Examples Of Anti-Christian Persecution In Present Day America

In light of the fact that Phil Robertson’s employer has suspended him from the show Duck Dynasty over anti-gay and racist statements in a recent interview, I felt compelled to put together a list of examples of anti-Christian persecution in modern day America. I think it’s important for us as Christians to be aware of the ways we are persecuted for our faith in this country (something I wrote about, here), which is why I have compiled this all-inclusive list of examples of how we are persecuted.

I have put a great deal of time into this, and I am confident that I have included all examples of anti-Christian persecution in the United States. Feel free to save this piece as a reference when questions of persecution come up in the future.

So, here is the all-inclusive list I have compiled:

Ways We Are Persecuted For Our Faith In America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I like the part where the doctors work for free. Of course, I'm not a ..."

Silly Liberals: Here’s 5 Reasons TrumpCare ..."
"I have faith not only in Jesus, but also in his faithful promise to the ..."

10 Reasons Why People Leave Church
"Thanks for this. I always enjoy learning from Judaism."

10 Reasons Why People Leave Church

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Terry Firma

    Good one!

  • http://mustbeaweasley.tumblr.com/ Rain Rice

    I’d love to get that list as a framed print.

  • Hamblerger

    I’ll sell one to you at a very reasonable price.

  • Guest

    :)

  • Lando

    Did you…read the post, or just the title?

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    I’m thinking you fired off a comment after making assumptions on the piece, yet without ever having read it– which is shocking, since the total word count is 150 words. Would that not be, ironically, ignorant?

  • Amor DeCosmos

    WHOOOOOSH! That’s the sound of the point of the article flying way above your head.

  • http://abnormalanabaptist.wordpress.com/ Robert Martin

    Claims of persecution come from a misguided thought that this nation needs to recover some sort of imagine homogenaity of national Christianity… This has never been the case. Instead, especially now, we have a great plurality in our culture and we, honestly, should expect people to disagree and exact consequences for being a jerk.

    That… and keep in mind all those talking 1st Amendment… that applies to governments, not publically traded/held for-profit companies… A&E is the latter, not the former… the ONLY possible thing they could face is a discrimination civil suit if a lawyer can show that Phil was let go SPECIFICALLY because of his Christian beliefs… And THAT’S where 1st amendment can come into play but only where the government would be able to tell Robertson whether or not his speech is protected from discrimination… and man… that can get sticky right quick when it comes to church/state type stuff.

  • Psycho Gecko

    I think the problem there is that it justifies the idea that hating gay people is a Christian value, when many Christians would themselves say it isn’t.

  • Michael Sundberg

    But he doesn’t hate gay people. He doesn’t like homosexuality, but he doesn’t hate gays. There is a difference. People talk about hating the sin and not the sinner, but whenever someone does, they are viewed as hateful to the person when they are not.

  • Psycho Gecko

    That’s a cop out. It’s used to make people feel better about not liking gay people, and to shut down any introspection into what they don’t like about them. Then those feelings, usually rooted in disgust, get legitimized by religions saying that homosexuality, like shellfish, is an abomination.

    To me, if you want to put it in perspective, perhaps reword it a bit. “He doesn’t hate black people. He hates people being black.”

    Seeing as homosexuality isn’t walking around getting told it was partially responsible for the latest school shooting, being told it can’t adopt kids, getting beaten by straight people, or being told it’s disgusting and a choice, maybe it’s time to admit that the wiggle words are pretty transparent. People don’t hate the thing they perceive as a sin, they hate the people they perceive as sinners.

    And if someone wants to protect bigotry as a part of Christian religion, they’d better go on showing how you can’t separate the two. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse to hate someone and get away with it.

  • NStormRider

    I very much disagree. I also disagree with the jab that the eating of Shellfish is in any way comparable in Biblical law to the restrictions on sexual behavior. It’s more like adultery, incest, or bestiality, in terms of level of forbiddence.. oddly, the same things that Phil Robertson compared it to.

    As homosexuality is a state that is defined by actions, it’d be more equivalent to, “I don’t hate black people. I just hate wannabe rappers and people wearing their pants half-down.” At which point, you might be disguising racism as a cultural objection… or you might not.

    Hatred of someone’s choices and actions doesn’t necessarily mean hatred of that person. There would be no such thing as prison ministry, if that were so. Christianity is, at its core, a religion of the broken and imperfect. If you cannot object to a behavior while still reaching out in love to the person living with it… you are missing the Gospel.

  • Psycho Gecko

    Homosexuality isn’t about someone’s actions. It’s an inherent part of them. It’s their very sexuality and who they are attracted to.

    Also, learn your bible, like Leviticus 11:9-12:

    “9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

    So Leviticus is good enough for the condemnation of gay people, but not good enough for the condemnation of things out of the water that people eat that lack scales and fins?

    For homosexuality, Leviticus just gives us 18:22 : “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    So not only is the eating of shellfish said to be just as bad as homosexuality, but Leviticus actually devotes more time to condemning it than it does to condemning homosexuality.

    The prison ministry isn’t about reaching out to those who’ve made mistakes. It’s about making sure that prisoners are allowed their religious freedom, as most of them in the U.S. are Christian already. Most of your prisoners, in fact, are Christian. When you compare the number of atheists in the general U.S. population to the U.S. prison population, you find that atheists are underrepresented in prisons.

  • NStormRider

    The dietary restrictions in the Bible are explicitly lifted later in the Bible: the sexual ones are not. They were also never treated with the severity of the great sexual transgressions. Just because the laws are written in the same book does not grant them equal status or severity. They are not comparable examples.

    Prisoners are not the only participants in prison ministry. You have stated the legal basis for its existence as a rebuttal to the motivation for its pursuit.

    I don’t see what Atheist incarceration rates have to do with anything. Congratulations?

  • Psycho Gecko

    Ah, the picking and the choosing. Dietary restrictions are not lifted in the New Testament, and the early church continued holding to the dietary restrictions that the bible sets forth. I would also like you to show me where the bible, which once again spends more time condemning shellfish than homosexuality, says that sexual crimes are worse than other sorts of abominations.

    My point about prison ministry, which must apparently include families out on Sunday strolls if they aren’t just for prisoners, was that it’s point was about servicing Christians. It was really better exemplified in Ben Corey’s link about the fact that they only draw that separate distinction for homosexuals. That’s the only real “hate the sin, love the sinner” example. Oh sure, someone like yourself may occasionally bring it up in regards to prisoners to claim it can apply to them too, but y’all pretty much just use it to refer to gay people.

    Y’all automatically accept the prisoners, but with gay people, you have to make that conscious effort to reach out to reach out to the sinners.

    And homosexuality is not a matter of someone’s activity. It’s about who someone is attracted to. People don’t get a choice about that. Just like someone may adopt aspects of black culture, but ultimately their skin tone isn’t a choice.

    As for bringing up atheist incarceration, that’s more because I’m so used to people with your beliefs who throw around the “No True Christian” fallacy every which way. People who say you can’t be Christian if you are gay, or if you accept evolution and science, or if you don’t go out and yell at women dropping by health clinics for breast cancer checks.

  • NStormRider

    You don’t know me – you are just marinating in assumptions, aren’t you.

    How about Leviticus 18:26, 29, dealing with the sexual sins? “But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things,” which certainly seems to presume the totality of the people, not merely the priesthood, and, ” “Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.”

    Or, maybe, the more sternly worded Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Admittedly, this penalty also applied to those who committed adultery, bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice.

    Compare that with Leviticus 11:24, or, really, any verse in that portion of Leviticus, “And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.” That’s for the shellfish.

    So, you wanted to know where the penalty for sexual sin is considered to be greater than eating shellfish? Well, there you go. Death or exile, vs. uncleaness, potentially only for a day.

    If you still don’t believe that there’s no significant difference, I can’t help.

    You want to know what else is interesting about those passages? They only deal with *acts*, not *feelings.*

    As for your comments on the “No True Christian,” what you’re really saying is that you’ve built a neat little box to put people in, and you figured I fit. Go you~!

  • Psycho Gecko

    You’re the one assuming gay people should be put to death here.

    By the way, it doesn’t say you are unclean if you eat those animals. It says those animals are unclean. “8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.”

    It does still say that the eating of shellfish is an abomination, the same wording it uses for if a man engages in anal sex with both men and women (as that is the act). So you can be killed for eating shellfish, or for having sex with a man.

    Now, I’m sure you want something to back this up, so let’s take it straight from Leviticus 20:9, right there by those so-called “more severe sexual transgressions”: “9 For
    every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

    So death was clearly not just for abominations that were sexual in nature. You yourself admitted that child sacrifice, another non-sexual sin, was punishable by death as well.

    You make a very fine Jew, you know. Not too much of a Christian, not according to Acts 10:

    “10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

    And later: “25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered. 28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.”

    And “34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

    So if you really want to do this according to Acts instead of feelings, I think you’re in the wrong. The Bible right there states that you shouldn’t be calling any man unacceptable to the Christian god so long as he both believes in Yahweh and behaves morally.

    Oh well, at least your dislike of me is still sanctioned.

  • StEwPiD_MoNkEy

    He’s not a christian. He’s a Paulite. lol.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    So much for Jesus not changing “one jot or tittle” about the Old Testament laws. You’re just cherry-picking, and you’re not even doing a good job of it.

    No, Virginia, there is not some diacritical mark over certain abominations saying “okay we’re done now with this one, but this one’s still valid.” Anybody who told you that is flat-out lying. They’re all abominations. If you think that an Old Testament law written for Jewish temple priests (note: not even all Jewish people, just priests really) applies to a Gentile today who follows Jesus and fancies himself a kind of Jew because of that, then please take a look at the Jewish scholars laughing their rear ends off at you for thinking that Jewish laws apply to any Gentiles (they don’t).

    It’s bad enough you misinterpret the laws to begin with, but one almost expects that; Christian apologists and preachers are not Jewish scholars, and their understanding of Jewish laws and writings is beyond childish to begin with. But to use those laws to bludgeon people over the head and try to demonize and dehumanize an entire group of people who make you feel uncomfortable? Not just wrong but reprehensible. You’re ignorant and misinformed. I hope you learn better before you do some real damage to another human being with your puerile misunderstanding of the laws.

  • StEwPiD_MoNkEy

    YOu’ll not escape either. Forget prison statistics. I thought all sin was equal in the eyes of the lord. And the wages of sin is death (romans)
    Also, please show where it states that christians are no longer under the law. Even Yeshua bin Yosef is to have said that “not one dot or tittle of the law shall be changed until heaven and earth have come to pass.” Did that happen yet? The only law that Yeshua suppossedly fullfilled was that of the sacrificial lamb. Nothing more. He ended the practice of sacrifice and was the “perfect lamb”. Nothing more. Everything else still applies.
    Such a shame that you don’t even know your own bible.

    Remember, the first followers of your man god were jewish. They observed the Seder, passover, kosher eating, etc. They were the first Messianic Jews. Even Paul acknowledges that schism between him and James and the rest of the surviving apostles.

    Now if you mean to say that in the Paulism you practice you are not under jewish law…um then sure. go for it.

  • StEwPiD_MoNkEy

    As an atheist, I have to call you out on the prison thing. Of course, in a society that is 75-80%, why would you expect less of the supermajority in prisons. That makes not sense. It’s a stupid argument. Really.

  • Meredith Baker

    Are you implying that ones sexual orientation is a choice?

  • NStormRider

    No, I am implying that ones sexual behavior is a choice.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Oh yay, more wiggle words. Sexual behavior comes from sexual orientation. Someone can’t pretend to be straight if one is wired to be gay any more than someone straight can pretend to be gay. I really don’t get why it’s so important for you to act like this. It’s not loving at all, so why do it?

  • NStormRider

    Truth isn’t always warm and fuzzy. I answered her question. I consider it important to speak truthfully, for my sake and the sake of others.

    People pretend to be a different sexual orientation all the time, some quite successfully, for multiple reasons. Nor do people always act in keeping with their sexual orientation. Nor does thought or impulse necessitate behavior, despite the fact that, you’re correct, one precedes the other… though they tend to build on themselves.

    Is sexual behavior involuntary?

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    You’re missing the point; for a guy who thinks it’s important to “speak truthfully,” you have very little truth in your words. Whether it is voluntary or involuntary, other adults’ sexuality, when expressed consensually with other adults, is none of your damned business if you are not directly involved. Your input and approval are completely unnecessary and unwanted in this situation. The people who are having sex you don’t approve of are adults, and they are they are having purely consensual sex with other adults.

    It doesn’t really matter what you think of their behavior, their orientation, or their impulses. It’s none of your business what other people do in private. None whatsoever. It’s not your concern or your worry what other adults do privately. Does it suck a lot realizing your influence and dominance are gone in this arena? Get over yourself.

    And maybe you should educate yourself before you ask disingenuous questions about sexuality. Sexuality is a need and a drive for most people. It’s not something you can ignore, change, or put on hold permanently. Yes, some people do pretend to be an orientation they are not (almost always gay people pretending to be straight and devastating straight partners’ lives for years). But needs will out. That’s why we see Christians failing all the time with regard to sexuality. If it were purely voluntary, just some whim people could ignore, I’d expect to see a lot more sexual purity among their ranks (did you know that a leading abstinence-only group says only 3% of people actually wait to have sex only in a marriage context?). The simple truth is that the expression of sexuality is a need that we need to honor and find ways to meet, not ignore or push into a hole.

    Get out of other people’s business. It’s hateful and disgusting behavior to see a Christian this panicked about other people’s sex lives. Get them Christian first, then worry about controlling their most intimate decisions. Virgins go to Hell too, I am informed.

  • NStormRider

    Sexual behavior is absolutely society’s business, and always has been. Consent, really, is your highest standard of behavior? That is appalling. Consent ought to be the -lowest- standard before sexual actions become a crime. If that’s the summation of your ideal, you blind yourself to all sorts of suffering that can be brought on by bad sexual decisions.

    That position doesn’t even make sense from an atheistic perspective, given that our sexual decisions would be, at this point, pretty much the sole thing shaping what humanity can or will become genetically. Or, hell, even culturally. We all have a stake in sexual expression – it is our business as society to decide what we wish to encourage, discourage, sanctify, and condemn.

    The question’s not disingenuous – you have proceeded for this entire conversation to state, over and over, that there is no distinction between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. And, if you really come down to it, you’ve stated that sexual behavior is involuntary. It’s a damn powerful desire, and our culture does everything it can, almost, to see it inflamed. But I disagree that it’s outside of human control.

    You could have just said, “I don’t think people can resist their sexual desires forever. It’s involuntary,” and had it over with.

    You keep ending these things with non-sequiturs and deep assumptions. I have spoken neither of heaven, nor hell, and neither condemned nor pardoned anyone from either. And I am not panicked, though you certainly seem to be rather disturbed by a simple question.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Ah, so that’s the problem. You think that you have some kind of say in what other people do in the privacy of their own homes with other consenting adults. Okay. I see now. No, you’re just wrong. This isn’t even a subjective thing. You’re objectively factually incorrect. You have no evidence whatsoever that allowing people’s freedom in that way actually produces the slightest bit of harm for “society” (meaning “people like you”). Actually countries that drill down on consent as the most important part of a sex act are countries with incredible economies and freedoms for their citizens, while those that try to limit people’s self-expression and sexual freedom are the ones that are the most brutality-laden, violent, misogynistic, and oppressive (ever looked at crime rates for the Deep South and other Christian-heavy states? It’s eye-opening). That’s why courts are striking down those bigoted anti-gay-marriage laws–there is no evidence that their existence helps anybody, but plenty of evidence that their existence harms large groups of people.

    Consent is the only defining factor in whether or not something should be okay. It’s bizarre to even talk to someone who thinks that “society” (by which you mean, again, “people like you”) has some kind of say in what people do in private with consenting adults. Guess what? Society–meaning real society, not “people like you”–is fast deciding that non-marital sex is perfectly fine. Society is fast deciding that gay sex is perfectly fine. Society is fast deciding that women own their bodies and that all consenting adults deserve to marry the person they love regardless of gender. So are you going to chill out along with society, since you’re so sure that what society wants is what should happen? Or are you going to continue to define “society” as “people like you,” marginalize and demonize what the real society of Americans is saying, and insist all the way to total irrelevance that “society” needs to stomp on people practicing their own joy in their own way in private?

    Your lack of understanding of consent–and your insistence that “society” (meaning “people like you”) has some kind of approval button they have to hit for other people’s lives to function–is how you can define homosexuality as bestiality. It’s also how you can belong to a culture that shames and degrades women, declares that their bodies are public property, and insists that they need a Daddy to handle their lives for them. Christianity’s inability to handle the idea of consent is a big part of why it has become the monstrous system of oppression and abuse that it has. Welcome to “being part of the problem.”

    Society. Is not. People like you. It’d be hilarious that you’re this ignorant and this privilege-blind except I’m sure you’re doing some real harm with your ideas to some unlucky people, so it isn’t quite as funny as it could be.

    I reckon you aren’t going to get that you’re not required to approve or disapprove of anybody else’s life at this point, but it’s going to be interesting watching your religion fade into total irrelevance because of your inability to grasp simple concepts like “mind your own business” and “consent is the only thing that matters when it comes to sex.” So hey, keep it up, your lack of understanding of consent and your insistence on invading other people’s privacy is a big part of why people are leaving your religion as fast as they are. We need you to keep talking like this in your out-loud voice so we can end zealotry’s overreach faster.

  • Biker

    If incest is prohibited by the Bible, where did Adam and Eve’s grandchildren come from?

  • Psycho Gecko

    Don’t forget Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and having their way with him. And the one family left alive from Noah’s ark.

    Not sure ultimately how this ties in to the discussion though.

  • Biker

    I was inquiring about:

    NStormRider • 6 hours ago

    I very much disagree. I also disagree with the jab that the eating of Shellfish is in any way comparable in Biblical law to the restrictions on sexual behavior. It’s more like adultery, incest, or bestiality, in terms of level of forbiddence.. oddly, the same things that Phil Robertson compared it to.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    It’s interesting that Christians have such a poor understanding of consent that they can lump all those things together. Incest and bestiality are crimes of nonconsent, just like rape is. A child or an animal cannot consent to sex, so that makes the sex wrong. But Christians don’t understand consent much anyway, so they can categorize homosexuality and adultery–both consensual sexual deeds–with crimes of nonconsent. It doesn’t lend you the least bit of credence to do that. You might want to re-examine your biases there and consider why you think homosexuality–which is sex between consenting adults, and which is none of your business in the least if you aren’t one of the adults involved–even sits on the same shelf as assaulting a child.

    You do realize that Jews do not actually categorize abomination in the same way modern Christians do, right? The shellfish thing is actually more important than the gay sex thing, and it is worded the exact same way. Anybody who tells you differently is confused. There’s no diacritical mark over this or that verse saying “Okay, this one doesn’t count anymore–but this one does.” A pity Christians have so drastically misunderstood those verses. Even if they meant even a little what you think they mean, these are Jewish laws for Jewish people and not meant for Gentiles in the first place. So hopefully you can educate yourself and quit talking nonsense.

  • NStormRider

    Incest is forbidden in the Law of Moses. Adam, Eve, and their children were all born centuries before the Law of Moses was delivered. It happened.

  • Psycho Gecko

    I notice a distinct lack of condemnation in Leviticus 18 and 20 of the idea of men having sex with their own daughters. Plus, if your mom isn’t married to your dad, it’s apparently ok to have sex with her. Heck, it doesn’t say you can’t have sex with your sister, either. It just says you can’t see her naked. You’ll note that it makes a distinction between seeing someone’s nakedness and laying with someone, with the laying part being about sex. So it just has to be a dark night, or the sister in question has to be wearing some article of clothing so as to not be naked.

    Sounds like Adam and Eve and all their kids certainly had enough sanction in the time of Moses.

  • Biker

    Ok, I think I have it now. It’s ok to follow SOME rules of the Bible, as long as you can justify the timeline, but the Bible never changes or contradicts itself and it’s ok to try to force people who don’t share your religion to follow ALL the rules of your Bible. Gotcha.

    Are you aware that Galatians 1:9 prohibits you from preaching to me another gospel than that which I have already accepted? “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!…”

  • Michael Sundberg

    That is just it though, you are saying that someone has a dislike or hate for gay people because they view homosexuality as wrong. Which isn’t true. There are bigoted people of course, but not everyone who thinks it is wrong dislikes gays. Imagine if it was your brother, and he was a liar. You could say that you hate that he lies, but you don’t hate him. It’s the same thing. I can say that I do not believe homosexuality is right, but that I have no problem with gays. It isn’t because of some hidden hate for them, or disgust or anything like that. I just don’t think it is right. I don’t think a person having an affair is right either, or someone stealing or mooching off of others is right, but I would still accept the person. And even when I don’t think something is right, that is not between me and them, that is their business. I can give my input, but if they do not want it, I will leave it at that.

  • Psycho Gecko

    I personally do hate people who do nothing but lie all the time. You can’t trust a thing about them. I know someone just like that and I hate him. He’s had every opportunity out there and he just wants to take from everyone around him because he’s never taken personal responsibility and tried to do right.

    But in the end, no one is a born liar. You don’t pop out of the womb lying to people. Just like you aren’t born having an affair with someone and you aren’t born stealing. Those are all actions, whereas a person’s sexuality is innate. It’s not an action, it’s part of their identity.

    Plus, you’re refusing to see your own responsibility in how you think of them still. “And even when I don’t think something is right, that is not between me and them, that is their business.” So it’s entirely on gay people that you think they are doing something wrong. You don’t seem to think it’s on you to reconsider if what they’re doing actually is wrong.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    “It’s not that I hate Christians, I just hate Christianity. As long as Christians don’t go to church or talk about their faith at all, or pray in public, or wear crosses on their neck, I don’t have a problem with them.”

    Do you see now how your argument of “hate the sin, love the sinner” is a big pile of horse shit?

  • NStormRider

    You know the really funny thing?

    That’s pretty much exactly what a hell of a lot of people say. Or, rather, that as long as they are not exposed to or made aware of their friends and acquaintances religion, they are cool. It’s practicing Christians they have a problem with.

    It’s true, though, that people connect deeply with both their faith and their sexuality. It is difficult, though not impossible, to have a close relationship with someone who is deeply rejecting of either.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey
  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    I’m going to be so very glad when Christians stop spouting that particular horseshit line. Nobody is fooled. They’re trying their best with weasel words and distancing to make it look like their hatred is actually love, but look, nobody’s been fooled since the day that vile, putrid saying got rolling. It’s like all these racists, sexists, and bigots saw this phrase and did a little jig and said “YAY! I can hate people out loud again! I just have to say this and I’m off the hook!”

    But I will say this: It’s a very useful phrase for non-Christians and sane Christians alike. When you hear someone defending that saying or using it, you immediately know that this is a person who needs to express hatred but doesn’t like the idea of being the sort of person who needs to express hatred. It’s a nice, handy identifier that way. Weeds out the truly loving people from the hate-filled poseurs.

  • NStormRider

    It’s too bad you feel that way.

    I never shared the idea that homosexuality was a ‘special sin.’ And I will never share your idea that you must hate someone to object to their behavior – or their romantic choices.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    I don’t care what you think is “too bad.” I don’t “feel that way.” Nor am I the only person who thinks that’s an absolutely reprehensible viewpoint. That’s the reality of the situation. That is not a loving thing to say to people or a loving way to conduct yourself around others. The results are what matter. If your “loving the sinner and hating the sin” feels exactly like hate and produces exactly the same effects as just hating that sinner, then sorry man, it’s hate. You need to get over yourself and actually talk to those who have been hurt and harmed by that sort of doublespeak. It’s very important for you to think you are loving, I can tell that, but if you actually talked to people who’ve been on the receiving end of that kind of nonsense, you would quickly realize how much damage and harm has been done by it.

    Is it more important for you to keep saying it and to think you’re being loving even while you’re being hateful, or is it more important to love your neighbor as yourself?

    Again, you are objectively wrong here. Homosexuality is not a sin at all, as Christian theologians are fast realizing (at this point it’s just the right-wing that doesn’t keep up with the research, but that’s pretty normal). It’s not a choice, but even if it were totally voluntary, it’s not sinful at all to want to love someone and be loved in return. Isn’t it odd that being gay is the one sin to right-wingers that requires someone to never, ever have a real love relationship with anybody else? You can murder 20 people and still get married to the person you love… as long as that person’s of the opposite gender. But not if you’re gay and have committed no crimes at all. You think that someone has to “choose” never to love another person. That’s disgusting to me. Absolutely disgusting.

    You also still think your “objections” are valid or even relevant to anybody else’s life. That’s so tragic. Nobody cares what you do or don’t like or what makes you feel uncomfortable or ickie. Get over yourself. You lost this fight many years ago. I know it sucks to you that your bigotries and prejudices no longer dictate other people’s private lives or their “romantic choices,” but get over it. You are not the arbiter of other people’s lives. What you think doesn’t matter.

  • NStormRider

    If I hated homosexuals, believe me, I would behave far differently than I do.

    My social circle is about 50% homosexual or bisexual at this point, thanks to people moving and social divides. Through the past year, I have been personal friends and a helper of the destitute, drug users, homosexuals, and a single mother who resorted to prostitution to make ends meet. I have helped someone acquire a job and steadiness who was, at one time, a proud shoplifter who felt his crimes were sticking it to the man.

    Last week, I helped my bisexual friend find a job in technology using personal connections I developed years ago. And I am in the godforsaken, awful position of having to deal with potentially being invited to be his best man. I’m friends with his boyfriend. I am deeply and permanently uncomfortable with the sexual dimension of their relationship, though I love them both, and they are good for each other.

    One of my close friends is committing adultery with a married man, and I am trying with all my might to help her quit that asshole. Another few of my outer circle friends treat sexual relationships as being no more significant than choice of beverage, or perhaps less so. Someone I once liked, who I have lost contact with, returned to using Ice and demolished his relationship with a girl who loved him completely. I know as many or more atheists than Christians.

    People are broken, messed up, sinners. And I love them deeply. And I grieve their sinfulness, especially when it rebounds destructively on their own lives, and the lives of those around them.

    If you cannot love the sinner, and hate the sin, you have MISSED the GOSPEL.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Oh, so you can’t possibly be bigoted or hateful against gay people because you have gay friends. I see. Isn’t it just so strange how the same exact arguments we saw used by racists years ago are the same things we’re seeing anti-gay bigots saying today?

    “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is not Biblical. All Jesus said was “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He did not add, “Unless your neighbor is gay–in that case refuse to make him cakes and treat him like a subhuman who doesn’t deserve dignity or rights.” He did not add, “Except when you can express your moral outrage about some integral facet of another human being.” You’re compartmentalizing in a particularly odious and offensive way here–trying to think that you’re “loving” the whole person but condemning a part of them. You don’t even realize how hateful and cruel that is to be on the receiving end of hearing. I know I have never considered it friendly or loving when someone said that. You’re putting yourself above the “sinner” when you say that, and you are judging them and withholding your approval from them when neither your judgement nor your approval or disapproval were ever required or requested.

    (BTW, I’ve got plenty of Jewish scholar friends who inform me that the verses Christians think condemn homosexuality actually don’t mean anything that those Christians think they mean–and even if they did, thye wouldn’t apply to Gentiles anyway; these scholars are uniformly rather peeved that a bunch of idiotic, narcissistic, childish Christians are running around acting like Jewish laws apply even a bit to them.)

    At this point, non-Christians have been quite vocal in expressing how hateful they find that attitude and mindset. If you’re still using it, then you are part of your religion’s problem–it is at this point more a religion about controlling and dominating others and expressing its own moral outrage with how things have changed, more about trying to reclaim dominance and less about love, than it has been since the Middle Ages. So I ask again: is it more important to you to trumpet this philosophy like it’s some great moral virtue on your part, or is it more important to treat people lovingly? Because if you cannot love people as they are, with no reservations, not slicing off huge chunks of them and declaring those chunks unlovable and unworthy, then you are not really loving anybody.

  • NStormRider

    First, No. You stated that I didn’t have enough exposure to homosexuals or the homosexual community. This isn’t the case. You don’t get to claim that I made the argument that I cannot be anti-homosexual because I am well acquainted with homosexuals – which I didn’t. You don’t get to forget your own participation in this conversation.

    The reason neither knowing gays nor minorities is a perfect defense against an accusation of bias is that the accusation that someone believes a certain thing *because they aren’t exposed to the people in question* is just a bad argument. Own your argument, and its paucity.

    Jesus did say, “love your neighbor as yourself.” If I do wrong, I want to be confronted with it. If I engage in the wrong course, I want to be told so. Love means caring enough to risk blowback, sometimes. Or are you saying that your whole participation in this conversation is motivated by hatred?

    Nor do I place myself above the people I have named. I know my own sinfulness.

    I honestly don’t care what your Jewish scholar friends think. Refer to your sentence above about unasked and unnecessary opinions. It’s clear they reject Christianity in the first place, so why would they have authority over Christian interpretation of the Bible? Besides which, they aren’t the only verses, and you haven’t provided the slightest hint of a different interpretation of Leviticus. I’d be far more interested in their argument than your appeal to the authority of their existence.

    I’m sorry, but if blanket approval of all of a person’s actions is a prerequisite of love, I certainly cannot. However, thankfully, it isn’t, and never has been.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Of course you don’t care what actual scholars think–you know, people who actually know your Bible ten times better than you do and know for a certainty and absolute fact that what you think is true is absolutely not the case at all. But hey, who cares about what learned experts think if it contradicts your delusion? Obviously if they’re contradicting you then they simply must be wrong. That tells me everything I need to know about your intellectual honesty. You can’t take instruction from anybody who does not share the delusion with you. That’s breathtakingly dishonest to me.

    You’re definitely doing wrong. But you’re lying when you say you want to know when you do wrong. Doing wrong is part of your ideology and clearly a big part of your self-identity, so of course you’re going to ignore anybody who tries to tell you that your attitude is not loving. Christians have tried for years to unilaterally change the meaning of the word “love,” but their attempt is a big part of why the religion is failing. Go ahead, keep hating people and calling it love. Nobody is fooled. Well, except you!

  • NStormRider

    Cassidy,

    You are, essentially, saying, “My friends, who are unconfirmed experts, who already categorically reject your beliefs, tell me that you aren’t correct in your specific interpretation of a passage.”

    I might accept your friends expertise, if they were the ones providing it. I might accept your friends argument, if you were capable of articulating it in detail. I might accept your friends opinion, if they had derived it from any similar position. But it’s all hearsay. In educated terms, you’re trying to make an appeal to authority – ethos – but you’ve provided no basis for their authority other than your impression of them. You don’t understand their arguments well enough to articulate them logically – logos – and your scholarly friends move my heart no more deeply than my homosexual friends move yours.

    Instead of making an argument, or providing instruction, your argument is no different from, “My Daddy Says You’re Wrong,” at which point, I have to decide what I think about your Daddy – an individual I have never met, whose credentials I can’t examine, and whose opinion I can’t understand.

    I ask you, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, to do better, for your own sake, and for the sake of your opponents.

    I continue to insist that you do not need to hate someone to strongly disagree with their sexual choices.

  • Psycho Gecko

    “Last week, I helped my bisexual friend find a job in technology using personal connections I developed years ago. And I am in the godforsaken, awful position of having to deal with potentially being invited to be his best man. I’m friends with his boyfriend. I am deeply and permanently uncomfortable with the sexual dimension of their relationship, though I love them both, and they are good for each other.”

    See? I said it up there. Personal disgust clothed in religion.

    “I know as many or more atheists than Christians.”

    Given the demographics of the United States, I have a feeling we may be dealing with someone who thinks some Christians aren’t Christians.

    The thing you have to remember though, NStormRider, is that you ARE one of those broken, messed-up people. In your case, you are a bigot and help to enable more open and explicit bigots. That’s not even counting the fact that you think your atheist friends deserve to be tortured forever.

    You know, people have tried to change how they acted sexually to match what people like you think they should do. Long, tragic stories short: it doesn’t work.

    And that must be okay. After all, your supposedly omnipotent friend with the master plan obviously didn’t want them to have straight sex. He didn’t want them to change. Heck, your own deity committed adultery.

    Which reminds me, biblical adultery was a man having sex with a woman who wasn’t his wife. Back then, see, sex wasn’t a thing women could do. It was something done to them by men. That was what people thought about it for a long time, in fact (hence why some Victorian women had no problem talking about all the fun they were up to in personal letters). So your friend getting it on with a married man isn’t actually sinning so long as she’s a woman. Neither is the person doing the meth, actually. In fact, some drugs are biblically sanctioned. After all, God gave man every green plant for his consumption. Yes, even including nightshade.

    You know, for all your talk, you seem to have trouble opposing the idea of you being the judge of what is and isn’t appropriate sexual behavior. I’d say it’s quite a prideful way for someone to go who believes in sin, but then you’ve molded your deity to hate what disgusts you about the world.

  • NStormRider

    “Given the demographics of the United States, I have a feeling we may be dealing with someone who thinks some Christians aren’t Christians.”

    Yes, because everyone has a social circle that consists of a perfect cross section of American demographics. I’m certain you do as well, right?

    “The thing you have to remember though, NStormRider, is that you ARE one of those broken, messed-up people.”

    Absolutely. And God loves me anyway, as he loves you, as he loves everyone. And that love completes us.

    The quote, “love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t exclusive to homosexuals, or prostitutes, or drug addicts, or jerks. It’s inclusive of everyone, myself included. To accept God’s love of me, I must at once realize that it exists in full knowledge of all my flaws, and that none of those flaws is critical enough to destroy that love. But that does not mean they cease to be flaws, or that I cease to have things to learn, and ways to grow, and even behaviors to end. I hope, someday, you can come to that understanding as well.

    “You know, people have tried to change how they acted sexually to match what people like you think they should do.”

    I know you’re trying to avoid saying ‘homosexuals,’ but you’re making a false statement. People change how they act sexually, all the time. I know people who have been faithless and promiscuous, and have committed successfully and deeply to monogamy and marriage. Robertson, the genesis of this conversation, is an example. I also know people who have gone against their desire for real committment, and engaged in all sorts of crazy sexual behavior, because they felt that was the standard others were offering… or they felt hopeless that they would be loved in truth. And even among those who try to be celibate, many succeed.

    What you’re trying to say is that programs attempting to help homosexuals change their basic impulses are misguided. Not change their behavior, but their thoughts and feelings. You’re probably even right. Sexual orientation is pretty non-malleable, at least at the point in life people attempt to change.

    “Which reminds me, biblical adultery was a man having sex with a woman who wasn’t his wife. Back then, see, sex wasn’t a thing women could do. It was something done to them by men.” “So your friend getting it on with a married man isn’t actually sinning so long as she’s a woman.”

    No. Your view is neither Biblical nor historical. We already discussed Leviticus – it is clear that sexual sin is something shared jointly between participants. It is also clear many times in the Bible that women were sexual beings and participants in their own right. I entreat you to do some research.

    I want to be nice about this, but this assertion suggests you have spent a good deal of time closely inspecting your own colon. This might be a good time to give yourself a good yank, and correct that behavior.

  • NStormRider

    The essence of all bigotry and prejudice is the assumption that you can have knowledge, with certainty, about another person’s character, qualifications, thoughts, and feelings, based on unrelated physical or mental observations.

    Essentially, bigotry and prejudice consist of the assumptions you make, and an inability to alter those assumptions as new evidence and information comes to light. The opposite of bigotry is withholding yourself from making assumptions about a person.

    You are fast proving yourself a champion at making deep assumptions about other people’s motives, behavior offline, social connections, and mental / emotional states, in absence or even in contradiction to observation and evidence.

    I ask you to prayerfully consider whether you can hold so closely to the hallmark behavior of the individuals you oppose, and not be guilty of it yourself – whether you object to bigotry in principle, or not, and whether you have examined yourself before accusing others. Or, should you in fact be an atheist, I ask you to deeply consider whether faith without observation, blind faith, that people consist of unalterable and interrelated character traits that can be inferred as a set, is truly the way you want to run your life. Especially, but not only, when those traits are viewed in the negative.

    God bless.

  • Guest

    That’s strange. I have never once heard a single person ask someone to stop talking about their religion…not once in my entire life. I have, however, heard my family members tell my brother that he is no longer part of the family because of who he is. I have heard people yell at him and call him names. I have heard a limo driver call him “faggot” on his wedding day. Boy, I bet he is glad he isn’t you right now, though. It must be terrible to have someone ask you to change the subject.

  • NStormRider

    You seem to think that only Christians are the ones who want to talk about religion. That’s not the case. I’m happy you’ve not had to sit through people launching into unprompted diatribes against religion and the religious, proclaiming their ideological opponents to be a) stupid, b) malicious, and c) legitimately, diagnosably insane. Or been shunned because your standards of behavior keep you from engaging in the activities of your peers.

    I’m glad you’ve not been silenced when you attempt to reply to a fundamentally unfair and inaccurate criticisms of your belief system. Or that people never assume they know the entirety of your beliefs because one aspect is on display.

    I’m glad you don’t have to deal with being told repeatedly that your belief system is the cause of all war and suffering in the world. Or that people like you ought to be sterilized and have your children stripped away in order to raise them sane.

    I know these indignities have been visited on members of all religions, and enacted by Christians as well. I know that they’ve been said to homosexuals. It doesn’t make them insignificant.

    I am sorry that your family has been broken by your brother’s revelation, and your family members’ inability to treat him with love. And I’m sorry he gets random abuse. It isn’t easy.

    No one should long to be another person – only a better person. I never compared his sufferings to mine, only stated that the “helpful example” above is more of a direct quote than the poster realized.

  • Biker

    No one’s criticism of your belief system prevents you from practicing it. But your expression of your belief system
    appears to include preventing others from practicing theirs.

  • NStormRider

    Absolutely. He that stands for everything stands for nothing.

    If a belief system embraces an evil, I oppose it. I will, absolutely, get in some peoples way.

  • Biker

    An “evil” by your definition only. I stand for love. That’s far from nothing; that’s what your supposed savior stood for as well. How can you classify that as an evil? Your best option at this point would be to get out of other people’s way and start cleaning up your own confused and contradictory beliefs.

  • Psycho Gecko

    While some atheists may on occasion say that the world would be a better place without religion, they are the minority of a group that’s already a minority.

    As it stands, people do not have a problem with Christians practicing Christianity. There’s nothing in the bible saying that good Christians must go on TV and say bigoted things, though, and I think that’s where you get mixed up.

    You’ve associated certain personal objections with Christianity, which is especially strange as the New Testament never said a word about homosexuality.

  • NStormRider

    I don’t want to get into an argument over the translation of Greek, but the New Testament does say things regarding homosexual behavior in the Epistles. Neither the New or Old Testament says much about homosexuality as we understand it.

    Phil didn’t go on TV and say bigoted things. He was asked direct questions in a magazine interview, and declined to evade answering them.

    They may be a minority group, but they are the most vocal minority. Even those atheists I know who are alright with religion and the religious tend to feel silenced by their more critical brethren. But that may be true of all moderates.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    No, that’s not what a lot of people say. That’s what they say in Africa where Christians are being truly persecuted, but not in America. That’s what Fox News wants a lot Americans to think people say… but it’s just not true.

    Anyone in America is free to go their house of worship, free to talk about their faith in their homes or churches, free to say prayer in a restaurant, and free to wear a cross, or turban to work. No one wants to stop those fundamental human rights.

    What is true, is that a lot of secular people and a lot of religious people of various faiths want Christianity to be kept out of government and out of tax payer funded things like schools.

    It is a privilege that Christianity has had for too long, and now we all want an even playing field where all beliefs are treated as equal beliefs by having no religion promoted over another.

  • NStormRider

    I don’t watch Fox News. I am speaking from experience.

    A lot of people say that the world would be better off without religion in general, and Christianity in specific.

  • Michael Sundberg

    except being a christian is not a sin.

  • Jeremy Hale

    Right, he compared gay people to people who have sex with animals.

    People are always saying put Christ back into Christmas and I’m wondering when they are going to put Christ back into Christian.

  • rebel83

    Some Christians have asked me what would I say if I ever met Jesus and I look them straight in the eye and say. “Hello Jesus, I love your work man, so sorry about your followers.”

  • Pascal Redfern

    While technically true about about national Christianity, there was a homogeneity of Christian VALUES. True about 1st amendment appying to government. However the Constitution is a social compact of We the people. We should try to apply the spirit of the 1st Amendment even in business.

  • C Albert Welsch

    What?

  • Richard Brentar

    So, let me get this straight. Let’s just say that you, Pascal, own a business. You have the personal ideology that the 1st Amendment is open to all situations, including business. One of your employees then goes onto say that the Constitution is a bloody rag, that you’re a tyrannical dictator who hates his workers, that you are unethical and fraudulent in your business practices, and that the United States is a piece of trash. Because we should attempt to apply the spirit of the 1st Amendment to private business, you shouldn’t fire him. Am I right?

  • Willow Bird Baking

    Or your employee uses hate speech — racist, sexist, homophobic. There are a million examples of when an employee should be fired for something though they might not necessarily be able to be jailed for. Exactly.

  • Pascal Redfern

    Nope

  • Pascal Redfern

    Yes, you are right. As long as he was a good worker, which is what he was hired to do, he can say whatever he wants. I am consistent. Nice try.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    So, I should also be able to tell my co-workers dirty jokes that make them uncomfortable, and have total job security, as long as I’m a “good worker”?

  • rebel83

    I guess Pascal is trying to serve two masters.

  • NStormRider

    Richard, did he say it to you, or did he say it on Facebook?

    Moreover, Robertson never trashed A&E. Nice try.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    There is no homogeneity of Christian Values, unless by Christian Values you mean demonizing homosexuals and suppressing the rights of women.

    I think you mean Humanist Values – like don’t kill and don’t steal and don’t rape and don’t enslave (only two of those are in the Christian ten commandments). Every culture has societal rules that are very similar because they are necessary when groups of humans live together. If the Christ myth had never arisen, people would still be able to live together because of these values that all humans share based on empathy, not on the name of their god.

  • MechaVelma

    A&E doesn’t need even that much of a reason. People hired as entertainers can be hired and fired along any criteria set for them. Its the reason why fat women can’t sue Hooters for only hiring athletic, well-endowed women for be their waitresses (its because they Hooters hires them as entertainers, not waitresses).

  • CroneEver

    Francois Fenelon, back in the 1600’s, had the current day “persecuted” Christians’ number: “Jesus Christ was born in a stable; he was
    obliged to fly into Egypt; thirty years of his life were spent in a workshop;
    he suffered hunger, thirst, and weariness; he was poor, despised and miserable;
    he taught the doctrines of Heaven, and no one would listen. The great and the
    wise persecuted and took him, subjected him to frightful torments, treated him
    as a slave and put him to death between two malefactors, having preferred to
    give liberty to a robber, rather than to suffer him to escape. Such was the
    life which our Lord chose; while we are horrified at any kind of humiliation,
    and cannot bear the slightest appearance of contempt.” Not to mention expecting to be pampered, coddled, and told you’re 100% right on any and every occasion…

  • Jill Roper

    Ben, I had to laugh at myself, which is a good trait to have :) when I clicked on the blog and there was this huge blank spot under Ways We are Persecuted for our faith. My computer has been acting up and at first blush it looked as if it was having trouble loading. Second time around I realized it was meant to be blank. My father-in-law has been active in the underground church in a country where you are not permitted to worship God unless you are in the state sponsored church. Persecution is when your baby is forcefully taken out of your womb because you refuse to kill the child. Persecution is when you are taken into a “shower” that will only kill you because you are a Jew. You’re right, as Americans we have NO earthly clue what real persecution is. Being stupid is not persecution. If your life is taken away from you because of what you believe then yes, you are being persecuted whether you are a Muslim, Christian or Jewish.
    Blessings
    Your covered sister

  • Phillip Woon

    Your first example of the underground church vs the state sponsored church is a bad example of persecution. The state is correct in squashing the unauthorized church…

  • Psycho Gecko

    Why is it okay for a government to decide what you get to believe?

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    That’s foolish. You want the state to come in and “squash” whatever your belief system is? Or throw your and your family in prison for practicing it quietly? The reason I get upset about the American persecution complex is because there is REAL anti-Christian persecution in the world, and our nonsense detracts from it. I can’t imagine you’d be celebrating the state “squashing” whatever it is that you believe in.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    The squawking about false persecution cheapens the very real persecution that others actually face. In a way Christians are very spoiled nowadays, aren’t they, in America? They have no idea how bad it can really get because our country has laws that at least in theory protect and shield those of all beliefs and try to avoid favoritism.

    Christians have as much to lose as non-Christians if a theocracy gets instituted here.

  • rebel83

    Phil must be in England.

  • gimpi1

    Really, Phillip? You believe any government should be in the businesses of trying to control its citizen’s beliefs? That’s pretty unconstitutional. Pretty unreasonable, too

  • Matt Ranson

    Say what? Most people who visit this site are for freedom. I’m sure you can find a site for fascists somewhere else.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Coming from the words of an atheist, the state should have absolutely NO SAY in what church you choose or choose not to go to.

  • Aquaria

    It doesn’t even have to be that deadly for it to be persecution.

    Government troops knocking down your door to break up an illegal meeting for an “illegal” religion.

    Books rounded up and burned.

    Being arrested for having those books, or expressing thoughts that are “illegal”.

    Not being hired because you’re a particular religion.

    Being consigned to a very few jobs, and not being allowed to have any other.

    Being confined to live and go about in only one part of a town or country.

    These are the ways that persecution works, too.

  • Lando

    Bless you; well said.

  • https://soundcloud.com/eddieboydmusic flyb

    Got me good!

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    I saw that over at Friendly Atheist– way too funny. Always double check your browser ;-)

  • https://soundcloud.com/eddieboydmusic flyb

    Those darn incompatible fonts.. :-/

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    LOL. Reading your comments over on Terry’s page totally made my day. I’m glad the article cheered you up. Merry Christmas!

  • Matt Bowyer

    Someone send this to Faux News, stat!

  • Marisa Totten

    In some parts of the world christians find themselves surrounded by muslims during their services or while at prayer. Not because these particular muslims wish them ill, but because these particular muslims are empathetic to the fact that christianity is/can be punishible by death in those parts of the world. Persecution is a word with a meaning. Thank you for this fine example of just what that meaning is.

  • Mick Fowler

    How very John Cage. Pertinent.

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    Love the list!

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    “Borrowed from a list made by Austin Cline.”

    Christian Privileges for Holidays & Holy Days:
    * Many stores take the Christian Sabbath into account
    * Most Christians don’t have to work on their holiest days
    * Christians can assume they will see TV specials and hear music related to their holidays
    * Christians can erect Christian holiday displays without fearing vandalism
    * Christians expect to be greeted with references to their holidays (Merry Christmas)
    * Christians can ignore and be ignorant of other religions’ holidays
    * School events will probably address Christian holidays

    Christian Privileges in American Culture:
    * When travelling, Christians can assume they’ll find churches of their denomination
    * It’s easy for Christians to find a religious site to marry
    * Christians easily find Christian movies, radio programs, and TV shows
    * When someone talks about or thanks God, Christians can assume it’s their god
    * Christians will find Bibles in their hotel rooms
    * Christians have many Christian charities to donate to or get assistance from
    * Christians needn’t worry about finding foods to meet religious dietary requirements

    Christian Privileges against Discrimination and Bigotry:
    * Christians can assume that they won’t be discriminated against because of their religion
    * Christians can assume that their opinion won’t be ignored because of their religion
    * Christians need not worry about moving to a place where Christians aren’t welcome
    * Christians rarely encounter groups that exclude Christians
    * Christians don’t worry about revealing their religion to parents, friends
    * Christians can discriminate in ways not otherwise allowed & avoid members of other religions

    Christian Privileges in Schools:
    * Christian children will see other Christians in lessons about history
    * Christian children will participate in events relating to Christian holy days
    * Christian children will find or easily start school clubs dedicated to Christianity
    * Christian athletes are encouraged by Christian coaches
    * Christian children might avoid being exposed to foreign religions
    * Public school space is often shared with Christian churches
    * Christians can easily find private schools that cater to their religion

    Christian Privilege, Fear, and Security:
    * Christians can wear Christian clothing or jewellery without fear
    * Christians can promote their religion on cars or houses without fear of vandalism
    * Christians don’t have to educate their kids about persecution for their own protection
    * Christians can ignore the language and customs of other religions without censure
    * Christians need not worry if their religion will hinder their professional ambitions
    * Christians don’t have to worry about hate groups dedicated to wiping out Christianity

    Christian Privileges in the Community:
    * Many communities have names with Christian origins
    * Christians can assume that most neighbours & co-workers are Christian
    * Christians have directories of Christian-owned businesses
    * Christian businesses can hire all Christians without trying
    * Christians can criticize Christianity & Christian Privilege with more authority than non-Christians and without their motives being questioned
    * Christians can assume that almost anywhere they go and anything they do, they’ll feel normal

    Christian Privileges with Christianity:
    * Christians aren’t expected to speak for all Christians or everyone in a denomination
    * Whatever Christians do, they need not worry that it will reflect poorly on Christianity
    * Christians easily shop for items related to Christianity, even in speciality Christian stores
    * Successful Christians aren’t told that they are greedy because of their religion
    * The word “Christian” is treated as a label representing the best human attributes

    Christian Privileges in the Law:
    * Where relevant, laws take the Christian Sabbath (Sunday) into account
    * Laws & regulations come with built-in exemptions for Christians & Christian beliefs.
    * Christians can assume that most politicians are Christians who represent Christian interests
    * Christians can criticize the government or society without being labelled cultural outsiders
    * Christians can assume that politicians won’t attack their religion
    * Christians assume that government prayers will be Christian in nature (they usually are)

  • Willow Bird Baking

    Wow, great list!

  • Randay

    I obviously don’t know what format is used, but only that the Chrome browser does not display it. Naturally, I have no idea what is on it.

  • http://www.digitalbodycount.com/ Baljot

    :facepalm:

  • Jim Hill

    its blank, on purpose ;)

  • Randay

    D’OH! My bad.:(

  • Lorrie Crabtree

    Oops? I should’ve scrolled down further. Mia culpa

  • Matt Ranson

    LOL, your unintentional blunder just made me laugh harder than I’ve laughed in a while especially with your Homer Simpson response. Thanks!

  • Randay

    My pleasure Matt. I am glad if I can give a laugh from time to time, even at my expense.

  • Lorrie Crabtree

    You’re joking… right?

  • Davillus Hynzerelli

    I can’t find it either.

  • Aquaria

    Another one:

    Christians don’t have to worry about their children being taken from them in a custody suit because they are Christian.

  • Christoffer Viken

    That one is wrong.
    There’s probably a bias, but christian parents have lost their children for religious maltreatment, if caught in time.
    And in a suit between two parents, both parents could be “christian”.

  • Rev. M. Vernon Hunt

    No Christian has lost custody of their children for being Christian. They have, however, lost custody of their children for being abusive toward them.

  • Psycho Gecko

    Yeah, seeing as it isn’t inherently Christian to refuse medical treatment for your kids and let them die, I’d have to say that one isn’t for Christianity.

    And they’ve rarely ever bothered taking kids away from those types of parents, probably because they don’t even bother with jail for them most of the time either.

  • gimpi1

    On the other hand, I know a Pagan dad who was (briefly) denied both joint custody and visitation due to his religion. He appealed and won. However, he had to get the case out of the jurisdiction of North Dakota before that happened. His ex moved, and the appeal was adjudicated in Oregon.

  • Christoffer Viken

    That’s true for *every* region or non-religion.

  • Rev. M. Vernon Hunt

    If only it were, but it isn’t.

  • Christoffer Viken

    Are there examples of {insert religion here} that has lost their children “for their religion”?
    I know there are cases both ways when it comes to divorce settlements, but usually the gender-bias is significantly greater. (The mother usually get custody, even in cases where it’s obviously the wrong choice)

    I also know that christians tend to have to abuse their children slightly more (not counting religion) to get in serious trouble with the CPS.

  • Lorrie Crabtree

    I hope you don’t mind, but I think I’m going to copy-paste this list to my FB. Will give credit where credit is due, however. ;)

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    Not mine, but Austin Cline is the owner. Spread the info, it really is a nice weapon to close holes with.

  • Lorrie Crabtree

    I gave credit to both of you!~ :D

  • Karen Mitchell

    “The word “Christian” is treated as a label representing the best human attributes.” This bugs me the most in our society.

  • Rebecca Charlton

    Christians can’t make most of these assumptions any more. This is a list of cultural tendencies that have developed since Christianity was the dominant religion of the culture. It does not have any relevance to modern persecution. Wake up – Christians are losing businesses and being boycotted for expressing their beliefs in open society. This is what’s happening to other religions as well. You are expressing your own prejudices by trying to negate this growing issue. Rather, we could use persecution of a once-dominant people as a means to create openness and freedom for everyone!

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    I knew I overslept! So America is no longer under Christian control. What did they do with all the churches? More lighthouses or schools? TBN and 700 gone? How did the public react to that?

  • A3Kr0n

    My faith in Terry Firma paid off. I am laughing endlessly!

  • Trina Marie

    What you did there…. I see it.

  • ktorch

    Persecution? From superstition? We are only trying to help you see the facts.
    When does it start to count that we non-superstitious and non-believers have
    higher taxes to cover the taxes church and religious organizations do not pay.
    Christians cry and groan and complain anytime they are asked to contribute to
    any cause they don’t like or believe in and usually get their way.

  • Hamblerger

    Missed the entire point of the article, did we?

  • Brett Ellis

    I got the point as meaning that Christians are not persecuted. What KTorch seems to suggest is that christians still persecute non-believers and other faiths by benefitting from specialized status in the government in full violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I agree and feel that christians need to be removed from power in the military and on police forces if they use their faith to influence their professional behavior. Oh and the tax thing, definitely.

  • Willow Bird Baking

    Regardless of the validity of these points, dude clearly didn’t read the article, since based on his first “questions” he’s rebutting the idea that Christians are persecuted (which was the point of the article, as a reminder). Which is what JBryson was pointing out.

  • Brett Ellis

    Christians are not persecuted which is why the list is blank. Are you arrested, tortured, burned at the stake? Then you are less persecuted than the non-believers and pagans who Christians have persecuted for centuries. Do you have to observe the holidays of another’s religion? Pay extra taxes to cover the tax exempt status of another? Have to deal with fundamentalist Judeo-Christian ethics made law (not that different from Sharia Law) that persecutes the LGBT community and seeks to limit the rights of women? If anything Christians are the group doing the persecuting, shutting this bully up is appropriate.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    Shut up which bully?

  • Hamblerger

    There was nothing on the list. The point is that there is no evidence that Christians face persecution in America nowadays. Were you not taught context clues in school?

  • Crama

    Ben, I’d like to add one more thing to the list:

  • Dave Joria

    I’m having trouble with the page loading.

  • rubertoThest

    Christians are persecuted by now being allowed to persecute others anymore. Bullies pointing out the injustice of not being able to bully.

  • Christoffer Viken

    It is a restriction of their freedoms; but one that the constitution has taken away to ensure the freedom of others.

  • Psycho Gecko

    The dictator is, of course, the single most free person of all, but that comes at a cost to everyone else.

  • Christoffer Viken

    Indeed. And we have decided that a restriction of freedom to inpose on other people’s freedoms is a morally acceptable restriction.
    In order to ensure as much freedom as possible to as many as possible.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    It took me a minute… but that’s why you are awesome, because it actually took me a whole minute to get your point.

  • L.G. Keltner

    Excellent list!

  • natsera

    I was all ready to get my dander up over the fact that the overwhelming majority in a country CAN’T be persecuted, when I scrolled down. YA FOOLED ME!!!!!! Good job, man!

  • Heather McCuen Dearmon

    I also reloaded the page when the list was mysteriously blank. then I got it. oooh yes! thank you!!!

  • Psycho Gecko

    It was a bold choice to arrange the list in such a way as to form a perfectly detailed image of the face of the Prophet Muhammad.

  • Checkery

    I don’t think they understand what persecution is…

  • J. Scott

    I’ll make it simpler: Christians are persecuted because most are not Christ-like

  • Psycho Gecko

    I think the list made it simpler.

  • J. Scott

    yeah, it appears that I’m a little slow today… only took 8 hours!

  • Little_Magpie

    Hey Mr Corey, came over here from Friendly Atheist.. just wanted to say, well played, but would be greatly enhanced by a sound file of crickets chirping. :)

  • james

    It’s good to know that apparently the jews weren’t persecuted when they were taught against in schools and had extra regulatory oversight before they were forced into ghettos. I guess you would say that is when persecution began? Terrorist groups are now identified solely by the very same things that can be said of tea-partiers and preppers, but I guess that isn’t persecution in your book either. Neither is the overwhelming anti-christian indoctrination in schools… I didn’t know that… still don’t actually.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    Not quite sure the point here…

  • james

    No kidding. But what the hey, I’ll spell it out for you. You are wrong. There is a concerted SLOW effort to marginalize and repress Christians (at least the ones that believe all the stuff in the bible) in schools, in media in politics and government. You would have us believe that because nobody is getting their head cut off, that means that there isn’t any persecution here. There is persecution, but before you could do any such thing here, just as in Germany, there must be a slow and steady effort to marginalize and teach against all tenants of Christianity, that is the stage we are in, then comes blocking what you might call in-your-face Christians from public office and high positions, then comes laws against anyone preaching the unpopular views in the bible, then comes the jailing of said people, then comes the law looking the other way when they are shot or killed. It is a continuum of persecution, you are blind to it because you are surrounded by the social indoctrination against “annoying” Christians that is pervasive in Maine and certain large cities, and will get many “likes” from nonreligious people that want Christians to shut the heck up and go along with everyone else. That makes you a tool sir.

  • Preirin

    paranoid much?

    There is no effort against Christianity. There is, however, an effort against hate, violence, bigotry and prejudice under the mask of ‘religion’. A Christian that uses their faith to spread hate and fear is no different than any other, including the radical Muslims we hear about in the news. i.e. terrorists.

    The choice is entirely up to the believer in whether or not they wish to follow the teachings of the Christ over the teachings of man. I will always stand to destroy the latter but never the prior.

  • james

    Thank you for proving my point. Hate, Violence,bigotry, prejudice,: Duet:7 God tells Israelites to kill the inhabitants to the land. Many many many more references.

    What you consider the “mask” of Christianity are the teachings that Jesus sought to fulfill, not destroy.

    You would certainly think that God demanding death for homosexual acts and infidelity are wrong. Jesus did NOT.

    He did have a problem with an immoral person being trotted out for him to condemn just so that they could catch him trying to overrule Roman rule. They were all guilty of something deserving death, the woman, and those that brought her there for trying to cause Jesus’ death.

    But every quasi-christianish person who does not even attempt to follow the bible wants to believe that immorality and unholiness is perfectly fine, just so long as we don’t call anyone a fag. After all, isn’t that what the “jesus” in your head tells you?

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    This is silly– a steady effort to marginalize and teach against all tenants of Christianity? You do realize, in this country we have a Christian church on every corner, no? That we have Christian schools, universities, and that around 80% of the population identifies as Christian? The idea that we are somehow a marginalized group is offensive to actual marginalized groups (lets say, immigrants).

    Christians barred from holding public office? Have you ever met Michelle Bachmann? I would venture to say that if an atheist ran for president, he or she would be skewered for their belief system. A belief in God is subtly required for success in our political system, so the idea that Christians are on their way to being barred from public office is about one of the most foolish things I’ve ever heard. Jailed for preaching unpopular views? You do realize, that for over 200 years the first amendment has stood firm, no?

    Then comes the law that looks the other way while they are killed?? This is the most over the top, because this is what happened with Trayvon Martin– and ironically, Christians are leading the way in defending these gun laws which look the other way while black children are shot down in our streets.

    What’s happening is your indoctrination (being taught that persecution is a given) is causing you to see a world full of injustice but instead of defend the vulnerable, you’re inserting your group (the majority and those who have power) as somehow being the victim.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Between that and their conviction that the world is getting worse (when it totally isn’t by any conceivable measurement), I’m not entirely sure that the sky is the same color in Fundie-land as it is in the real world.

  • MatthewScheller

    Nice try Benny C. Perhaps compared to middle east and Asian persecution of Christians, this fake list might hold water,but there is plenty of examples of injustice toward TRUE Christians to speak of. Last week a judge in Colorado forced a man who owns a bakery to forego his religious beliefs to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding. Is that even close to right in your opinion? Thats a small example in a sea of garbage my friend.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    That’s more than just “close to right” to me, that’s exactly right. When you have a public business, you can’t discriminate. Refusing to bake the cake was a very UN-loving and UN-Christian thing to do.

  • MatthewScheller

    I dont know where to begin with that. Im not sure what your definition of Love is, but it is NOT acceptance sir. As far as a PRIVATE business is concerned, you’re 100% wrong. Just as A&E was in their legal rights to suspend Phil Robertson on Wednesday, that baker is in his legal rights to refuse to bake that cake with two grooms on top, regardless of your judgement upon his intentions and love. When that judge forced him to bake or face fines and prison, that judged persecuted him plain and simple. I also suggest that you study Roman Crucifixion; specifically what Jesus suffered before you continue labeling Christianity as this laid back “love everybody” sing along… Christ demanded that we love each other, no doubt, but that DOES NOT MEAN that we compromise our faith because it offends our enemies if we don’t. – Jesus Himself said “we would be hated for His namesake”… you can’t be hated for Christ unless you anger your enemy somehow.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Actually love is totally about acceptance. It means you love that person as he or she is, where he or she stands, right now this second, in their fullest aspect and as they are. It does not mean “You are total scum and I completely disapprove of your life. NOW CHANGE.” People are not your DIY projects to fix or change or control. You know, it wasn’t till I left Christianity that I realized that truth–I sure didn’t learn it in any of the various churches I attended for half my life.

    It’s so sad that you think you’d be “compromising” your faith to do exactly what Jesus is supposed to have commanded you to do. It is quite clear to me that you use religion as a bludgeon to exercise dominance and cling to privilege, not to help people or to love them. Newsflash: Nobody cares if you approve or disapprove of their private lives or what they do with other consenting adults. It’s none of your business and really not dependent at all upon your happiness or love or hate. All you’re doing with this kind of post is making people even more aware of how Christianity is failing. You don’t have the faintest idea what love is. Not even the slightest, faintest idea.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    We have to look at the results. After the gay couple had been denied, do you think they looked at each other and smiled gently and said, “Well, I guess he’s just LOVING US SO MUCH he couldn’t make our cake!” No, they walked out and felt hated, demonized, oppressed, and dehumanized, like they’d been trying to act like normal people act and get a cake for a wedding they were having, and they got told that no, they were just being all uppity and couldn’t have the rights and dignity that every single straight couple gets. This baker was telling them that they were not human and did not deserve a cake or a wedding like normal people get. He was telling them that he hated them and didn’t want to be involved with anything that made them feel human, accepted, and dignified. I’m sure he thought he was making some kind of statement in the only way he could: he wasn’t allowed to beat them up, and the law says they can marry, but by GOD he was going to deny them a cake because that’s the only tool he had left in the box for expressing his outrage at how society’s changed over the last few years. Maybe he even thought if he expressed his disapproval in such a stunningly callous and cruel way, it’d make them convert or realize how sinful they were. Maybe. But either way, he had to make a statement, and that statement was: “You don’t deserve a confection of flour and sugar made by my hands.”

    Think they felt loved by that display? Think they’ll think kindly of this baker’s religion? Think they’ll change their ways because this baker tried to degrade their human dignity?

    I don’t think evangelical Christians even half understand what love even is. They think it means abuse and control. They think their approval is needed in other people’s private lives. They think that their “statement” is more important than showing love. Bad news: the rest of us are well aware that what they are doing is not love. It’s why they’re losing the numbers they are.

    So, uh, how bout that “when I was starving, you fed me” thing Jesus said? I realize it’s a cake, but did Jesus include an escape clause there I didn’t catch? “… but if the hungry person is gay, that’s fine, refuse that person food, because Jesus loves that kind of discrimination!”

  • Preirin

    I’m on the fence about this… I do not believe that a judge can legally demand how a business owner conducts his private business. It’s the whole “we reserve the right to refuse service” thing. On the other hand we can not allow discrimination. It’s a disgusting practice of ignorance that must be eradicated and I am disgusted with this or any business owner that would attempt to enforce his personal lifestyle choice of religious practice as a shield to disguise his prejudice.

  • MatthewScheller

    How do you have any idea how this baker lives and feels about others? Are you saying because he wont betray his faith by participating in the union of two men he is a prejudice bigot? Are A&E prejudice bigots for suspending Phil Robertson for his spiritual beliefs or is tolerance only applicable to those who agree with you?

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    Baking the cake isn’t a betrayal of faith and doesn’t mean he is participating in the marriage– baking the cake is loving your neighbor. Does the same baker refuse to bake cakes for parties where there will be presumed drunkenness? What about wedding cakes where one person is a believer and one is not (also forbidden)? In order to be consistent with your logic, he’d have to go out of business and stop baking cakes all together. Love your neighbor– bake the cake and package it with love in the name of Jesus.

  • MatthewScheller

    Ben, its often hard to choose where to begin or even whether to begin when “discussing” these issues with atheists. I think we can both agree you probably aren’t listening. Ill respond anyway so that you and cowboy cassidy can write some more. (btw Im assuming you’re an atheist and apologize if Im wrong.) First, I’ll give you this, the baker could have chosen a different route (perhaps donate the proceeds from the cake to the ADF – lol that actually would’ve been interesting) but this isn’t about cakes, its about – to stick to the context of your article – a private businesses Rights in this country. The story goes that after a 35 year walk with his God, the baker felt in his heart that he wasn’t going to support same sex marriage, Perhaps he made his decision according to numerous scripture or maybe because his spirit felt a catch over it, I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. Until you enter into a relationship with Jesus, you can’t understand that He deals with each soul separately and BESIDES the repentance from Sin, our actions and battles are an individual matter of our hearts. I don’t know this man so I don’t know his daily life but I do know he told the couple “Ill make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.” Because Colorada still defined marriage as between one man and one woman, he assumed he was protected. Now I realize in this self entitled, pansified, P.C. culture, its hard for liberals to return Tolerance since it hurts so much, but this man was protected under the Constitution which forbids government from telling a citizen how to practice his religion. Even the judges rationalization for ignoring the Constitution was “it doesn’t take into account the FEELINGS of those denied.” Can you really not see how sad that is??? Furthermore, you mentioned this man’s hypocrisy by baking cakes for drunkards and unequally yoked couples. Thats actually a good point. I dont know. Maybe its because this whole world would come to a halt if atheists avoided Christian businesses and vice versa. Maybe its because few groups advertise their identity the way gay men do. Maybe it comes down to the fact that he’s human and chooses to stand on certain platforms and avoid others….I really don’t know, but again: this isnt a matter of cakes, its a matter of Constitutional Rights and the persecution of a faith by ignoring those rights in the name of “feelings.”

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    You lost me at the assumption that I’m an atheist. Hard to have a discussion when you are completely unaware of the context we’re discussing it in. I am a Christian theologian. Read my bio and some background and then we can have a discussion once you’re familiar with the context.

  • MatthewScheller

    Actually I was wondering if you were going to say that. (Hence my disclaimer). You’ll have to forgive me, I’ve walked in and out of the world for over 2 and a half decades Ben and your words and article remind me much more of the world than of the Kingdom. Sorry about that.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Yeah, all that love and acceptance and non-judging stuff is really worldly. I totes hear you. Christianity’s about who you hate and how strong of a statement of disapproval you can make. I keep forgetting that.

  • MatthewScheller

    …and havent you noticed how many more Atheists you are encouraging than your “brothers”?

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    I get that all the time too. It’s almost funny, huh? That anybody who seriously dissents with their hatred and ignorance has to be an atheist, because only atheists would ever dissent like that. (Did you know there’s a cognitive bias that goes along the lines of “people usually assume the folks around them agree with anything they’re saying”? Christians almost always assume that the Christians around them would obviously agree with whatever dumb tripe they’re spouting.) Don’t feel bad. You collect enough “atheist accusations” and you get a toaster! I already got mine and I’m angling for the crash helmet.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Actually yes, that is exactly what we are saying. Does his faith require him to be a bigot and racist? He is “betraying” his faith by being loving and tolerant of those who are different from himself? My my, are you absolutely sure you want to back this particular horse?

    You’re seriously saying that hate, dehumanization, intolerance, and bigotry are not only Christian virtues but that those spouting those things should be given podiums paid for by private companies and taxpayers alike so they can spew hate speech and oppress those they don’t like.

    Welcome to “being part of the problem.” Maybe you need to consider why your religion needs to idolize bigotry so much. You do realize that quite a few people are leaving it because they are good and moral people who cannot stand this kind of hatefulness, don’t you? And that Christianity is fast becoming known more for who it hates and what rights and dignities it opposes than for what it loves? Is this really the horse you’re backing? Are you sure you’re worshiping the good guy and not the bad guy in the Bible?

    PS: As Benjamin has pointed out, these bakers are usually quite happy to bake cakes for divorce celebrations, pagan ritual celebrations, dog weddings, stem-cell research breakthrough parties, and weddings for people who are not virgins or who are remarrying after a divorce. You are supporting total hypocrites who cherry-pick the Bible to support their hatred and fear of one particular group. Thank goodness states have laws that prevent discrimination! A truly “Christian” baker wouldn’t have many people at all he could make cakes for, if he really cared about following all your religion’s rules about who to demonize and dehumanize.

  • Guest

    Saddle up
    big man. Let’s take a ride down through your response and the story at hand. You
    started with calling Christians bigots for choosing to acknowledge marriage as
    between one man and one woman. Have you even considered the definition of the
    word Bigotry before tossing it around so carelessly? It is intolerance towards
    those who hold different opinions from one’s self. Ouch. The baker, a Christian, chose not to
    bake a cake for a Wedding between two men. He offered the couple any other
    service but explained his convictions are such that he doesn’t bake cake for
    same sex weddings because he doesn’t support it, and he did so in a state that
    still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The couple said “Fuck You”
    flipped him off and stormed out heading straight to the ACLU. A year later,
    after a judge blatantly ignored the 1st amendment, citing the “feelings”
    of the gay couple as the reason why, this man now faces prison time. On top of
    that, you’re here labeling him a bigot because of his beliefs. Now, let’s recap
    cap…. Bigotry is the intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion. Camille Paglia says this: “The objections of
    conservative (Christians) who believe in the Bible are well-founded. When
    Christians object from the Bible, they’re objecting on the basis of principle,
    not bigotry. People on the left have got to accept that it is not simply
    bigotry that causes believing Christians to object to this kind of element in
    popular culture.” Camille is a popular and open lesbian.

    Based off of that fact, who involved in all
    this are the Bigots? Is there even a possibility in your mind that you, the gay
    couple, and the judge might be the intolerant ones? That you’re the Bigot? Is
    there even a chance you can see that? Still reading?

    You use words like Hate,
    Dehumanization, Hypocrisy, & Oppression to describe Christianity. Do you often get away saying things like that? Talk about cherry picking… Im not sure you
    even know the difference between the Old and New Testament, much less the
    teachings of Jesus. Has nobody ever called you out on your rhetoric? Have you
    looked outside and seen who out there is feeding the hungry, clothing the poor,
    serving the elderly, sheltering the homeless, encouraging the hopeless and
    loving the lost? Do you have any idea how much Christians outnumber atheists in
    regards to those who give of their time and treasure to serve and love others without
    reward? Do you really want to find out? Are you sure you want back that horse
    cowboy? lol J

    Dehumanization, I liked
    that one. Let’s go online into your world to discuss that one. Have you ever read
    the comments under stories involving issues like faith, abortion,
    homosexuality, evolution, etc? Go ahead and check it out, ill wait. Without
    fail you will notice the majority of hate, profanity and cruel insults coming
    from one side. I don’t even think atheists and liberals try to hide it anymore
    to be honest. Where Christ says pray for your enemy and love those who
    persecute you, you’ll find the enemy mocking, slandering, devaluing, and in
    some nations imprisoning and murdering Christians every day. What’s that word
    again and who do you think a jury would convict of it?

    Now words are easy to just
    toss around…you certainly threw a few mis-truths out there…and there is no
    accountability or penalty for saying just anything anymore, but the proof is in
    the daily actions of individuals, not words, and according to actions, the
    bigots, haters, and accusers are on your bench my man, not ours. You yourself
    accuse Christians of being known for standing against more than standing for.
    How often do you stand for up for your convictions and how often do you hop
    online to respond against those you disagree with? Don’t answer that… just ask
    yourself if you’re willing to demand of others what you won’t demand of
    yourself.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    All that and you still don’t get the problem at all here, do you? That’s okay. I know it’s very hard to separate your cherished myth of persecution and your desperate need to control people from what actually happened.

    These bakers were operating a business that exists in a state that has made discrimination against various groups against the law. They chose to open that business, and by doing so, they agreed to follow various laws that exist governing businesses–laws such as how many parking spots they must have, whether or not they must have a bathroom for guests, the cleanliness laws they must follow, etc. Ever since people began living in cities, they’ve had laws like this. You don’t just get to hang out a shingle and run that business however the hell you want to run it. There are laws you must follow.

    Some of those laws govern who you may and may not refuse business to. They decided to operate their business in a state that has anti-discrimination laws. Then they violated those laws. It’d be no different than if they decided to refuse business to women, or black people, or Asians, or Jews, or fat people. But because they are using religion as their excuse to discriminate against a legally protected group, you are crying “Persecution! Baawwww! RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!” and trying to make this into some kind of crusade. It totally isn’t.

    Dude, you’re arguing that it’s okay for people to refuse to follow the laws of their states. You’re arguing that a religion founded on the idea of touching lepers and eating with tax collectors and protecting adulterous people is your justification for dehumanizing a group you think is ickie. You are behaving hatefully and calling it good. And you don’t even get that. It’s almost hilarious.

    And yes, I totally stand up for discrimination wherever I find it. Like I did here, with you. You are a bigot. And you are hateful. And you are not loving. Too bad your god told you to love your neighbor as yourself, huh? Maybe you need to study those verses a little more instead of misapplying misunderstood and cherry-picked verses you think give you all the justification you need to degrade people you don’t like. I realize it’s important for you to keep those rationalizations, but please understand: nobody is fooled but you. I can’t believe I’m having to tell you this stuff, but Christians can be awfully hateful and blind sometimes.

  • MatthewScheller

    My head hurts trying to fathom how you can’t see how you literally just described yourself. Its almost like the liberal mind is wired to not see or accept facts. Seriously, inarguable statements of truth, like 2 + 2 =4 and youll find a way to argue it. Im at a loss Cap…you win.
    Mark Twain was dead on. You literally dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    If you can’t win by reason, it seems you go for the silencing tactics. Whatever you were aiming for, you lost. You have no real way to rebut what I’ve said and come out looking like anything but the most heinous asshole, and I think we both know that. Please think about your attitude sometime. You are part of your religion’s problem. You are part of why people are fleeing your religion and why outsiders view it with such contempt and disdain.

    I think I’m just too moral to be a Christian. I’m not being mocking. I’m quite serious. I could not ever subscribe to the narrow-minded, bigoted mindset you are trumpeting to the skies.

  • Psycho Gecko

    “Mark Twain was dead on.” – MatthewScheller

    “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever
    fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a
    wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. This Bible is built
    mainly out of the fragments of older Bibles that had their day and
    crumbled to ruin. So it noticeably lacks in originality, necessarily.” – Mark Twain

  • MatthewScheller

    Saddle up big man. Let’s take a ride down through your response and the story at hand. You started with calling Christians bigots for choosing to acknowledge marriage as between one man and one woman. Have you even considered the definition of the word Bigotry before tossing it around so carelessly? It is intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from one’s self. Ouch. The baker, a Christian, chose not to
    bake a cake for a Wedding between two men. He offered the couple any other service but explained his convictions are such that he doesn’t bake cake for
    same sex weddings because he doesn’t support it, and he did so in a state that still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The couple said “Fuck You”, flipped him off and stormed out heading straight to the ACLU. A year later, after a judge blatantly ignored the 1st amendment, citing the “feelings”
    of the gay couple as the reason why, this man now faces prison time. On top of that, you’re here labeling him a bigot because of his beliefs. Now, let’s recap…
    Cap…. Bigotry is the “intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion”.Right? Camille Paglia says this: “The objections of conservative (Christians) who believe in the Bible are well-founded. When
    Christians object from the Bible, they’re objecting on the basis of principle, not bigotry. People on the left have got to accept that it is not simply bigotry that causes believing Christians to object to this kind of element in popular culture.” Camille is a popular and open lesbian.

    Based off of that fact, who involved in all
    this are the Bigots? Is there even a possibility in your mind that you, the gay couple, and the judge might be the intolerant ones? …That you’re the Bigot? Is
    there even a chance you can see that? Still reading?

    You use words like Hate, Dehumanization, Hypocrisy, & Oppression to describe Christianity. Do you often get away saying things like that? Talk about cherry picking… Im not sure you even know the difference between the Old and New Testament, much less the
    teachings of Jesus. Has nobody ever called you out on your rhetoric? Have you looked outside and seen who out there is feeding the hungry, clothing the poor,
    serving the elderly, sheltering the homeless, encouraging the hopeless and loving the lost? Do you have any idea how much Christians outnumber atheists in regards to those who give of their time and treasure to serve and love others without reward? Do you really want to find out? Are you sure you want back that horse cowboy? lol

    Dehumanization, I liked that one. Let’s go online into your world to discuss that one. Have you ever read
    the comments under stories involving issues like faith, abortion, homosexuality, evolution, etc? Go ahead and check it out, ill wait. Without fail you will notice the majority of hate, profanity and cruel insults coming
    from one side. I don’t even think atheists and liberals try to hide it anymore to be honest. Where Christ says pray for your enemy and love those who
    persecute you, you’ll find the enemy mocking, slandering, devaluing, and in some nations imprisoning and murdering Christians every day. What’s that word
    again and who do you think a jury would convict of it?

    Now words are easy to just toss around…you certainly threw a few mis-truths out there…and there is no
    accountability or penalty for saying just anything anymore, but the proof is in the daily actions of individuals, not words, and according to actions, the
    bigots, haters, and accusers are on your bench my man, not ours. You yourself accuse Christians of being known for standing against more than standing for.
    How often do you stand for up for your convictions and how often do you hop online to respond against those you disagree with? Don’t answer that… just ask
    yourself if you’re willing to demand of others what you won’t demand of yourself.

  • Preirin

    Well, that’s an easy one. Jesus taught love over hate, forgiveness over condemnation and tolerance over intolerance above all. He never insisted that any of those who chose to follow Him act in hatred against anyone. If anything, he warned those who wanted to follow Him would be held to the same standard He held Himself. Yet millions preach and practice the exact antithesis of His teachings.. in his name!

    No one’s asking this shop owner to abandon his faith. If he believes homosexuality is a sin then it is his responsibility to refrain from engaging in homosexual acts. If he does not believe in same-sex marriage then he should not marry someone of the same gender. That’s it.

    His responsibility as a business owner, however, is to serve the customer – whomever that customer may be – without prejudice or discrimination. In doing so there is no risk of breaching his beliefs in any way whatsoever.

    We are all guilty of sin. So how, exactly, can someone guilty of sin judge the sin of others? Who wants to cast the first stone?

  • rebel83

    A business does not have the right to religious freedoms under the law, people do. Should a bakery be forced to bake a cake for an interracial marriage? 50 years ago Matt you’d be saying OF COURSE NOT ITS THEIR RIGHT NOT TOO. Please be on the right side of history on this.

  • MatthewScheller

    Sorry Rebel. You assume Im guessing there is a God in heaven when in Truth, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt there is. I accepted His Son and have experienced His presence in my life time and again for over 20 years. Its Him who I will answer to, not History, not you. Its Him who I stand with.

  • rebel83

    If you know that then you’d know that His Son wants you to love your fellow man. And that love is the most important thing. That is the fact of the New Testament and should be your history. Choose Wisely my friend.

  • Karen Glammeyer Medcoff

    you failed to read his other post about persecution eh? go read it. it’s very enlightening. but probably not for you, since your doors seem to be fully closed at this time.

  • Janne Andersson

    Good. Religioun is pure garbage, created by man a very looong time ago.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    and…. that wasn’t the point either.

  • d clark

    But what did you expect to generate with your snarky bullshit! You think persecution will go from “we love you Christians” to “Crucify them and burn them at the stake” in one fell swoop. No Ben, it will be an incremental lessening of protection and acceptance until it is finally exceptable, no positively progressive, to stomp out any brand of Christianity you don’t like. If you think me overstating, go, (like I do) to ANY Salon article about Christian faith and the aritcle will be vile and the comments execrable. I hope you notice the growing heat little frog, before the water boils!

  • http://Www.theirishatheist.wordpress.com/ The Irish Atheist

    Hey. Here’s a quote you posted three days ago on another Patheos article.

    “I think religious freedom SHOULD BE DENIED these devils and they be exterminated!”

    I’m just gonna leave that right there, where everyone can see, and let the civilised world have a mocking laugh at your expense.

  • d clark

    I hope you are the only one who couldn’t see sarcasm (and a bit of resignation) in the other Patheos post. I was giving voice to the secret heart of people (I would guess by your moniker, you are one of them) who are attacking people of faith. Now it all sounds civil (though not at the edges of the Web) because it is not yet acceptable to purge Christians. So I want to expose their hearts (which are as black as anyone else, though they deny it) in anticipation. That you cannot sense subtlety and nuance is not my concern.

    Oh, and Happy St. Patty’s day! Erin go Bragh!

  • http://Www.theirishatheist.wordpress.com/ The Irish Atheist

    Judging by your other comments, there was nothing out of place by what you said. But if you have praise your own subtlety and nuance, that’s a good indication that there is none. I do, however, appreciate your valued insight into my secret black heart.

    I have no idea who St. Patty is. I suspect you may be referring to St Patrick, or his feast day which is often called St. Paddy’s, but since Patty is a feminine name I cannot be sure.

    I also don’t know what you mean by Erin go Bragh, as it has no actual meaning in any language known to man.

  • d clark

    Sorry, I assumed you were Irish by your mokiker. If not, simply Google the Gaelic phrase. Yes, and sorry again, it should have been Paddy. Mea Culpa.

    As to your black heart, I mean the common black heart of all humans, one of the most precise observations of the human condition made by Christian faith and theology.

    And the point of the other post is to illustrate this by playing the part of the unmasked atheist. One of the true hilarities of atheism is that rationalism will lead to enlightenment. Whereas the reality is that, given power over others, your ilk will oppress and persesute with as much glee and abandon as any Pope or Inquisitor ever did.

  • http://Www.theirishatheist.wordpress.com/ The Irish Atheist

    Wow, you really don’t get it, do you? I am Irish. I was born and raised there. The Irish language, which you incorrectly call ‘Gaelic’ is my first language. (Gaelic is a language branch incorporating Irish, Scots, and Manx. The Scots language is often colloquially referred to as Gaelic, but never the Irish language. In our own tongue it’s called ‘Gaeilge.’).

    Since it is in fact my native tongue, I think I would be much more aware than an American like yourself that ‘Erin go Bragh,’ is Anglicised nonsense that doesn’t actually bear any meaning in any spoken language. If you are trying to say ‘Ireland forever,’ the proper phrase is Éirinn go Brách. Erin and Bragh aren’t even Irish words. One out of three, well done. When it comes to my homeland and my native tongue, it is clearly not I who would benefit from some Google searches.

    And yes, my unlikely friendship with Mr. Corey notwithstanding, and the fact that my childhood experience with Christian terrorism has led me to work for years with the reconciliation movement, it is my deepest desire of my black heart to see all Christians purged, including my family, friends, and most of my beloved homeland. Thank you again for your remarkable insights to my innermost nature.

  • THX1139

    Should it be Christian persecution? Anti-christian persecution would be persecution of anti-christian wouldn’t it?

  • Preirin

    The difference between Christians and Modern Christians is that the latter have allowed themselves to be steered away from the basic teachings of Christ (love, forgiveness, peace) in favor of the more violent teachings of the Bible (hate, destruction, etc,)

    Christians are not persecuted in America. The idea is laughable. Their concept of ‘persecution’ is not being allowed to spread hate and prejudice freely.

    Of course, this is a sweep statement and is unfair to those Christians that actually try to practice peace, love and forgiveness. No, no one is saying that one must abandon their beliefs, just that they respect the beliefs of others.

  • Jeremy Hale

    Well shit, in my tizzy to reply to someone else I replied to the article.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    Skipped actually reading the article (all 150 words) and went right to the comment section did we? Embarrassing.

  • Bishop Savan

    Ha! A christian who actually gets it – Your list is impressive sir. Kudos.

  • http://limpingtowardsgrace.com/ James Jarvis

    You forgot to include these examples in your list:

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    Well done!
    Apparently many of the ancient martyrdom stories were exaggerated too.

  • http://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/ jesuswithoutbaggage

    I read your list and I feel much better now!

  • Nos482

    LOL…. in fact: ROFLMAO!

  • Statis

    GeoChristian has a great analogue regarding evolution and the bible: http://geochristian.com/2013/01/13/what-the-bible-says-directly-about-biological-evolution/

  • Davillus Hynzerelli

    Where’s the list??

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    There isn’t a list, which was the point of the piece.

  • http://www.blackatheists.wordpress.com/ Black Atheists

    LMAO!

  • Lance Christian Johnson

    I’m an atheist, but my heart genuinely does go out to Christians who are legitimately being persecuted all over the world. That’s what makes all the whining in this country about so-called persecution to be so shameless.

  • http://www.westhighland.org James Thomson

    Mr. Corey, I would really like to read your list of “Ways we are persecuted……”. However, it does not show on this webpage?

  • Steven Weir

    You’re not being persecuted as Christians, you’re just losing your special privileged status you’ve enjoyed for too long to persecute and marginalize others.

  • http://www.formerlyfundie.com/ Benjamin L. Corey

    Looks like you didn’t read the blog and just skipped straight to commenting. That’s embarrassing considering what the blog said…