Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ovinomancer]

Firstly, this is a lovely gish gallop, but I'm game.

And that makes Republican racism ok?

Whoa, there, slow those goalposts down. You made the point that Muslims are born into their prejudices and values while racists choose it, and I pointed out that most racists are, in fact, born into their prejudices and values. That was a fair point on my behalf, and not a defense of racism, Republican or otherwise. The argument isn't to make racism okay, it's to point out the double standard often present within the argument, and I think you've done an admirable job of illustrating that here.

For the record, I have zero interest in defending racism -- I'm not going to even engage arguments that start by asking if I defend racism.

Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman.

Nope, at worst it's a tu quoque, in the middle it's a red herring, but at best it was an attempt to dismiss claims that the Republican party has a monopoly on racism, which is heavily implied by your arguments since that's all you're focusing on.

When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position.

You assert that the Republican party panders to racists and homophobes but you don't provide concrete examples. Again, looking to the platform, I don't see any racism. Homophobia, in the broad, overly used sense, probably exists in the defense of traditional marriage. However, that definition isn't really homophobia, it's part of the ongoing shift in culture. Twenty years ago, the nation had DADT and DOMA, and there wasn't a chance of homosexual marriage becoming the law of the land. Much has changed, but you seem to think that since not everyone changed that rapidly that they must be haters and horrid people. That's a fantastic way to alienate people and continue the cycle of hate. This use of homophobia is rather blatantly a rhetorical attack that allows ignoring an entire argument unheard on the basis of an ad hom. I don't agree with the traditional guys, but I also don't automatically assume that they believe the way they do because they hate gays. Some disappoint me and do, but most are just advocating their sincere beliefs and have nothing against homosexuals. Now, you can argue that, but it's better to ask than insult.

By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

Goalposts moving again -- racism and homophobia wasn't enough, so we pivot to another metric?

Okay. As to your first point, a quick google turns up quotes from Carson that no one should be allowed to exempt from mandatory vaccinations, that vaccinations are the best method to eradicate communicable diseases there is. So, I'm very confused as to what you mean here, as the evidence seems to disagree. I haven't bothered to look up Paul, as I generally don't think I need to do the homework to find evidence to back up anyone else's points.

As for your link about evolution, I'm going to say something very controversial: so what? Evolution is totally pointless to anyone not an evolutionary biologist or in another, very narrow, very specialized profession. It's just not impactful in any way. It's used as some kind of litmus test for being 'anti-science' but being anti-science is nonsense -- it's like saying someone is anti-screwdriver. Science is a toolset for finding truths about the natural world. It's not the only toolset available, and it's utterly silent on many other kinds of truths (morality, philosophy, politics, etc.). Someone can be an excellent brain surgeon and not believe in evolution, because it's not necessary to believe in evolution to do that job well. Carson's an excellent example of this.

Personally, I rather like evolution. Not the Darwinian version that most people think evolution is, but the really edgy stuff being studied right now. I'm not a fan of creationism -- it falls flat for me. But I'm also a fan of how cellphones work (I'm an EE specializing in communications work) -- it's what I love and it's pretty damn cool, especially some of the proposed next gen stuff. However, believing in how cell phones work (or even knowledge of it) is totally useless to the vast majority of people, and I'm okay with that. Evolution is even less useful knowledge, and I fail to understand why it's become the lightening rod it has. No, scratch that, I do understand -- it's a proxy for the war against religion. Religion is something I don't have, but I also don't feel the need to go take it away from others.

Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters

The spin on that comment was from the outrage brokers, and totally not the spirit with which it was said. It's a non-story, and certainly not indicative of racism as Jeb was outlining a constructive and respectful interest in engaging with black voters. Jeb's not the most articulate speaker, and all this is is an attack against a slightly inarticulate statement.

Which bring up the point the Biden referred to Obama with "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" without much comment, and that's far less articulate than what Jeb said. Do you have some opprobrium for that?

So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?

Ah, the heart of the gish gallop. As I said, I'm game.

There are plenty of Republicans that agree that there is institutional racism and it needs to be addressed. You can usually find these kinds of comments in smaller venue interviews, where there's time to get into that kind of issue. You seem to want Republicans to speak to your pet issues instead of their pet issues first before you'll withdraw your charges. I'm not sure that's very fair.

The second sentence is so trivially obvious that I'm not sure it needs to be said. There aren't any candidates arguing against contraceptives that I'm aware of, so why would this even come up? I don't hear it from Democrats, either, because it's obvious and not controversial for either mainstream. The only Republicanesque point on contraception that might come up is the belief that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.

Carson said people not vaccinating their kids is a problem. Christie said it. This isn't even an issue among the candidates -- they'll all agree to this.

Let's not touch climate change, as that's a very charged issue that does not brook middle positions, like that the Earth is warming, mankind has a hand in it, but that mitigation is a losing game. Bjorn Lomborg is a good example of this position. Suffice it to say that we'd disagree on this, not on the science, but on the likelihood of long tail warming and the usefulness of mitigation.

Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues.

It rather looks like that's true of the distorted image of Republicans you seem to have.

Who is against virtue?

Sorry, I dislike sentence level fisking, but I don't understand this question because I can't see what it refers to.

The thing is, you ignore how they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges.

Yes, when you realign government, you cut some things, deregulate others, and privatize still others. The Democrats want to reduce military spending. They plan to use cuts to do so. They also plan to deregulate some aspects of business. Does this mean that Democrats want to shrink the size of government? No, no it doesn't.

Look, obviously we're never going to agree on this topic - I've cited the platform that doesn't say shrink the size of government and you've totally ignored that in favor of even smaller arguments of how they plan to do realigning with tools that can also be used if you wanted to shrink the size of government. I don't think anything I say will matter in the least, so let's agree to disagree and move on.

What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?

I don't understand your question, it seems to be a non sequitur. But for your statement, yes, of course they want money from people that think things. However, we're talking about what Republicans believe, and that shows in what they do, not what they say. They don't shrink the government, even if they occasionally pander to people that do. The doing is indicative of what they believe, not the saying part -- that's just indicative of who they think they can get to give them money and votes.

But, again, I don't think I can say or show you anything that would ever change the concept of racist Republicans trying to shrink government and deny women rights, so I'm not going to try anymore. You're more than welcome to take that as a win, if you'd like.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am a democrat but know plenty of republicans who are not racists. That said, I do think the party has an issue when it comes to certain groups, both in terms of the party's reputation and in terms of policy. I can speak directly to the immigrant issue as my wife has a green card. One thing I don't think they understand is that most legal immigrants see attacks on illegal immigrants as attacks on them as well. So while the party may try to emphasize they are speaking about illegal immigrants, to members of the community, that doesn't matter, it feels like an attack on them and it attacks people they know and love. These are very mixed communities and there are people within them with mixed status. Some of this has to do with tone, some of it actual policy. It presently very hard to bring family members here. The process is slow. And people who are here legally often have a lot of trouble updating their status. When you have folks who have been here for decades and have roots, kicking them out has an enormous ripple affect that effects not just legal immigrants, but people born in this country with ties to them. A little more empathy and lot less fear mongering would go a long way. Just from a practical point of view, the party is clearly losing major demographics by pandering to the "they take our jobs" wing.

 

[gamerprinter]

In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw).

This must be a joke

 

[billd91]

In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths.

This definitely sets the tone. Once Christianity was legalized, persecution turned on the pagans and heretics (like Arius) who may have been Christian but differed from the orthodoxy being established.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.

It doesn't happen in the US. But it does happen in other parts of the world. There was a very serious one in Sudan not too long ago and in places like Isis controlled territory there are very real Christian persecutions going on. People make too much noise about that word here and in Europe where it doesn't apply (people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas isn't persecution) but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are Christians in other places who are persecuted.

 

[Henry]

It doesn't happen in the US. But it does happen in other parts of the world. There was a very serious one in Sudan not too long ago and in places like Isis controlled territory there are very real Christian persecutions going on. People make too much noise about that word here and in Europe where it doesn't apply (people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas isn't persecution) but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are Christians in other places who are persecuted.

I can imagine it's quite a different story in places like Iran for, say, the Armenian Christian minorities. And good luck if you are, say, an Iranian woman who converted from Islam to Christianity. Having your civil rights violated might be the least of your worries. I make no claims it's a widespread situation (maybe a few ten thousand?) but you can't say it's All X or all Y.

I'm just tired of people being dicks to one another day in, day out because they have the Truth on their side. And yes, I'm fully aware it's a pointless thing to be tired of by myself.

 

[Kramodlog]

You made the point that Muslims are born into their prejudices and values while racists choose it,

No, that is a strawman. I did not say that people chose to be racist, althought that isn't impossible for someone to do this. I said that people decide to join a organization that is racist or contains racist members, in this case the Republican party. That was different from being born in a religion.

it was an attempt to dismiss claims that the Republican party has a monopoly on racism,

Another strawman. I never claimed they had such a monopoly and that was never my point. Quote me if I did. Trying to make this about other parties is a distraction that is often used in this type of conversation.

You assert that the Republican party panders to racists and homophobes but you don't provide concrete examples.

Do I have to prove that water is wet? The real question is do you really deny that they pander to racists and homophobes or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Goalposts moving again -- racism and homophobia wasn't enough, so we pivot to another metric?

No, just adding examples to stenghten my point. Pandering to a certain anti-science crowd is also a Republican thing.

It's a non-story, and certainly not indicative of racism as Jeb was outlining a constructive and respectful interest in engaging with black voters.

Saying black people are just interested in free stuff is a racial stereotype rooted in a lot of racism. It reminds me of Santorum singling out black people as welfare recipients. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/ Why are black people the only recipients of free stuff or other people's money? Are they even the majority of recipients of government programs? If not, why single them out as beneficiaries? Could it be they are talking to a base who see black people as lazy moochers? Could they see black people as lazy moochers?

It rather looks like that's true of the distorted image of Republicans you seem to have.

It is the image they give out to appeal to their base. Not my fault.

Yes, when you realign government, you cut some things, deregulate others, and privatize still others.

Not necessarely. Those are just some of the things you can do when realigning government. What you mentioned are things proned by neoliberal ideology, the ideology that guides Republican policies when it comes to economics.

I don't understand your question, it seems to be a non sequitur.

Well, what I'm saying is that in a representative democracy, politicians and political parties do not exist in a vacuum. They try to appeal to segments of the population to get their support in the form of votes, money, volonteer work, etc. So, when you have candidates who say homophobic stuff, racist stuff, anti-science stuff, etc, well, it is because they are trying to get support from people who believe that stuff.

A few radical and marginal candidates should be expected in any political party. However, they shouldn't necessarely be taken as a tell-tale sign of racism, to name one issue, in a party. The problem with the Republicans is that those views are rampant among candidates, not marginal, and the politicians who have some of the most radical views are the ones leading in polls. My argument is that listening to Republican politicians will tell you a lot about the Republican base.

That doesn't mean every Republican shares those views. But how rampant those views are and the lack of moderate candidates could indicate either two things that aren't necessarely mutually exclusive. Either the segment of the base who opposes these views is too small for politicians to try to appeal to them, or part of the base just doesn't care about issues like racism and homophobia. This indifference just means that those who have racist and homophobic agendas get a freepass to push their hateful policies.

When someone joins an organisation where racists and homophobes have a freepass to push their agenda, why shouldn't that person be judged by the people she decided to associate with? I won't judge all Muslim because ISIS is a Muslim organisation, but I'll judge people who joins ISIS.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, that is a strawman. I did not say that people chose to be racist, althought that isn't impossible for someone to do this. I said that people decide to join a organization that is racist or contains racist members, in this case the Republican party. That was different from being born in a religion.

Another strawman. I never claimed they had such a monopoly and that was never my point. Quote me if I did. Trying to make this about other parties is a distraction that is often used in this type of conversation.

Do I have to prove that water is wet? The real question is do you really deny that they pander to racists and homophobes or are you just playing devil's advocate?

No, just adding examples to stenghten my point. Pandering to a certain anti-science crowd is also a Republican thing.

Saying black people are just interested in free stuff is a racial stereotype rooted in a lot of racism. It reminds me of Santorum singling out black people as welfare recipients. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/ Why are black people the only recipients of free stuff or other people's money? Are they even the majority of recipients of government programs? If not, why single them out as beneficiaries? Could it be they are talking to a base who see black people as lazy moochers? Could they see black people as lazy moochers?

It is the image they give out to appeal to their base. Not my fault.

Not necessarely. Those are just some of the things you can do when realigning government. What you mentioned are things proned by neoliberal ideology, the ideology that guides Republican policies when it comes to economics.

Well, what I'm saying is that in a representative democracy, politicians and political parties do not exist in a vacuum. They try to appeal to segments of the population to get their support in the form of votes, money, volonteer work, etc. So, when you have candidates who say homophobic stuff, racist stuff, anti-science stuff, etc, well, it is because they are trying to get support from people who believe that stuff.

A few radical and marginal candidates should be expected in any political party. However, they shouldn't necessarely be taken as a tell-tale sign of racism, to name one issue, in a party. The problem with the Republicans is that those views are rampant among candidates, not marginal, and the politicians who have some of the most radical views are the ones leading in polls. My argument is that listening to Republican politicians will tell you a lot about the Republican base.

That doesn't mean every Republican shares those views. But how rampant those views are and the lack of moderate candidates could indicate either two things that aren't necessarely mutually exclusive. Either the segment of the base who opposes these views is too small for politicians to try to appeal to them, or part of the base just doesn't care about issues like racism and homophobia. This indifference just means that those who have racist and homophobic agendas get a freepass to push their hateful policies.

When someone joins an organisation where racists and homophobes have a freepass to push their agenda, why shouldn't that person be judged by the people she decided to associate with? I won't judge all Muslim because ISIS is a Muslim organisation, but I'll judge people who joins ISIS.

Unless and until you actually provide specifics about what policies and positions you're using to label a party that represents a third of the country as racist, I see no value in continuing a conversation that seems to only exist so that you can continue to make insults.

If you decide to do so, linking the party platform positions would be extremely useful. Failing that, a sufficed good pointer to where the policies was expounded or stated would be sufficient. That way, we can ask be on the same page and discuss without confusion.

 

[Sadras]

In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.

You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.