The Onesided Destruction of Christianity in America

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Simply put, ALL you religious groups should be banned. I don't care what God, or fate, or after life you believe in, it should NOT interfere or influence MY life or MY beliefs. Be spiritual all you want, but like you intolerant and judgmental religious types say, "Keep it in your own home"




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Badgered1

There is no reason to believe that atheists will be less judgmental or hurtful if/when they are the majority.

Look at the issue of climate change. That has nothing to do with religion yet there are lots of people who want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in global warming/climate change. www.climatedepot.com... art-punishing-them-now/
People throughout history want to eliminate ideas they deem "wrong" by killing all the believers.

I think your assumption is incorrect. I see far more intolerance and projection of evil from non-believers onto believers than you can imagine.

It seems to me that those who profess the loudest to be tolerant are really the most intolerant of those who don't hold exactly the same ideas they do.





I strongly disagree. Historically, it has not been the scientists, and the logical, and the enlightened who wish to silence the ideologies. Rather the other way around. History is quite clear regarding the oppression, and suppression of actual critical thinking, and science - by religion, and other political ideologies. Better for them if nobody questions or has an opinion of their dearly held beliefs. Question god, and you are immediately branded as evil. Evil is a construct. Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. To make a good person do a bad thing, that takes religion.
I don't sin. I may do some dumb things, but I never sin. "Sin" i's just something invented to suppress dissent.

The voices of disapproval you hear are of the truly enlightened voicing their complete horror that middle-eastern ancient mythology is finding its way into our courthouses, schools, government, doctors' offices, and even our bedrooms. Why should religion affect my life just because some people imagine that the deeds of some illiterate goatherds are magical?

Please show me historically where athiests - and only atheists; not ideologies such as Communism, Fascism etc. - have systematically tortured, abused, killed, and marginalised any religious group. Now tell me where the opposite is true.
Isn't it astounding how many incidents spring to mind when you think of the opposite?

Faith is a personal issue. Religion is a means to control.

I won't address the climate change thing as I don't have enough information about that which you cite.
Follow the money. Who stands to lose the most if Climate Change induced policies restrict the carbon industry? How do they affect the conversation? Are they actively lobbying? Why lobby against science?



give the atheists time, they are fairly young yet.

they are marginalizing christianity since their birth, next step is their concerted effort to establish themselves as a legitimate political movement.
then the death marches and enemy of the state status for people who don't hold their twisted views.

and they will have science to help spread their alarming bs among the stars!
converting aliens or suing them because of some religious symbols in their government/public offices.

then the aliens get pissed off and wipe out the human race!

way to go, chumps.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Simply put, ALL you religious groups should be banned. I don't care what God, or fate, or after life you believe in, it should NOT interfere or influence MY life or MY beliefs. Be spiritual all you want, but like you intolerant and judgmental religious types say, "Keep it in your own home"


Again, go back and read the OP I never said I was of any religious group, to read between the lines shows your biased comprehension and interpretation of what was written.

it truly amazes me how intelligent people can not correctly comprehend a simple OP without reading into it with prejudice and bias.

edit on 16-8-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
There are no anti-abortion laws anymore, there have even been lately, laws being proposed for post-birth abortion if the abortion was botched.



Since pro-lifers can't outright ban abortion and overturn Roe v. Wade, they forced laws requiring abortion clinic doctor have hospital admission privileges to nearby hospitals knowing that doctors either won't be able to meet them or will choose not to meet the criteria. The result is that many doctors will become ineligible and the abortion clinics will close.

Recently, the 5th Cir held that Mississippi requiring admitting privileges for their doctors was NOT an undue burden when it resulted in 4 out of 5 abortion clinics in that state closing. However, the same court then held that another Mississippi law that would have closed the last remaining clinic in Mississippi DID constitute an undue burden; rejecting the State's argument of "well they can still like drive to Louisiana or Alabama and get an abortion there."

Umm, then there's mandatory waiting period and information requirements for women.

en.wikipedia.org...

^ As you can see, this legal framework pro-lifers put around restricting abortion abortion and then say "there are no anti-abortion laws anymore" is being deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest to the discussion. All these legal placements can arguably be called "anti-abortion" in terms of trying to restrict it.




originally posted by: grandmakdw
No one is denying rape victims emergency contraception they can even get it on their own at a drug store unless you are angry they may have to pay for it.


Catholic hospitals won't provide one and refuse to forward her to one that does. All this is an attempt to stymie her attempts of receiving the medication. So now she has to arrange her travel and collect information on the nearest services.

Then don't forget pharmacies and other healthcare providers can refuse to dispense emergency contraception based on their own religious or moral beliefs.


originally posted by: grandmakdw
But DO NOT equate all Christians with these wackos like WBC, unless you are quite openly and vocally willing to equate all Muslims with ISIS/ISIL.


I'm willing to bet over 90% of prolifers are Chrstian (mainly Catholics). you know the ppl who are lobbying for all these anti-abortion laws, oh wait I meant "abortion restricting" laws.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Islam for example will one day ask you to convert to their religion, pay a tax (generally to much for you to pay and live well at the same time), or be killed.


If that ever happens, trust me, I will go NUTS on them. If I every experience with Muslims ANYTHING CLOSE to what I have experienced with Christians ALL my life (over 50 years), I will be just as outspoken against them as I am against the Christians who force their beliefs into law.

But that's not happening.

I used to work with MANY Muslims (from Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia) at GTE. I NEVER heard about their religion. I didn't know what religion they were for a LONG time, in fact. I went to their houses for dinner. We spent a lot of fun time together. Only when I noticed that they left to pray one day, did I figure out they were devout Muslims.


[But AHA did not protest the establishment of prayer rooms in Public schools for the sole use of Muslims.


I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, if Christians want to pray in school, let them have a special room, too! I think it's great that the Muslims want to keep their prayer to themselves and not interfere with everyone else.



Truly that reeks of a violation of the "establishment" clause in the constitution.


It's actually not. If the school makes special allowances for one religion and REFUSES to do it for others, THEN you'd have a problem. So, if Christians want a private place to pray, let them have one, too! But instead, Christians INSIST on "casting their pearls before swine"...



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Its just that the govt needs to also up hold the rights of those who don't want to marry them in their churches. Or bake cakes, or do photographs or any other service for them.


When a business owner gets a license, he has to agree to operate under the laws of the state. If that means not discriminating against LGBT, then he has to suck it up and bake a cake for a gay person. That doesn't force him to go against his religion. No one is forcing HIM to participate in a gay marriage.



It is not an issue of hate but of religious freedom.


The phrase "religious freedom" has come to mean the freedom to discriminate against select "sinners". Sorry. I don't buy it. It's hatred. Unless that same baker refuses to bake cakes for ALL sinners (liars, adulterers, divorced, fornicators, murderers, etc) then his argument is worthless. He's selecting ONE sin and discriminating.



There are plenty of secular places that will give gay couples all the services for their marriage without them having to trouble Christians.


Not if you live in a small town.



Let them have their marriages. Live and Let live.


Let them have their cake. Live and let live.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Its just that the govt needs to also up hold the rights of those who don't want to marry them in their churches. Or bake cakes, or do photographs or any other service for them.


When a business owner gets a license, he has to agree to operate under the laws of the state. If that means not discriminating against LGBT, then he has to suck it up and bake a cake for a gay person. That doesn't force him to go against his religion. No one is forcing HIM to participate in a gay marriage.



It is not an issue of hate but of religious freedom.



The phrase "religious freedom" has come to mean the freedom to discriminate against select "sinners". Sorry. I don't buy it. It's hatred. Unless that same baker refuses to bake cakes for ALL sinners (liars, adulterers, divorced, fornicators, murderers, etc) then his argument is worthless. He's selecting ONE sin and discriminating.



There are plenty of secular places that will give gay couples all the services for their marriage without them having to trouble Christians.


Not if you live in a small town.



Let them have their marriages. Live and Let live.


Let them have their cake. Live and let live.


If you are forced to bake a cake for a gay couple or vise verse a gay baker is forced to bake a cake for a Christian couple against their belief, because it is a law, then their rights are violated by the state.

What if I went to an Atheist bake shop and asked them to put the full verse of John 3:16 on a cake for me, do you really think they are going to do it? they would be offended at the fact they have too and would refuse. Because they think Christianity is a ruse, lie and sign of weak mindless people.

edit on 16-8-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
If you are forced to bake a cake for a gay couple or vise verse a gay baker is forced to bake a cake for a Christian couple against their belief, because it is a law, then their rights are violated by the state.


"Forced to bake a cake." It's a BAKER. How is forcing his to do his job against his belief? Is baking a cake against his belief? What rights are violated if a baker is forced to bake a cake? It doesn't matter and it's none of his business who it's for. He bakes cake for a living. He should do it, regardless who the customer is or what they're going to do with it.

What if I hold a belief that black people are dirty sinners and I don't want them in my restaurant? What if I own a manage a grocery store and I hold a belief that men are rapists and I don't want to serve them? What if it's the only grocery store in town?



What if I went to an Atheist bake shop and asked them to put the full verse of John 3:16 on a cake for me, do you really think they are going to do it? they would be offended at the fact they have too and would refuse. Because they think Christianity is a ruse, lie and sign of weak mindless people.


1. You don't know what atheists think.
2. If the atheist shop owner provides cakes to the general public and offers to print "whatever you want", then he should do it. If he only has a set of print options to choose from (like Happy Anniversary, Happy Birthday, Congratulations, Mary! etc.,) he would offer to do one of those. In other words, whatever he does for the general public, he should do for the Christian. He shouldn't be forced to do a "special request". He's a professional businessman and should act like one.
3. The "Christian" baker in Colorado was not asked to do ANYTHING "gay" to the cake. The couple just wanted a cake.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
What if I went to an Atheist bake shop and asked them to put the full verse of John 3:16 on a cake for me, do you really think they are going to do it? they would be offended at the fact they have too and would refuse.


Joke post?

Atheism isn't a religion and/or anti-religion and "hates the belief in God" as some ppl think.

It's like saying Wal-Mart is an atheist god-hating company because they're not bearing the flag of one the established religions. An atheist will welcome business from gays and straights. Maybe not if it said "kill the jews/gays" etc. but that would be hate speech or something.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am a very religious man, but not a Christian or Muslim. My spirituality is paramount in my life so when I have to deal with Christians pushing their own religion on me my position is:

1. I do not object to you praying in public -- I object to you making me pray to your god in public. If i have joined a football club, it is to play football, not to be forced to pray to your god.

2. I do not object to your displays of religion -- I do object to your refusing to let others have public displays of religions.

3. I do not object to your living your life in accordance to your religious beliefs -- I object to you making me live your religious beliefs through law or corporate policy.

4. I respect your right to worship as you see fit, but also respect my right to do the same.

5. I respect your privacy and do not talk about my faith to you unless you ask, so please stop evangelizing me. My telling you I am not interested does NOT mean you need to double down.

To me, there is a very big difference between having a prayer room for Muslims or a chapel for Christians where they can go and gather privately for prayers as opposed to making it mandatory for everyone to join in a team prayer.
edit on 16-8-2014 by metamagic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Christianity is trying to be pushed into the past. Just like in all of our history books "B.C." "A.D." has now become "B.C.E." and "A.C.E." Now it is not right to use these because they refer back to Jesus for "before Christ" and "Anno Dominio" now it is more politcally correct to use "Before Common Era" and "After Common Era" It's a sad world. Our freedoms are as free as our rulers allow them to be.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: BeingBlessed
Now it is not right to use these because they refer back to Jesus for "before Christ" and "Anno Dominio" now it is more politcally correct to use "Before Common Era" and "After Common Era"


What do you mean it's "not right"? You are FREE to use them as much as you want! I hear and read BC and AD ALL the time! And, CE CAN denote "Christian Era". What kind of false victim stance is this? Common Era is just a a secular alternative! Are we not "allowed" to have an alternative to the religious abbreviations? Other people live on this earth, too, you know. Please read the post by metamagic above yours. We CAN all live peacefully together. You use BC and AD and I'll use BCE and CE and we'll both understand what the other means. Don't "pout" and claim you're "not free" just because I use different abbreviations than you. How utterly ridiculous!



Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini ("in the Year of Our Lord", abbreviated AD).[3][4] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC).


Source


It's a sad world.


You think it's "sad" because everyone is not being forced to use Christian-based abbreviations??? Kind of selfish, don't you think? This is the very POINT of many this thread! You are not being victimized! You victimize YOURSELF! Use whatever abbreviations you want!



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Its sad that people didnt have a problem with prayer time or one nation under God 20 years or even 10 years ago. I think people tend to forget that this nation was founded under christian principles. I believe this country should give christianity practices its place and respect due to the fact it is our nation's heritage. There would not been a United States with religious tolerance if wasnt for our christian principles and ethics. Even some our founding forefathers who weren't christian saw the need for christian values because they saw it was practical and needed. If we continue down the road that this nation is going now then we would have destroyed our national's heritage. As humanism continues to gain momentum the more this country will spiral into chaos, confusion, and unethical practices. For about 200 years christian values and ethics helped lead our country. Why destroy it now? Im afraid our founding forefathers would no longer recognize our nation and in 20 years down the road they would be ashamed of it



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Fingon




I think people tend to forget that this nation was founded under christian principles.


What are Christian principles? I guess they include slavery and the murder of native indigenous people?

I guess you mean to say that America was founded on the principles that people are unworthy sinners, and unless they repent and accept Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from dead, they are damned to hell?

I guess you mean to say, by insisting that America was founded on Christian principles, that the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth and that the Papal bulls ordering Christian soldiers to go out and conquer all lands in the name of the Church and Christianity, is a part of our heritage that we should honor and preserve?

Bah!

No, The United States of America is not a Christian nation and was not founded on Christian principles. If America was truly based on the teachings of Jesus, we would be a communist theocracy, not a capitalistic, democratic republic.



edit on 19-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Fingon
I guess you mean to say, by insisting that America was founded on Christian principles, that the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth and that the Papal bulls ordering Christian soldiers to go out and conquer all lands in the name of the Church and Christianity, is a part of our heritage that we should honor and preserve?


Sorry to rain on your parade, but the Pope is a Catholic thing not an entirely Christian thing. The original American Christians were Protestants and wouldn't have recognized the Pope as anything more than an old fart with a goofy hat. In fact, up to about the early 1900's Catholics were heavily persecuted and intolerance for Catholics was EXTREMELY high. This can still be seen in our Presidential elections. There has only been one Catholic President (JFK) and there was a huge controversy over his election. Of course every other President has been Protestant.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fingon
Its sad that people didnt have a problem with prayer time or one nation under God 20 years or even 10 years ago.


It's only been in the past 20 years or so that the Christian "movement" has been forcing religion in politics.



I think people tend to forget that this nation was founded under christian principles.


I don't even know what Christian Principles are anymore, but you are free to live by them. Don't expect everyone to choose YOUR path, however. If you mean love, generosity, acceptance, understanding, etc. there are MANY (Christian and not) who live by those, but sadly, many so-called Christians have rejected them in favor of judgment, exclusion, selfishness, and hatred.



I believe this country should give christianity practices its place and respect due to the fact it is our nation's heritage.


This is a nation of secular law. The place for Christian practices is in the church, home and in your personal life. We have freedom of religion in this country, not freedom to practice Christianity.



There would not been a United States with religious tolerance if wasnt for our christian principles and ethics.


In my experience, Christians don't practice religious tolerance or tolerance of any kind.


As humanism continues to gain momentum the more this country will spiral into chaos, confusion, and unethical practices.


What do you mean? Humanists are not chaotic, confused or unethical. Just the opposite, in fact.



For about 200 years christian values and ethics helped lead our country. Why destroy it now?


Christianity's "push" into politics is what caused the backlash against Christianity that you see. Enforcing "Christian Values" on the populace at large caused people to push back. People are fine with you living the life you choose to live, but we expect you to leave us alone to live the life WE choose to live.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The Pope is a Catholic thing not an entirely Christian thing. The original American Christians were Protestants and wouldn't have recognized the Pope as anything more than an old fart with a goofy hat.


Doesn't matter. The "Discovery doctrine was so entrenched in Christian society that the Supreme Court of Untied States has upheld laws based on it.


The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to sovereign indigenous nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects explored and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.


Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery


To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.


MORE INFO

edit on 19-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

That's cool and all. It just shows that Protestants aren't fully aware of the origin of their beliefs, but it certainly isn't proof that they recognize the pope as anything more than a man.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Of course.

I was taking the posters hypothesis to hyperbole, with a dash of ironic truth!





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join