and that isn't very objective.

WIT and constanze, I have continued the discussion of Jesus here, and suggest we keep it on that board.

Tom? I would suggest perhaps moving constanze's post to that board.

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Prejudice Against Christians board has become a debate topic attacking the basis of Christian beliefs? I'm almost tempted to re-title this board "Self-evident."

How is either a discussion of the new theory of the cause of Jesus' death and an examination of the trustworthiness of the Testimonium Flavianum, a passage from Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus (which was moved to a different board) "a debate attacking the basis of Christian beliefs"?

The closest I can find to an attack is a single remark by Luigi. A remark that might be (erroneously) read as a denial that Jesus existed. A closer reading will show that the only thing he asserts is that there is no reliable extra-Biblical source for Jesus existence.

Another debate that depends on your POV. In defense of WIT, many schools and college campuses are prejudiced against Christians, but there are many other places where it is the total opposite.
It all depends on your own experiences with other people. Most people are intolerent of others (I've noticed that just browsing through the boards). Some Christians are intolerent of atheists. Some atheists are intolerent of Christians. This is natural, because of the big differences in their belief systems.
So maybe instead of trying to change everyone's minds, we should try to get along with each other, and let people make their own decisions about what to believe.

Another debate that depends on your POV. In defense of WIT, many schools and college campuses are prejudiced against Christians, but there are many other places where it is the total opposite.

Case in point, sadly, US Air Force Academy.

In defense of WIT, many schools and college campuses are prejudiced against Christians

How exactly are college campuses prejudiced aginst christians?

many schools and college campuses are prejudiced against Christians Really in what way? For the most part the colleges I went to and most of my friends went to where relgion neutral. Even Wilmington College a quaker founded school was more religion neutral than religious.

If not enforcing the CT veiw of opression of people's rights and lives is prejudiced than lets hope more places become prejudiced.

I wouldn't say prejudiced; at my school, there isn't really Christian prejudice, it's just that the professors there mainly have different backgrounds and beliefs, so they occasionally say things that I find offensive that they don't. Example: "This community is terrible because there are too many Christians here." That offends me as a Christian; to a professor who isn't a Christian, it apparently wasn't. That wasn't prejudice, it was just I dunno...ignorance?

I gave this question a lot of thought last winter when the first posts appeared. So much thought that by the time I was ready to post, the subject had died down.

I have come to the conclusion that conservative Christians do experience more prejudice for their beliefs than other categories of believers and non-believers. But at the same time, there is not much* more prejudice against consevative Christianity than there is against any other faith or philosophy. (*There may be a little more than average due to secondary effects of the conditions I list as "second" and "fourth" in the list below.)

There are several reasons for this dichotomy. First, conservative Christians often put themselves into situations (for example, "witnessing") where they not only hear more of what prejudice is out there, but provoke its expression.

Second, they often also provoke negative reations that they interpret as prejudice against their beliefs, which is "merely" animosity against them personally. Their personalities, or approach to relationships abrade on others.

Third, even the ones that do not themslves abrade experience a "spill-over" from people who have had to deal those who do. It is true that these people are prejudiced against them because they are fundamentilists or evangelicals, but it is not due to their actual fundamentalist or evangelical beliefs, but because so many others who share those beliefs. This source of "anti-Christian" prejudice is actuall very easy to overcome.

And fourth, they often inject "Christian beliefs" into conversations where they are inappropriate, and feel prejudiced against when those "beliefs" are rejected as immaterial to the discussion. (for example, E v C, "gay rights," etc.)

All of those points can also apply to perceived prejudices on the part of Christians against those who accuse Christians of hate and intolerance.