16 replies to this topic

[Snowneo]

It's sad to say, but freedom has been relegated to "flavor of the month" status for years now. Not freedom as our Founding Fathers thought it, but freedom as same-sex couples, pro-abortion activists, and those disillusioned with Western Civilization mistakenly think of it.

In other words, it's not an ordered freedom based on the sound footing of natural law, but an abstract freedom based on the whims and desires of fickle men and women who have concurred with the maxim that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Goodbye to universal ethics and enduring norms, hello to whatever makes us happy in this moment. This is freedom in the 21st century.

But changing something so near to the heart of our culture doesn't come without a price. And one of the obvious prices is that this new brand of freedom is only extended to those who meet the criteria for it. That is, it only goes to those who share the opinions of same-sex couples, pro-abortion activists, and those disillusioned with Western Civilization. Others not need apply.

What this also means is that an olive branch is extended to certain faiths -- those viewed as "tolerant" -- and withheld from others. As a result, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism are not being handed any olive branches, and more times than not, they are actually being shown the door.

Therefore, throughout our Western Civilization, there is a freedom a gap. Both in Europe and here in the U.S., Christians and Orthodox Jews are denied the right to exercise their faith and traditions in ways that other faiths and traditions enjoy.

In Europe, for example, Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, claims Christians of "deep faith" face discrimination. (By "deep faith," he is referencing those who make their faith evident, rather than keeping it a private matter.) He reached this conclusion from watching how people of faith in Europe are penalized "for activities such as wearing crosses and offering to pray for other people."

And reports from Britain's BBC validate Lord Carey's evaluation of Europe's attitudes toward Christians in the 21st century. The BBC does this by providing examples such as Gary McFarlane, a Christian marriage guidance counselor from Bristol, who "lost a court bid earlier this year to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals," and Lydia Playfoot, a 19-year-old student who was "told by her school three years ago to remove her purity ring - symbolizing chastity - or face expulsion."

Sadly, for Christians in America, these examples aren't hard to believe because the incremental secularization of our culture has led to the same kinds of discrimination and beyond. From high school and collegiate textbooks that ridicule or try to expunge our historically Judeo-Christian roots, to shameless lawsuits against the public display of symbols identifiable with Christianity, to the hampering of the religious speech of public officials, and of course, the ongoing governmental limitations on the First Amendment protected rights of pastors in the pulpit, Christians (and Christianity) are forced to fight for the freedom so many others readily enjoy.

For years, this freedom gap has been witnessed in our government schools, where "Easter Eggs" are renamed "Spring Spheres" and even a student-led "Easter Can Drive" is renamed a "Spring Can Drive." And while many have treated these efforts to rename holidays as innocuous, over time it's becoming clear that there is in fact an undercurrent working against Christians in our culture.

Freedom is more than "just another word for nothing left to lose." It is an ordered framework of liberty for which our Founders risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. As such, it should be extended to people of every race and tribe, and of every faith and tradition.

This applies to those who value the Judeo-Christian tradition as much as it applies to anyone else.

[Therion]

You will never have true freedom as long as there is a form of government, and even less as long as capitalism reigns supreme. Everybody is looking out for their own interests, and sometimes that means restricting what somebody else can or can't do.

Anyway, moving on from my hate of money.

Particularly with regards to Christianity, the same standards you are talking about in a dreamy manner are not often practiced by the same people who typically get chastised for displaying their chosen faith proudly. I know many Christians who openly crusade against things they have deemed ungodly or otherwise not in line with the ideals or their interpretation of the bible. Having grown up in a Christian environment I have seen these things first hand - cartoons like Pokemon banned from an entire school, merely discussing it gets you detention. Trading cards with 'monsters' on them, banned - with many of the parents doing so at home in both examples as a result of the school decision and a few devout parents.

A few years back, there was a major rock concert present in my town over the easter holidays and there were many letters of complaint and one of which stated that, and I am paraphrasing here, "the devils music should not be celebrated over Easter".

While I am all for equal rights for all religions, particularly those of Jewish and Islamic origin, I do not believe that Christians have any leg to stand on when complaining about freedom being stripped away.

[Jake]

A lot of cases you find about Islam and Judaism are obviously over the top portrayed by the media, I would like to think most definitely in North America. The problem which you seem to be confound in this case is that most of the Western culture being Christian I believe they fail to sympathize with other Christians and try to see it that the immigrants and other cultures get fair rights. I agree to a certain extent mainly because my anger towards a certain couple groups of people, but if you really believe in this than it is up to you to start something. Find some people who think like you, whether it be in your church, city, country etc. Make yourself be heard otherwise you have no use in lashing out.

[Waser Lave]

Snowneo, on 19 September 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Lydia Playfoot, a 19-year-old student who was "told by her school three years ago to remove her purity ring - symbolizing chastity - or face expulsion."

On this particular point I think it's important to recognise that in UK schools it tends to be against clothing or uniform policies to wear any kind of jewellery unless it's vital to a person's religion/faith. Chastity rings are not a designated part of the Christian faith and therefore fall under the general jewellery policy so that had nothing to do with religious discrimination at all. Personally I don't think exceptions for any religions should be made, if jewellery is forbidden to be worn that should include people of all religions/faiths.

[iargue]

So essentially.

You are complaining because we don't allow religion in our schools/government?



Kay.

[Bone]

Quote

Goodbye to universal ethics and enduring norms, hello to whatever makes us happy in this moment. This is freedom in the 21st century.

By "universal ethics" I assume you're talking about the Bible or whatever religious fundamentals you adhere to.
There's an a irreligious form of this: respect and empathy. Or if you want to be technical, the UN charter of human rights.

Just because something is the norm, why does that mean it's right? It was the norm 50 years ago to discriminate freely against people of color. (and it still is to some extent, especially against homosexuals and religious minorities)

If you have something against a secular society, move to Iran. Just because some of the people who helped found this country adhered to a certain religion, it doesn't mean our government should be based on it. Especially considering one of the fundamental tenets was the separation of church and state, and the reason many people came to America was due to religious persecution (and still to this day).

Think of it this way: how would you like it if Islam or Buddhism or any other religion was promoted by our government our taught in schools?

tl;dr
Open your mind, and stop trying to convince us Christians are being persecuted because you don't have special treatment on the account of tradition.

[jaredennisclark]

Snowneo, on 19 September 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Not freedom as our Founding Fathers thought it....

Everyone seems to have different ideas as to what our founding fathers believed. Fortunately, it doesn't matter. What does is the underlying concept of a democratic people free from oppression and tyranny. The ideas our founding fathers held are subject to the same critical scrutiny as anyone else's.

Snowneo, on 19 September 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

In other words, it's not an ordered freedom based on the sound footing of natural law, but an abstract freedom based on the whims and desires of fickle men and women who have concurred with the maxim that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

The lives of homosexuals and pro-choice advocates are not those of people with 'nothing left to lose'.

Snowneo, on 19 September 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Goodbye to universal ethics and enduring norms, hello to whatever makes us happy in this moment. This is freedom in the 21st century.

The 'universal ethics' suggested by your holy books are deontological and outdated. As uncomfortable as it may be, you need to realize that those ethical principles are also subject to critical scrutiny, and once subjected they do not hold muster. Human societies are complicated as they are varied. If enduring objective ethical principles are what you seek, you are looking in the wrong place. If they do exist, they are to be found based on fundamental and universal human characteristics, NOT the musings of a 2,000 year old philosophical movement.

[Red Chaos]

Waser Lave, on 19 September 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

On this particular point I think it's important to recognise that in UK schools it tends to be against clothing or uniform policies to wear any kind of jewellery unless it's vital to a person's religion/faith. Chastity rings are not a designated part of the Christian faith and therefore fall under the general jewellery policy so that had nothing to do with religious discrimination at all. Personally I don't think exceptions for any religions should be made, if jewellery is forbidden to be worn that should include people of all religions/faiths.

I'm not sure how your school was, but in ours the only jewelery we were allowed were stud earrings. Obviously people would wear whatever jewelery they wanted and would keep getting told to take em off, but cause everyone just put them all back on afterwards they eventually gave up trying to enforce the rule strictly But that's just us Brits for ya.

[Waser Lave]

Red Chaos, on 19 September 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

I'm not sure how your school was, but in ours the only jewelery we were allowed were stud earrings. Obviously people would wear whatever jewelery they wanted and would keep getting told to take em off, but cause everyone just put them all back on afterwards they eventually gave up trying to enforce the rule strictly But that's just us Brits for ya.

I meant things like rings, bracelets, necklaces etc. Studs tend to be fine because they aren't dangerous in situations like P.E. or woodwork.

[Red Chaos]

Waser Lave, on 19 September 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

I meant things like rings, bracelets, necklaces etc. Studs tend to be fine because they aren't dangerous in situations like P.E. or woodwork.

People still wore all the other jewelery but i'd put that down to going to the secondary school that was... well crap. People would get expelled from other secondary schools and always ended up in ours so rules weren't really followed

[Delcer]

iargue, on 19 September 2011 - 08:45 AM, said:

So essentially.

You are complaining because we don't allow religion in our schools/government?

^This is pretty much what I got out from your case, except you're being specific to Christian views, though I think you'd be pretty quick to complain if other maybe Muslim, or Pastifarian holidays were introduced as well.

Edited by Delcer, 19 September 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Red Chaos, on 19 September 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

People still wore all the other jewelery but i'd put that down to going to the secondary school that was... well crap. People would get expelled from other secondary schools and always ended up in ours so rules weren't really followed

Unless you go to a really posh private school you're probably always going to have that kind of thing to some extent, it was the same at my school too.

[Kats]

If you're going to just copypasta an article, at least give credit..


Also UGH Christians complaining about being persecuted. Give me a break.
I agree with almost all of these posts so I won't post the same thing twice.
However, I can post a very stereotypical story about my past instances with religious folks. I live in Texas, and my whole childhood I had to go to church every Sunday, morning and night.
I was made fun of there more than I ever was in school and treated like a leper (lol), for no real particular reason that I can recall.
Long boring cliche story later, I'm an atheist. This is also not some rare fluke occurrence.. I saw people at church and school taunted for certain things by those that claimed to worship.
Anyway.. just trying to make a point. So called "Western Culture" is not a common occurrence, at least not in most parts of America as some like to think.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no loss of freedom whatsoever for religion, in fact they get more than should be awarded on many occasions.

Bah whatever, I'm exhausted and religion in general pisses me off.

Edited by Kats, 19 September 2011 - 05:08 PM.

[Kyouma]

http://www.freerepub...s/2778265/posts
Yup, here it is.

Its written by the CEO of the Alliance Defense league, Alan Sears, which protects people who want to "practice their faith"

I love how this article claims about discrimination about christians, when they're discriminating gays.
According to the ADL website:

Quote

ADF attorneys have successfully defended marriage as the union between one man and one woman in more than 40 cases nationwide.

They'll discriminate against the homo-sexuals, but cry out compassionately against discrimination against Christians, if in fact that is a problem right now.

[Narcissa]

Snowneo, on 19 September 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

What this also means is that an olive branch is extended to certain faiths -- those viewed as "tolerant" -- and withheld from others.

Yet you want to set your ideals for the rest of the world to tolerate YOUR intolerance.

Uhm, ok.

Edited by Narcissa, 20 September 2011 - 12:03 AM.

[Shampoo]

Narcissa, on 20 September 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

Yet you want to set your ideals for the rest of the world to tolerate YOUR intolerance.

Uhm, ok.

what part of the OP was being intolerant?

[onethreezerotwo]

Christianity as Christ intended was never supposed to be about human judgement or governmental holidays or adherence to religious cultural trends. Christ preached the concept of communion with a triune and fully self-relational Godhead: foremost the love of God himself and secondarily the love of other people. I think the idea of a Christian political movement is fascinating, as if the followers are trying to defend Christ by enacting governmental legislation against a morale that the Bible deems lacking; indeed, Spurgeon expresses my heart fully when he said "Defend the Bible? I'd sooner defend a lion." I believe that Jesus is the savior of the world, that I have a responsibility to live my life according to His gospel, and that the Bible is ineffable. However, I also think that people have a right to refuse the stipulations of my faith. A government cannot be Christian, or any religion for that matter, because it is not a person and lacks the ability to have a relationship with God.