Fred,

Since they are being given a special condition, isn’t the Iranian provision suggestive, in fact, that the rights of those three named minorities are specifically to be regarded as less than that of the majority?  And that any other group aside from those three is to have no particular rights whatsoever?

A nation that genuinely allows for religious freedom needs to make no provisions of any kind for any religion except that religion not be a matter for the state and a nation that is genuinely tolerant of divergent religious practices can only function with an absolute separation of church and state.  Provisions for diwali, islam or christianity are as damaging to religious freedom as are provisions for zorastrianism, judaism or christian Iranians.

The answer to your first question is that the christian right, in America, is primarily interested in oppressing the beliefs of those around them to suit a dominance of their own theology.  And they have little conception of the world outside of their borders or care about the lives of the people outside those borders.

erasmusinfinity - 06 January 2008 09:30 AM

The answer to your first question is that the christian right, in America, is primarily interested in oppressing the beliefs of those around them to suit a dominance of their own theology.  And they have little conception of the world outside of their borders or care about the lives of the people outside those borders.

See, this sort of statement concerns me.  It is self-convicting, and counterproductive, and I think it’s safe to say that intelligent skeptics should be wary of indulging too much into such a sweeping mindset about an entire group of people.  The Christian belief system does proclaim itself to be the one true religion, but it does not advocate oppression of others.  That there are Christians who have done and continue to DO this is certainly true, but that is a statement on the failings of those members, rather than a statement against one system of beliefs over another.  Sadly, there are plenty of members of the secular movement who have behaved badly; we just hear about this less and excuse it more readily because atheists are a minority. 

The ‘they have little conception of the world outside of their borders or care about the lives of the people living outside those borders’ could be said of anyone.  I know many people (heck, most people I know!) who live this way, and there is no direct correlation between their belief system and this attitude.  It tends to correlate better with level of education and intelligence, and, let’s face it, no one really corners the market on stupidity or lack of education.  At the very least, whatever else might be said about the Christian belief system, there really is nothing in it that would specifically promote such a mentality.

This particular thread can be fought on the grounds of equality.  Is it right to give one religious system preferential treatment over another?  Yes or no.  Stepping into a discussion of whether one group is more deserving of being promoted or oppressed than another undermines the integrity of the question.  The fact is, under the law, Christians are as welcome to practice what they believe as anyone else, no matter how many of them there are, no matter how many of them might be known to be boorish. 

Sorry to be long-winded.  It just frustrates me to see such rampantly hypocritical attitudes coming out in a forum that is presumably dedicated to higher-minded thinking.

jboeyink,

It may be a bit of a generalization as it stands alone.  But in reference to the matters in this thread, the evidence speak for itself.  There is such a group of individuals, behaving in precisely the manner that I described.

jboeyink - 07 January 2008 11:35 PM

erasmusinfinity - 06 January 2008 09:30 AM

The answer to your first question is that the christian right, in America, is primarily interested in oppressing the beliefs of those around them to suit a dominance of their own theology.  And they have little conception of the world outside of their borders or care about the lives of the people outside those borders.

See, this sort of statement concerns me. 

Skepticism is welcome.

What do you think the term “Christian right” should mean?  I think it means a politicized Christian movement.  Erasmus suggests the goal is dominance of their own theology.  You know, like telling other people what to do based on a reading of scriptural authority.  A counter argument might be is that they are only a defensive movement interesting in protecting their own rights.  Maybe there are characteristics of both—but I tend to agree with erasmus.

jboeyink - 07 January 2008 11:35 PM

At the very least, whatever else might be said about the Christian belief system, there really is nothing in it that would specifically promote such a mentality.

Christianity in particular, perhaps not; Christianity shares its jealous God with Judaism and Islam, for two. Yes, there are religious folk of all stripes who are of a more liberal bent and do not wish to oppress anyone, for which we do have to thank the Enlightenment as much as anything. But that there are very deep and powerful strains within the Christian belief system itself that would tend to promote an oppressive mentality? Certainly. Start simply with the claim that if you do not take Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you are going to go to hell.

One can overdo this sort of secularist argument, but it’s not easy to do so nowadays, in a culture in which every presidential candidate from both parties must publicly assert their faith in God to be considered credible.

dougsmith - 08 January 2008 05:52 AM

jboeyink - 07 January 2008 11:35 PM

At the very least, whatever else might be said about the Christian belief system, there really is nothing in it that would specifically promote such a mentality.

Christianity in particular, perhaps not; Christianity shares its jealous God with Judaism and Islam, for two. Yes, there are religious folk of all stripes who are of a more liberal bent and do not wish to oppress anyone, for which we do have to thank the Enlightenment as much as anything. But that there are very deep and powerful strains within the Christian belief system itself that would tend to promote an oppressive mentality? Certainly. Start simply with the claim that if you do not take Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you are going to go to hell.

Well, my comment above was referring to the assertion that Christians are, as a collective, more prone to being ignorant of the world at large than other groups, not the whether or not Christianity’s tenets lend themselves to oppressive behaviors.  Regarding oppression, I merely said that the actual tenets of Christianity itself do not promote oppression; i.e.—nowhere in the Bible does Christ say, “Go out and flog anyone who doesn’t believe in me.” Christ is never depicted (setting aside the Gnostic texts) as behaving oppressively to his opponents.

There are, of course, Christians who DO behave badly in the name of their beliefs.  But as I said and still maintain: this is a reflection upon the people, not the belief system.  I would maintain that the same people would behave oppressively no matter which belief system to which they chose to subscribe. 

One can overdo this sort of secularist argument, but it’s not easy to do so nowadays, in a culture in which every presidential candidate from both parties must publicly assert their faith in God to be considered credible.

I am not sure I agree, especially because two of the current political frontrunners are not Christians.  I suppose it can be argued that they claim to be men of faith, especially in Mitt Romney’s case, but the fact remains that the man is not Christian and yet he maintains a strong holding on the Republican side.  If anything, I would say that the candidate’s position on legalized abortion holds more sway on the right side of the fence.  On the left, I don’t see faith-bantering as necessary for credibility so much as it is a means of pandering to the voters who are religiously inclined.

Either way, none of the above justifies the comment to which I originally responded.  I certainly concede that there is a Religious Right, and that they exert their political influence as they see fit.  But to post such a statement still strikes me as hypocritical.

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

Well, my comment above was referring to the assertion that Christians are, as a collective, more prone to being ignorant of the world at large than other groups ...

Sure. Many Christians are ignorant, some aren’t; just like people of other belief systems.

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

Regarding oppression, I merely said that the actual tenets of Christianity itself do not promote oppression; i.e.—nowhere in the Bible does Christ say, “Go out and flog anyone who doesn’t believe in me.” Christ is never depicted (setting aside the Gnostic texts) as behaving oppressively to his opponents.

Depends what you mean by “behaving oppressively.” Certainly he claimed that his opponents were all bound for hell. This is about as far as he could go, since by all appearances he only had a handful of followers at the time he died. They weren’t in any position to intimidate anyone. Even so, Jesus’s crucifixion was likely because of the dust-up in the Jewish temple. He wasn’t against using physical force to make his opinions known.

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

There are, of course, Christians who DO behave badly in the name of their beliefs.  But as I said and still maintain: this is a reflection upon the people, not the belief system.  I would maintain that the same people would behave oppressively no matter which belief system to which they chose to subscribe. 

Well, do you think that beliefs can change behavior? Or that people behave as they will regardless of their beliefs? Do you think that false beliefs about hellfire and damnation are problematic? Do you think false beliefs about heresies are problematic?

Do you think it’s a problem when certain Christians claim that the Bible tells them that Darwinian evolution is false? Or that gays should not be tolerated and will all go to hell?

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

I am not sure I agree, especially because two of the current political frontrunners are not Christians.  I suppose it can be argued that they claim to be men of faith, especially in Mitt Romney’s case, but the fact remains that the man is not Christian and yet he maintains a strong holding on the Republican side.  If anything, I would say that the candidate’s position on legalized abortion holds more sway on the right side of the fence.  On the left, I don’t see faith-bantering as necessary for credibility so much as it is a means of pandering to the voters who are religiously inclined.

Mormons actually do view themselves as Christians, FWIW. The Mormon church is the church “of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints”. Who else among the front runners isn’t Christian? (I know that in our last race, Sen. Lieberman was Jewish).

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

Well, my comment above was referring to the assertion that Christians are, as a collective, more prone to being ignorant of the world at large than other groups, not the whether or not Christianity’s tenets lend themselves to oppressive behaviors.

I will agree, if not in some fashion concede to you, that it is not necessarily so that christians are more ignorant of the world than other particular religious groups.  I am almost prepared to speculate as to whether they are not, in general, more ignorant than atheists on the matter, although I think that would be something of a digression.  If it comforst you to hear it, I have met many christians who not only know a great deal about the world, but who know much more than other atheists that I have met about certain aspects of the world.  Indeed, christians who know more than I about certain aspects of the world.

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

Regarding oppression, I merely said that the actual tenets of Christianity itself do not promote oppression; i.e.—nowhere in the Bible does Christ say, “Go out and flog anyone who doesn’t believe in me.” Christ is never depicted (setting aside the Gnostic texts) as behaving oppressively to his opponents.

I think that the actual tenets of christianity, whether found in scripture or in practice, often do promote such oppression.  Are there really no examples from the bible where s for christ says to go out and flog anyone who doesn’t believe in him?

[quote author="Luke19:27"]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.19:22-27

As for Jesus being depicted (aside the Gnostic texts) as behaving oppressively to his opponents, here are just two from each of the gospels.  There are many more examples of Jesus’ intolerance where these came from.

[quote author="Matthew 3:10, 12"]3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

[quote author="Matthew 11:20-24"]11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 
11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 
11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

[quote author="Mark 6:11"]6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

[quote author="Mark 16:16"]16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[quote author="Luke 3:17"]3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

[quote author="Luke 10:10-15"]10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 
10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 
10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 
10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

[quote author="John 3:36"]3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

[quote author="John 8:24"]8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

<>

Zarcus,

I’m not sure if I understand your question.  Are you asking me how I interpret this passage from the bible?  Or are you asking me what this has to do with jboeyink’s comments?

<>

<>

Jboeyink said

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 08:45 AM

nowhere in the Bible does Christ say, “Go out and flog anyone who doesn’t believe in me.”

In the book of Luke god (and subsequently christ) says
[quote author="Luke19:27"]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the bible christ says that he wants us to do some flogging.  No?

I’m not sure why those verses speak to this issue. 

Every one of those verses, as I read them, are presented as if God is the speaker, or refers to what God presumably will do to unbelievers.  There is a vast difference between asserting that a jealous God will enact consequences on unbelievers, and a direct instruction to followers that they should exact those consequences personally.  Again, I’m willing to concede that certain Christians may decide that it is their job to step up and strike a blow in God’s name, but that is, again, a faulty interpretation on the part of those Christians.  I still do not see anywhere in the Bible where Christ instructs his followers in any way to oppress anyone else.

I don’t understand why a Christian belief that unbelievers are going to Hell is even relevant, except where it inflames Christians to evangelize, presumably out of benevolent interest in the spiritual welfare of those around them.  But aside from that, what difference does it make if Christians DO believe this?  My understanding is that most denominations hold the question of salvation as existing between the individual and God, and if you want to reject Christ, that’s your option.  You just face the consequences as detailed out in the verses quoted, which is only relevant if you believe said verses have any validity.

I’m going to Hell?  Well, my God says you’re going to Ice Cream Land.  Nice talking to you.

Also: my impression was that Barak Obama was not a Christian either.  Perhaps I was mistaken there.  At any rate, it is clear that Obama is taking a vocal stand against allowing religion to play too firm a hand in voters’ decision-making, which is, I’ll grant you, very brave of him.  While Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, Christianity proper does not consider them to be so.  Since we’re talking about popularity, which stems from the perspective of the voters, what the Mormons think of themselves is far less relevant here than what other Christians believe about Mormons.  There have been discussions about Mitt Romney’s not-quite-Christianity around here, but ultimately what I see is that, for good or ill, most Republicans prefer him to Giuliani simply on the grounds that Giuliani is Pro-Choice.

jboeyink - 07 January 2008 11:35 PM

I am not sure I agree, especially because two of the current political frontrunners are not Christians.  I suppose it can be argued that they claim to be men of faith, especially in Mitt Romney’s case, but the fact remains that the man is not Christian and yet he maintains a strong holding on the Republican side. 

I am seriously disturbed by the assertion that Mitt Romney and another “frontrunner” (Obama?) are not Christians.  Something like 80% of Americans regard themselves as Christian, but it is common among evangelicals to claim exclusive right to be called “Christian.” Many of these people do not regard Mormons as Christian, but Mormons do generally regard themselves as Christians, and to deny that they are is to buy into the self-serving terminology of the Christian right.  Some in the Christian right have the same attitude toward Catholics and mainstream Protestants.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal mainstream Protestant denominations.  I am an atheist myself, but the assertion that Obama is not a Christian is a right-wing slander perpetrated by such smear artists as Michelle Malkin, who is the third world’s answer to Ann Coulter.  If this idea, stemming from the political sewer, gets around and is believed, Obama will lose vote in the same way that Kerry did from the swift-boat slanders.

I am curious about Mr. jboeyink’s beliefs.