Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

That doesn't seem to be a problem for conservatives.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't reducing the size of government, and saving taxpayers money a religious belief among conservatives?

Yes. Now ask yourself how often people and organizations live up to their professed doctrines.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Yes. Now ask yourself how often people and organizations live up to their professed doctrines.

Conservatives don't have a problem with that.

 

[Umbran]

Conservatives don't have a problem with that.

The issue is not limited to political conservatives.

Heck, there's even a neurological explanation for part of the issue - in humans, judging the moral and ethical ramifications of your own actions excites different areas of the brain than judging others. You literally judge yourself and other people differently. So, when you take an action, it is justified, but when someone else takes an action, it isn't.

 

[Istbor]

They abandoned the proposal, wisely, after receiving a warning that it would be unconstitutional.

I cannot relate to these people. I would totally listen to a prayer offered be another religion. Mostly out of curiosity. Maybe even participate in the spirit of the prayer at least.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The issue is not limited to political conservatives.

Heck, there's even a neurological explanation for part of the issue - in humans, judging the moral and ethical ramifications of your own actions excites different areas of the brain than judging others. You literally judge yourself and other people differently. So, when you take an action, it is justified, but when someone else takes an action, it isn't.

Yes, I know all that. My point is that conservatives don't have any problem with doing it. Although it doesn't only apply to political conservatives, the article is about conservatives, so I limited my post to them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They abandoned the proposal, wisely, after receiving a warning that it would be unconstitutional.

So they have! Apparently, the city attorney's words- and the criticism they got- went off like a time bomb...it took a while for the implications to be fully realized.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015...ons-proposal-to-only-allow-christian-prayers/

I cannot relate to these people. I would totally listen to a prayer offered be another religion. Mostly out of curiosity. Maybe even participate in the spirit of the prayer at least.

I have done. I went to a friend's bar mitzvah, for one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, I know all that. My point is that conservatives don't have any problem with doing it.

To be fair, it isn't all conservatives, either. There are several who are speaking out about this kind of thing. They're just being drowned out by the others.

There is some media fault in this, in that they're mostly covering the ones causing the stir, and not reporting so often on those cooler heads who are warning their own against the backlash. Same thing happens with news coverage of Islam: you see in-depth reports of the daily horrors and a ousts committed in its name, but you seldom see the words & actions of the liberal and moderates who push back against the tide of radicalism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not as many are as "fine" as you might think. Or, perhaps it is better to say, if you are fine now, you might be even better if corporal punishment were not a regular part of your childhood discipline.

A 2009 study defined harsh corporal punishment as at least one spanking a month for more than three years, frequently done with objects such as a belt or paddle. Researchers found children who were regularly spanked had less gray matter in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex that have been linked to depression, addiction and other mental health disorders, the study authors say.

A 2010 study found that frequent spanking when a child was 3 was linked to an increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5.

Yet another study: "Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general population sample. "

And, more broadly, it is well-established in behavioral science that use of negative stimulus generally doesn't work the way folks think it does. Yes, the child (or other animal) will stop the undesirable behavior, but not out of *understanding*, which means the application of corporal punishment does not usually generalize to other behaviors, and the fear reaction leaks out into other behaviors instead.

If your dog poops in the house, showing anger and rubbing their nose in it, or swatting them with a rolled-up newspaper are empirically a really ineffective way to house-train them. Why, then, do we figure that swatting a kid will do any better?

I am curious, have they examined the difference between if the mother and the father is the one issuing the punishment? I don't condone corporal punishment, as I knew far too many kids who were on the receiving end of its excesses growing up. I knew kids who lived in fear of their fathers (I mean serious, bruising belt whippings on what seemed a far too regular basis). But my mom employed a certain amount of corporal punishment as well. However I never really feared her or developed negative feelings around the issue (I was a difficult to manage and my father had to be away from home a lot for his work, so she would slap me, pinch my ears or mouth to keep in line). It never felt terribly violent. Just an effective way to snap me out of not listening to her rules. Again, I wouldn't condone that now, given what I know. But I am curious if they've looked at these different gradations of punishment and compared them (and if the person giving the punishment is at all relevant to the outcome).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Lordy gracious! Mike Huckabee fires a broadside:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/mike-huckabee-barack-obama-christian/index.html

A few things:

1) Huckabee's assertion is ad odds with Rev. Wright's that Obama and his family have been -admittedly sporadic- churchgoers in his flock since the 1990s, got married in his church and even baptized their kids there. If he's pretending, he's playing the long game.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing

2) though the Obama family's attendance was sporadic, Wright does not doubt their belief. And honestly, I'm a Catholic, and there are people I only see in church when they show up for Christmas & Easter. Attendance is no measure of faith.

As for this:

I'm disappointed if someone says, 'I'm a Christian,' but you invite the pope into your home and then you invite a whole bunch of people who are at odds with the Catholic Church policy. I think there's something very unseemly about that," he added.

If he wants to be consistent, here, virtually the entire GOP would have to skip out. I'm not being a pro-Democratic Party partisan, I'm just drawing on historically verifiable facts, like how the general tenor of modern GOP policies towards the poor and underprivileged has been at odds with Catholicism for some time. This was made abundantly clear in 2012 when, despite the Church's clashes with Obama, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called out the Romney/Ryan budget plan as failing to meet the moral criteria of protecting the poor.

And other Catholic theologians & activists stated "this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news.../catholic-bishops-paul-ryan-budget/54361480/1

And of course, there was nothing new in the character of the Romney/Ryan budget; nothing at odds or new in comparison to GOP budgetary priorities of the past couple of decades.

IOW, if Huckabee really means what he says about those invitees, he should demand no less of his colleagues than the same non participation he expects of others on the guest list.