" Persecuted" Christians Post Their Prime Lodgings Online

[R. S. Martin]

Obviously, this does not apply to all Christians. It applies only to those Christians who live in a Western nation such as Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, and other West European countries where freedom of religion is practiced and Christians walk the streets at will and freely assemble for worship and preachings, air their programs and publish their literature, and in some cases openly participate in parliament as Christians--yet claim they are being persecuted.

 

I may have missed some countries but you will know if your country classifies or not. This does not apply to those Christians who do not claim to be persecuted when, in fact, they are not being persecuted. Nor does it apply to those Christians who live in countries where their religion is illegal and they suffer prosecution by the state authorities and/or loved ones. I recognize that there probably are some "grey in-between areas" that are not be mentioned here; this does not apply to them. This applies only to those Christians who are not being persecuted but claim they are. See below for more clarification.

 

Let me explain. Our local secular humanist book club is reading a book The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Nationalism in Canada, by Marci McDonald, 2010. For those interested in my detailed thoughts on selected topics in McDonald, see Canada's Bible Belt.* Basically, this book confirms what I have been sensing for some time; there is a Bible Belt in Canada. McDonald hints at being Christian of some stripe but states that, since her type of beliefs would not count with "real" Christians, it matters little for the purpose of the book what her personal beliefs are and therefore she does not state them.

 

A message that comes through in a big way is that conservative or "real" Christians think Canada has gone bad because of secular humanists. However, no statistics or other evidence is ever given to prove that it was because of a majority vote by secular humanists that bills such as same-sex marriage went through or that abortion was legalized. McDonald meticulously traces how these and similar contraversail bills passed, or did not pass. She names names--of people and institutions--and she lists who believed what regarding these issues.

 

If there were stats or other evidence proving that it was secular humanists who brought about unwanted (by the religious right) changes to Canada, it would be evident by the end of the book. It's not there. Only the accusation is there. In a big way.

This post is about the Christian claim of persecution by secular humanists. See above for where I'm coming from.

 

I was going to look at the website of Canada Christian College school in Ottawa, our nation's capital. But when Google also brought up Canada Christian College Hotels, I had to have a look. It appears to be an entire website dedicated to lodging for parties visiting Canada Christian College.

 

I can hear the Christians saying, "So what? Haven't we got a right to help each other find lodging?"

 

My response: Sure, feel free to continue such humanistic acts of kindness. Normally, however, only royalty has a high enough profile combined with enough prestige to make it worth the time and expense necessary to alert the public of its entourages and lodgings. So please! in the name of common decency, stop all pretenses that you are being persecuted.

 

[LATER: After a bit more research I see that Carleton University in Ottawa also has a website for hotels in its vicinity. Maybe that is the standard way of doing things. But I maintain, a persecuted people would NOT do it--they would stay out of Ottawa to begin with!]

 

According to my study of the truly persecuted, whether slaves fleeing their Christian masters or minority group Christians such as Anabaptists fleeing powerful State Church governments, Rule #1 states: Under no circumstances shall you reveal your lodging to either friend or foe. Too many lives depended on NO ONE knowing who or what the "underground railroad" was.

 

Since these conservative Christians post their lodging for the entire world to see, I take this to serve as evidence that today's Christians on this continent don't have the slightest clue as to what "persecution" even means.

 

They only have the idea that they need it (persecution) as proof of God's stamp of approval. There is no wonder about this. The words "persecution" and "persecute" appear 38 times in the KJV New Testament, beginning with Jesus blessing and promotion of it from Matthew's Beatitudes to John's Revelation. 2Tim. 3:12 affirms: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

 

In other words, if Christians are not being persecuted, they are of necessity not living godly lives. This makes it necessary for Christians to invent persecution if no real persecution exists.

 

Since the closest thing they can wring out of their opponents today is disagreement, and in some less noble cases open mockery, they happily slap the label "persecution" onto mere disagreement and, more understandably, onto harmless mockery. Secular humanists are named an awful lot of times in McDonald's book, as though for some reason we rank very high on the list of opponents. As stated above, no evidence is provided in McDonald or in real life, for such an accusation.

 

Conditions Under Which Christians Could Justify Claims of Persecution by Secular Humanists:

 

• When and if we see secular humanists throwing mud-balls with jagged pieces of glass at any Christian who dares show his face on a public school campus, or if we see said humanists bully and bloody said Christians in some other way every time humanists meet Christians, it might justly be said that the Christians on this continent are suffering persecution at the hands of humanists.
• When and if laws are put into effect by a majority vote by self-professed secular humanists** to imprison any teacher or parent who so much as mentions God or the Bible on private or church property, or any person of any age who dares to pray silently on private or public property--then it might justly be said that the Christians on this continent are being persecuted by secular humanists.
• When and if Christians are being hunted down, imprisoned, tortured, and even killed by secular humanists for holding beliefs different from secular humanists, then it may justifiably be said that secular humanists are persecuting Christians.

So long as we merely stand up for our beliefs and our rights, and request that our wishes be heard, no one--Christian or otherwise--in a supposedly democratic country has the right to accuse us secular humanists of persecuting anyone.

 

Now for a look at those posh--or not-so-posh--hotels and lodging places.

 

*Christians are free to debate on this thread but not at the link.

**I suppose the Christians will accuse the humanists for not coming out and professing their affiliation. Here's why: We don't enjoy it when you mock us for not believing in your God, etc. or when you blame us for all that's wrong with the world when we are conscientious, law-abiding citizens living according to the Golden Rule by day and by night. There is no need for us to come out and profess our creed only to be mocked for it so we don't. I can see why you don't like to accept this bit of information; you want to be seen as the persecuted minority. Sorry to disillusion you, but you're not a minority and you're not persecuted. Come to terms with it.

[lunaticheathen]

Thank you. Thank you, THANK YOU! This is a loved mantra of the Evangelical insane retards, and you're just right, being self-professed "martyrs" makes them more holy to the idiots who listen to them.

I had rocks thrown at me by christians for being pagan. When pagans, or humanists, or anyone else, on THIS CONTINENT are doing the same to a christian MINORITY (which they are not), then they will be persecuted.

I have been persecuted. It pisses me off to NO GODDAMN END when they claim it.

[R. S. Martin]

I see in the end I forgot something. Re 2Tim. 3:12. I just said what it appears to me to be saying--that Christians are told they will be persecuted if they live godly lives, i.e. if they are not persecuted they are not living godly lives. I am routinely told that as an atheist I cannot possibly know what the scriptures really mean. Hopefully, that also applies to this verse. It might stop all this pretend-persecution syndrome from these people.

 

Lunatic, I see your post. Thank you for understanding it the way I meant it and for not taking offense that I post as an atheist. It's just easier to post as my real self.

 

Having rocks thrown at you because of your beliefs certainly counts as persecution. Do you live in the American South? Possibly it's on your avatar. If you returned the favor and threw rocks at the Christian mob, I suppose you'd be tarred and feathered?

[lunaticheathen]

Lunatic, I see your post. Thank you for understanding it the way I meant it and for not taking offense that I post as an atheist. It's just easier to post as my real self.

 

We're both ex-christians. I think we're the same here, in that capacity.

 

Having rocks thrown at you because of your beliefs certainly counts as persecution. Do you live in the American South? Possibly it's on your avatar. If you returned the favor and threw rocks at the Christian mob, I suppose you'd be tarred and feathered?

 

It happened in Alabama. I hate that place. I hate most of the people there. I still live in the South, but New Orleans is different, thank the goddess. People don't care what I believe in this city, and I love it that way. Christian, atheist, pagan, Hare Krishna, Zen, we have those and more, and no one cares. One of the many reasons I moved here, other than this being an awesome city.

[Antlerman]

At the heart of the fundamentalist message is the "us-versus-them" mentality. To claim persecution reinforces that. So it's no wonder they seek to manufacture reasons in an otherwise pluralistic society to view themselves as some special group that no one can tolerate or want around, even to the point of creating a spirit of animosity towards themselves through their self-declared wars against culture and others who choose other points of view to live by.

 

The claim of persecution (when none exists), is a form of self preservation and self promotion. The meaning of their existence lives behind the view of "we-oppose-this" or a "we're-not-them" mentality. To simply live peaceably with others denies them the very thing that defines the reason for their existing in the first place.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I never got the persecution complex, not even as a conservative baptist christian. I was told we were being persecuted, but I didn't feel persecuted because of religion. There are people who really are being persecuted in this country, and I don't know about Canada, but it isn't christians, the vast majority in the country of people.

[dagnarus]

I never got the persecution complex, not even as a conservative baptist christian. I was told we were being persecuted, but I didn't feel persecuted because of religion. There are people who really are being persecuted in this country, and I don't know about Canada, but it isn't christians, the vast majority in the country of people.

 

That would depend on your definition of Christian. Secondly how they justify the idea that they specifically are "persecuted" probably makes more sense when you realize that they most likely think at least on some level that when bad things are done to pagans, athiests, homosexuals, that that is justice, not persecution, it only persecution when it done to them because they are doing good. Third alh most important, what Antler said.

[Antlerman]

I never got the persecution complex, not even as a conservative baptist christian. I was told we were being persecuted, but I didn't feel persecuted because of religion. There are people who really are being persecuted in this country, and I don't know about Canada, but it isn't christians, the vast majority in the country of people.

[PaulQ]

When I was a Christian, I was taught that it was my duty to persecute those who were not religious. A common tactic of the religious Christian, at least with the crazier ones I've seen, is to take what they're doing to others, then turn it around and pretend it's happening to them.

[R. S. Martin]

When I was a Christian, I was taught that it was my duty to persecute those who were not religious. A common tactic of the religious Christian, at least with the crazier ones I've seen, is to take what they're doing to others, then turn it around and pretend it's happening to them.

 

Wow! Just wow!

 

That fits the situation to a T of what I observed on William Lane Craig's forums.

 

The things of which they accused us atheists and other skeptics fitted the Christians exactly. But never, in my wildest dreams, could I have imagined that anyone would consciously do this--much less teach others to do it. I think there's something in the Bible about people who do this and it's not complimentary.

 

I was aware of the "lying for Jesus" tactic because people on here talked about it. But strangely, they never responded when I accused them of it. No matter how often I quoted Rev. 21:8 where it says all liars will go to hell, and I quoted/referenced it consistently for about a year, they never ever responded to it.

 

How very strange of people who claim to believe in every word in the Bible.

[R. S. Martin]

At the heart of the fundamentalist message is the "us-versus-them" mentality. To claim persecution reinforces that. So it's no wonder they seek to manufacture reasons in an otherwise pluralistic society to view themselves as some special group that no one can tolerate or want around, even to the point of creating a spirit of animosity towards themselves through their self-declared wars against culture and others who choose other points of view to live by.

 

I am curious how you would respond to the fact that in so doing they tend to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I.e. they tend to make themselves so obnoxious that they become intolerable. You say further on in your post that that's the meaning of their existence. Would that explain why they cannot see how atheists and nonChristian religious people can have a meaningful life because the meaning of our existence does not depend on an we're-not-them basis?

 

I guess this delves pretty deeply into the unconscious psyche.

 

The claim of persecution (when none exists), is a form of self preservation and self promotion. The meaning of their existence lives behind the view of "we-oppose-this" or a "we're-not-them" mentality. To simply live peaceably with others denies them the very thing that defines the reason for their existing in the first place.

 

The "we're not them" mentality is what I was raised on and it's quite easy to maintain when you're in a horse and buggy group with strict rules of dress and lifestyle to define the boundaries. But when I moved to the modern Mennonite churches where people dressed and lived like the rest of society, and people still talked like that--I was really confused.

 

Based on all the criteria I had ever known, which was considerable, these people were "them"--no questions asked. I told them so. They just said I raised good questions/points. I expected more discussion, some kind of defense for what they were saying, because these were PhDs in mainline academic schools and they should have been able to explain the basis of their claims. None was forthcoming. What I wanted so desperately above all else was evidence for this god they were promoting. But none was forthcoming for that, either. Later I was told they thought I was looking for money.

 

Good heavens! I had food, clothes, and shelter. If I'd needed material help I would have asked.

 

Back to the "we're not them" mentality. It's the lies produced by that mentality that disillusioned me so fast. Had they (horse and buggy preachers, teachers, and parents) not insisted that we are not evil like "the world," which included everyone not distinctly Mennonite or Amish, they might have had a much stronger hold on me.

 

But they made it so easy to disprove their claims. Anyone can see that "the world" is just as good as we are, if not better. Of course, I needed the opportunity to encounter "worldly" people and they did a fairly good job at preventing this from happening. On top of that, I needed a really strong reason to want to leave, which I didn't have for a long time. However, once I had the reason to leave, I no longer feared "the world" for its evil people because that lie had been cleared away long ago.

 

The irony exists in the fact that it is Christian doctrine to preach and teach capital-letter Truth. Yet those who truly seek truth are all too often led away from Christianity.

 

Have I somehow rambled off-topic. Sorry.

[Antlerman]

At the heart of the fundamentalist message is the "us-versus-them" mentality. To claim persecution reinforces that. So it's no wonder they seek to manufacture reasons in an otherwise pluralistic society to view themselves as some special group that no one can tolerate or want around, even to the point of creating a spirit of animosity towards themselves through their self-declared wars against culture and others who choose other points of view to live by.

 

I am curious how you would respond to the fact that in so doing they tend to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I.e. they tend to make themselves so obnoxious that they become intolerable.

I agree it is largely a self-fulfilled prophecy, for whatever underling motives on their part. To declare war on culture, which they have explicitly stated in from the pulpits of the Christian Right through our political systems, is a polarizing act to say the least. Actively manipulating the social, political, and religious systems to halt or deprive others of seeking agreed upon change (such as woman's rights, racial equalities, religious freedoms, etc), create themselves as an enemy to others. There is a marked difference between being active to secure freedoms for individual and group rights, and being active to stop that change because it is change, without regard to the individual or the group's rights.

 

I am more than willing to allow them the freedom in their lives and their groups to choose whatever beliefs and practices suit them. But that does not extend to a belief or practice that results in depriving that privilege to others. Those that do that go beyond being separate as a group, to becoming a persecutor of others in the interest of domination.

 

You say further on in your post that that's the meaning of their existence. Would that explain why they cannot see how atheists and nonChristian religious people can have a meaningful life because the meaning of our existence does not depend on an we're-not-them basis?

I would say they cannot see how others can see things differently because they have tunnel-vision. They have not matured socially enough to practice empathy. They cannot put themselves into the shoes of anyone outside their worldview to imagine any legitimacy to their perspectives. It is a child's mentality.

 

One doesn't have to value or embrace another's perspective for themselves in order to be able to give respect to them as much as you do your own point of view. The immature mind cannot see beyond itself and allow for any other point of view to be as valid or possibly even more valid than their own. Instead it experiences discomfort and sees it as a threat to their own stability to allow for another view to exist. It is either their view or the others, as there can only be one reality - theirs. And the more integrally entwined all aspects of their lives are to that single perspective, the greater threat other perspectives are to them, and the greater the reactionary behavior; irrationality, declarations of war, and even violent response. And that doesn't apply to just the religious, but any single-vision ideology.

 

The fundamentalist is the single-perspective view pulled up over every aspect of their lives, and if they cannot be isolated geographically and are forced economically to intermingle with society, they are poised mentally and emotionally to act out towards it in intolerant ways. The only intolerance they are shown, is a response of intolerance to intolerance. Which is a legitimate moral response.

 

The claim of persecution (when none exists), is a form of self preservation and self promotion. The meaning of their existence lives behind the view of "we-oppose-this" or a "we're-not-them" mentality. To simply live peaceably with others denies them the very thing that defines the reason for their existing in the first place.

Back to the "we're not them" mentality. It's the lies produced by that mentality that disillusioned me so fast. Had they (horse and buggy preachers, teachers, and parents) not insisted that we are not evil like "the world," which included everyone not distinctly Mennonite or Amish, they might have had a much stronger hold on me.

 

But they made it so easy to disprove their claims. Anyone can see that "the world" is just as good as we are, if not better. Of course, I needed the opportunity to encounter "worldly" people and they did a fairly good job at preventing this from happening. On top of that, I needed a really strong reason to want to leave, which I didn't have for a long time. However, once I had the reason to leave, I no longer feared "the world" for its evil people because that lie had been cleared away long ago.

It is actually this very thing that led to my deep disillusionment with them as well. The whole mentality of demonizing the world, of artificially looking at others outside the group like two-dimensional characters of no moral depth or conscious, fodder for the flames of hell and God's wrath while saving us righteous few who claimed enlightenment all the while while passing judgment on others based on nothing more than a doctrinal statement of belief; it's that encounter with the depth, power, and beauty living in others everywhere beyond the manufactured walls of our group that led me to leave them and now to understand just how manufactured they are.

 

The irony exists in the fact that it is Christian doctrine to preach and teach capital-letter Truth. Yet those who truly seek truth are all too often led away from Christianity.

I agree with the irony part. They used all the right words, but they had no meaning, no depth. To use linguistic terms, the signifiers became the signified themselves.

 

 

Some interesting thoughts to share on this with you that you might gain perspective from. I've been doing genealogical research into my family history and discovered that my great grandfather had been part of a Utopian Society! It was a city formed in 1901 as a Christian religion city called Zion, planned and built by a man named John Alexander Dowie. My great grandfather was part of the original 6000 who moved there and lived the rest of his days there until he died in the 1930's. It was a city that you had to be part of the church to live there, and it was intolerant of any practices that went against their church, which was a forerunner to the Pentecostal movement which sprang up later.

 

You can tell a lot about the mentality of a people by looking at their printed materials, and even more so their art work and political cartoons. In that world being a strict religious community, attitudes expressed in this would be tightly conformed to. I would say that the mainstream mindset would find these something they would identify themselves with positively.

 

I'm including a couple of these cartoons to make a point. You will see in them how Zion City is portrayed as gleaming and righteous, and how they portray and attack other progressive Christian clergy and the sinner of smokers and drinkers and whatnot. They set themselves up here, and others there in two-dimensional forms. Their identity, their strength lies in the power of membership secured through conformity. I find these, and the others quite revealing into this:

 

 

The flags on the two dark figures in the cart read, "Denominational Minister" and "Spiritually Blind, Disobedient Church".

 

(If you click on the image they will enlarge to full print and you can read all of it).

 

 

This one shows again other apostate religions like the Methodists, those who practice medicine, modern theologies, etc.

 

All these are examples of that early us-versus-them mentality that has defined fundamentalism ever since. You make yourself the shining city by painting pictures of everyone else as lost and in darkness. There are many others but you get the point.

 

One more, since it shows pretty much everyone else in the world:

 

 

(Fortunately my grandfather fled Zion City when he was a young man, returning only to visit his father and other family remaining there!)

[Guest end3]

One doesn't have to value or embrace another's perspective for themselves in order to be able to give respect to them as much as you do your own point of view. The immature mind cannot see beyond itself and allow for any other point of view to be as valid or possibly even more valid than their own. Instead it experiences discomfort and sees it as a threat to their own stability to allow for another view to exist. It is either their view or the others, as there can only be one reality - theirs. And the more integrally entwined all aspects of their lives are to that single perspective, the greater threat other perspectives are to them, and the greater the reactionary behavior; irrationality, declarations of war, and even violent response. And that doesn't apply to just the religious, but any single-vision ideology.

 

Can't we describe the "immature mind" as just that? Is the discomfort you describe not potentially from a trial, an unrest, etc., that is in the process of being relieved through Christianity or maybe through other means? Would you not also be protective of the means that has given you relief? Granted I understand you describing Christian "fundamentalism" as it's own definition, but I don't see that this description doesn't fit anyone who has been "lost" and found their way by some means. The point being, can we not recognize immaturity for what it is? I do see your last sentence in the paragraph.

[Guest end3]

It is actually this very thing that led to my deep disillusionment with them as well. The whole mentality of demonizing the world, of artificially looking at others outside the group like two-dimensional characters of no moral depth or conscious, fodder for the flames of hell and God's wrath while saving us righteous few who claimed enlightenment all the while while passing judgment on others based on nothing more than a doctrinal statement of belief; it's that encounter with the depth, power, and beauty living in others everywhere beyond the manufactured walls of our group that led me to leave them and now to understand just how manufactured they are.

 

Manufactured by what means? The excess love in the beautiful worldly people? Wow.

[Antlerman]

One doesn't have to value or embrace another's perspective for themselves in order to be able to give respect to them as much as you do your own point of view. The immature mind cannot see beyond itself and allow for any other point of view to be as valid or possibly even more valid than their own. Instead it experiences discomfort and sees it as a threat to their own stability to allow for another view to exist. It is either their view or the others, as there can only be one reality - theirs. And the more integrally entwined all aspects of their lives are to that single perspective, the greater threat other perspectives are to them, and the greater the reactionary behavior; irrationality, declarations of war, and even violent response. And that doesn't apply to just the religious, but any single-vision ideology.

 

Can't we describe the "immature mind" as just that? Is the discomfort you describe not potentially from a trial, an unrest, etc., that is in the process of being relieved through Christianity or maybe through other means?

I'll grant that people do act out irrationally when facing personal trials, and that some of that can be putting up walls of defense. I'd say that individuals within it may have varying personal reasons for it. Some just are plain old closed-minded people unwilling to grow. But the fact that as a general stance that fundamentalism is closing-off response to change, that attracts people to something where the end effect is the same. It is a pathology, and those who aren't going through a personal process to find something deeper and higher, will likely have nothing other than group identity as the core of their person. And that's sad.

 

Remember, I was a fundamentalist for a time for a reason. Fortunately, it was part of a process I needed to go through at the time and not a home for me. But again, the fundamentalism as a movement is defined by its being an us-versus-them mentality. Individuals who that appeals to will always come. It is an immature mentality nonetheless, and when I was in it "I thought as a child, I spake as a child, etc".

 

Would you not also be protective of the means that has given you relief?

The protectiveness I described about I would say was about hiding, not finding relief. It's a wall of defense to protect oneself from facing something that for whatever reason they are unable to face. As long as they remain there they are not finding relief. Hopefully the pull of something greater will cause them to face those reasons and move beyond what they felt to hide themselves away behind that wall.

 

Granted I understand you describing Christian "fundamentalism" as it's own definition, but I don't see that this description doesn't fit anyone who has been "lost" and found their way by some means. The point being, can we not recognize immaturity for what it is? I do see your last sentence in the paragraph.

And hiding behind a wall of defense is immaturity. It's not facing yourself, going through the painful process of growth, and becoming a mature and compassionate person.

[Antlerman]

It is actually this very thing that led to my deep disillusionment with them as well. The whole mentality of demonizing the world, of artificially looking at others outside the group like two-dimensional characters of no moral depth or conscious, fodder for the flames of hell and God's wrath while saving us righteous few who claimed enlightenment all the while while passing judgment on others based on nothing more than a doctrinal statement of belief; it's that encounter with the depth, power, and beauty living in others everywhere beyond the manufactured walls of our group that led me to leave them and now to understand just how manufactured they are.

 

Manufactured by what means? The excess love in the beautiful worldly people? Wow.

Manufactured by fear. The methods are obvious.

 

People being cruel and unloving in the world is no excuse for them to remain behind self-created fortresses of ignorance using other people as an excuse. There are also vast seas of loving humans from all walks of life "out there" as well. But their walls of defense condemn them as well. And how is that mature?

[Guest end3]

I'll grant that people do act out irrationally when facing personal trials, and that some of that can be putting up walls of defense. I'd say that individuals within it may have varying personal reasons for it.

 

I am saying that there is a propensity towards remaining within a behavior that provides releif.

 

 

Some just are plain old closed-minded people unwilling to grow.

 

Fundamentalism is a part of the process.....hence the root fundamental.

 

 

But the fact that as a general stance that fundamentalism is closing-off response to change, that attracts people to something where the end effect is the same.

 

Imagine that.....peace.

 

It is a pathology, and those who aren't going through a personal process to find something deeper and higher, will likely have nothing other than group identity as the core of their person. And that's sad.

 

It's no more a pathology that anything else.

 

Remember, I was a fundamentalist for a time for a reason.

 

I rest my case.

 

Fortunately, it was part of a process I needed to go through at the time and not a home for me.

 

Judge, I rest my case already.

 

But again, the fundamentalism as a movement is defined by its being an us-versus-them mentality. Individuals who that appeals to will always come. It is an immature mentality nonetheless, and when I was in it "I thought as a child, I spake as a child, etc".

 

Let's all pray that everyone at least start the process, shall we? .......Dear Lord, we gather together.....

[R. S. Martin]

A-man, thanks for your insightful comments. Also for that bit of religious history from your own family.

 

The cartoons were interesting. Again, oh the irony! The "sermons" are so very familiar; only the mouths they are coming out of are different.

 

 

This one shows again other apostate religions like the Methodists

 

"Apostate religions." But the Amish believe that any images of humans violate biblical injunctions. These Zion cartoons would be an "apostate religion" to the Amish. And also to the Mennonites I came from. To the Mennonites mainly because they are baptizing by immersion and advertizing their religion--trying to be so holy and spiritual and whatnot.

 

But Zion's idea that it is the one true church is very similar to the idea held by the Amish and also by the Mennonite group I come from regarding their own selves as being the true light of the world. All of this agrees with Marci McDonald who calls the religious right in Canada a "coat of many colours." She describes some of the difficulties denominations have in working together for common causes.

 

In an earlier post you showed a pie depicting the various religions of the US. I don't know what a similar break-up of Canada's population would look like. I think it was for British Columbia that a list of other religions, e.g. Sheiks, Hindus, etc., was also provided for the make-up of the religious right.

 

McDonald emphasizes that most of the Canadian religious right do not under any circumstances want to appear as brash as a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson because it is unCanadian, but that a few prominent and successful leaders of the present generation do take that approach. It seems one organization was accused of having had American preachers come over the border and the guy said, "Oh that more would come!" It seems some American wrote a detailed handbook on "how to do it" and some of the Canadians are using it.

 

Also, according to McDonald, there are schools in Canada and in the United States training students to take over the government for the religious right. Canada Christian School is the Canadian version. I forget the name of the American one. According to her research, a large number of alumni from both schools work in federal government offices in each country, respectively. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper elected in 2006, who is a political conservative and religious evangelical, apparently comes from an early version of such a system.

[R. S. Martin]

Can't we describe the "immature mind" as just that? Is the discomfort you describe not potentially from a trial, an unrest, etc., that is in the process of being relieved through Christianity or maybe through other means? Would you not also be protective of the means that has given you relief? Granted I understand you describing Christian "fundamentalism" as it's own definition, but I don't see that this description doesn't fit anyone who has been "lost" and found their way by some means. The point being, can we not recognize immaturity for what it is? I do see your last sentence in the paragraph.

 

End3, I know you have me on ignore but maybe someone else with read this. This thread is not about being protective of what has given you relief. It is about people who are in a position of protecting their beliefs in high public places and still claiming they are being persecuted.

 

One thing you do not need is the sanction of public law to pray in secret to your Father who seeth in secret and rewardeth thee openly (Matt. 6:6). If prayer, the Bible, and religious instruction are taken out of public schools, you have a number of options among which are to pray in secret (while at school) and attend religious instruction and Bible study outside of school hours.

 

As a secular humanist, I must violate my conscience to subject myself to gods, Sacred Texts, and prayer when learning about life and making important decisions. Can't you see how grossly unfair it is of you as a Christian to force me to undergo such inhumane treatment on a daily basis for no other reason than that it makes you feel comfortable?

 

So I won't post the Ten Principles of Humanism and you won't post the Ten Commandments. I won't have readings from Robert Ingersol or Bertrand Russel and you won't have readings from the Bible. I won't meditate audibly on the great achievements of humanity and you won't audibly repeat the Lord's Prayer. Does this seem fair to you?

 

If not, please explain. However, be informed that for various reasons the following argument won't work: "My reason is better than yours because my god/religion is more true than yours."

 

And yes, I am protective of that which has given me relief, i.e. freedom from religion. So please! allow me the right to really be free.

[Guest end3]

I don't have you on ignore Ruby.....and I apologize if I was not on track with the theme of the thread.....it happens alot with me. I think the point would be that we each potentially possess a vote in the freedoms we enjoy. The line between our individual truths and adament belief in those truths is contentious and ill-defined on occasion....so I would guess improved communication, empathy, and less whining would be a good start.

[Guest end3]

People being cruel and unloving in the world is no excuse for them to remain behind self-created fortresses of ignorance using other people as an excuse. There are also vast seas of loving humans from all walks of life "out there" as well. But their walls of defense condemn them as well. And how is that mature?

 

I think the key words here are excuse and ignorance. You have placed the word excuse on the process with bias. Ignorace may sure be valid, but excuse seems a little harsh. Don't you think the walls of defence can be just a real as your experience? Condemnation abouds equally it appears.

 

To the maturity thing.....looking at the Bible and structure of the Tabernacle, there is more than one group and economy at hand......levels in God if you wish, levels of "maturity".....the outer court, inner court, holy place, holy of holies. You were saying?

[lunaticheathen]

I don't have you on ignore Ruby.....and I apologize if I was not on track with the theme of the thread.....it happens alot with me. I think the point would be that we each potentially possess a vote in the freedoms we enjoy. The line between our individual truths and adament belief in those truths is contentious and ill-defined on occasion....so I would guess improved communication, empathy, and less whining would be a good start.

 

Yes, it would be a good start. You get evangelicals to stop whining that they are being persecuted for not being allowed to rule the government and schools and everyone's lives with their chosen brand of christianity, and we will have nothing to discuss in this thread at all. Fair?

[Antlerman]

I'll grant that people do act out irrationally when facing personal trials, and that some of that can be putting up walls of defense. I'd say that individuals within it may have varying personal reasons for it.

 

I am saying that there is a propensity towards remaining within a behavior that provides releif.

Such as drug abuse and alcoholism? And my point is as I said, those really aren't relief but hiding from the necessary pain of growth to find relief through that - growth.

 

Some just are plain old closed-minded people unwilling to grow.

 

Fundamentalism is a part of the process.....hence the root fundamental.

I'm not sure I would agree. BTW, this does pertain to the topic as it goes towards looking at the nature of fundamentalism as to why it seeks to play victim and cry persecution when its really not.

 

Let me explain something I touched on earlier at the end of my last post. Fundamentalism is an entity, and that entity is defined by reactionary behaviors. Individuals may participate in it as part of their individual process of growth, but fundamentalism will always be fundamentalism regardless of who is participating in it. Therefore I would not consider fundamentalism per se' as a growth process. I would consider it a pathology, an unhealthy sidetrack that hopefully as one finds themselves within it, something existential inside will awaken and say "Enough with this sickness!", and leave it.

 

In that sense, it becomes part of that individuals process. Sometimes, people need to get worse before they can get better. But I wouldn't consider fundamentalism part of a healthy process. If it were, then everyone should go that route. You see the difference? It may become part of an individuals process, but for others it is their disease like alcoholism. And all the behaviors, irrationalities, denials, etc - those I consider the pathological symptoms of fundamentalism itself.

 

But the fact that as a general stance that fundamentalism is closing-off response to change, that attracts people to something where the end effect is the same.

 

Imagine that.....peace.

You believe shutting yourself off from others is the road to peace? I'd call that escape. Your idea of relief and peace in these contexts are what I'd call in hiding and escape. Those are neither relief nor peace, but a sad, unfulfilled illusion of them, like drowning yourself in booze. That's not facing the day. That's not integrating with life. It's escaping it in unhealthy ways.

[Antlerman]

It is a pathology, and those who aren't going through a personal process to find something deeper and higher, will likely have nothing other than group identity as the core of their person. And that's sad.

 

It's no more a pathology that anything else.

Really? Do you consider paths that lead to respect and peace with others that are different than you to be a pathology? Fundamentalism is a pathology, a symptom of a problem, and "by their fruits you shall know them".

 

Remember, I was a fundamentalist for a time for a reason.

 

I rest my case.

And I mine. This is completely consistent with what I said. I think you just didn't follow it which is why I tried explaining it a little more in depth above. I can go much deeper if you'd like.

 

But again, the fundamentalism as a movement is defined by its being an us-versus-them mentality. Individuals who that appeals to will always come. It is an immature mentality nonetheless, and when I was in it "I thought as a child, I spake as a child, etc".

 

Let's all pray that everyone at least start the process, shall we? .......Dear Lord, we gather together.....

Like any developing organism (or system), hopefully sickness will become healed and mended and the individual will become stronger for it. If you must pray for others, then do so for those who mistake escape for rest and never begin to access and realize their fuller potentials as a vibrant, vital human being.

 

 

A note on rest: I would say that rest is only for a time, as we are ever changing, ever growing. To be non-changing is to go against life and is for all intents and purpose the definition of death. Fundamentalism seeks to resist change. Fundamentalism for all intents and purposes seeks death. And that is but one reason why it is a pathology.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't have you on ignore Ruby.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I think the point would be that we each potentially possess a vote in the freedoms we enjoy. The line between our individual truths and adament belief in those truths is contentious and ill-defined on occasion....so I would guess improved communication, empathy, and less whining would be a good start.

 

This sounds fairly decent. However, I would like to see the admission that Christians as a group are not persecuted by any other group per se in Canada or the United States.

 

I realize there may be isolated individual cases in which a person converts against the wishes of friends and family. But that person must, of course, be very careful to note whether he/she is trying to convert said friends and family. If so, the "persecution" may be for a reason; those around the new convert do NOT want to be force-fed your religion. They have the right to be free from religion. You can have your religion, but have keep it to yourself.

 

If the Christian is obnoxious (by constantly talking about his or her beliefs to uninterested parties, a.k.a. "pushing religion"), he/she can expect less than friendly responses. That, however, is NOT persecution.