Pope calls Christians 'most persecuted religious' group.Follow

It's persecution regardless. Persecution doesn't have to be sanctioned by the government to occur. Nor does the fact that avenues of recourse are available negate persecution.



Oh believe me, they probably are, especially in a small PA town. Though your faith in humanity is endearing. Even many of the intelligent people I know would likely have interpreted it that way on their first pass. It's somewhat implicit in both the choice of words and the belaboring of the intent.

That's kind of like belittling racial discrimination in the workplace on the basis that minorities have legal recourse and protections.

My faith in humanity is greater than that of faith in God. And myself.



FTFY. Despite all of this, I'm actually quite irritated I derailed my own thread. I think that's a bad thing. Is it? Last time I actually held an account on a forum was back when Phantasy Star Online had their Hunter's forum. What was that, 2001?

Though being picked apart by someone I agree with is altogether worth it as new experience.

No, but it does have to be widespread and possibly systemic. A single bigot does not amount to an entire persecuted culture, whether it be atheists, Jews, blacks, whites, or anyone else.

I think maybe you know a lot of really stupid people, so the intelligent ones are only intelligent by comparison, because that law is pretty clear.

Given that I tend to be as smart as/smarter than most of the people I know, that's a scary idea.

You, of all people, should know that fact is the fact regardless of interpretation. Especially in a medium where information is a commodity to be traded in whole or in part (Though, since I cannot indeed back up my claims with substance, I guess they'll be shunted to the realm of pseudo-fact. Half-truth.) You want to know what those other avenues of opposition were? Eligibility, lack of political education, residency. All done word of mouth. In a God damn Friendly's. Is it really that hard to believe someone turned chicken sh*t after discovering the gravity of a poor choice? Just want to know, did it sound like I was trying to soapbox this? You've pointed out I had no clear direction, no idea about the state constitution, and even went as far as providing an easy method to prove these points. Now imagine that suddenly sinking into the head of a 22 year old who just up and says, "HAY I WANNA RUN FOR MAYOR!"

I fancy myself a little more edumacated at the very least since then, but damn...

This thread was started to spark a discussion of opinions based on what the Pope had claimed. Frankly, I abhor Christianity; something that probably wasn't covered up too well as I tried to forge a semi-neutral OP. Admittedly embellished, the post about my botched attempt to run for office wasn't intended as an 'OMG I IS TEH PEERSEKUTED' so much as a point of reference on how laws can be used to favor Christians in the context of the discussion at hand.

Judging by how hard you're hammering this home, I'm guessing what you want to hear is me say, "I pulled a Fox News and took a small incident and blew it up into something huge in the public square to prove my point." You're right. I apologize. Maybe toning down the dramatic prose might do a little good.


Edit: Just to be clear, I don't hate Christians. Just their goofy religion.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 1:10pm by Ninomori

Because juxtaposing modern architecture with natural beauty is in right now--duh.

As to your more relevant point, I see where you are coming from. And I largely agree. But I do think discussing which religious groups are suffering the most is useful. It just needs to be done properly, with the right understanding of what we mean.

Obviously, we shouldn't be belittling the pain of a group. And I'm guessing no one's comments are meant to do so. We are talking about a scale of suffering in which the lower tier sucks a lot and the higher tier is unfathomably terrifying for those in it.

But, as a utilitarian, who suffers more and who suffers less is very important. Ideally, awareness for all of them could be raised. But it's pretty ridiculous to make an obscene claim like "Christians are more persecuted than any other group" when other religious groups suffer, on average, worse persecution to a higher number of people, constituting a higher percentage of the overall population.

If 50,000 Christians are being persecuted out of 500,000, it is certainly a big deal. But when 500,000 out of 1 million Jews are being persecuted (and their persecution regularly involves death) it's an even bigger deal. And, frankly, someone in a position of power like the pope has (who follows a religion that claims to be based on kinship and aiding your fellow man) should feel it's far more important to reach out to those truly in need than try to cover up their own pain with your own.

This just reads like the driver who complains of back pain moments after they hit a homeless man with their car. Maybe I'm being unfair here, maybe I'm not. And I'll certainly admit that I think the pope is a huge dumbass, which likely skews my impressions of him negatively. But my attempts to see him in a more favorable light are pretty much shattered every time he opens his mouth.

Though, to be fair, if we define "most" as "largest number" we really would only be considering religious groups anyway. There are over 2 billion Christians (all denominations) and 1.5 billion Muslims (again, all). I don't know of any group that exceeds either (even if we group all citizens of China, which constitute many social groups, into one, it is still only like 1.3 billion).

[EDIT] I suppose if we just consider "all Asians" as a group it would beat out religions. But that just seems stupid to discuss--we'd be making a group out of people who feel little to no connection to others within it.[/EDIT]

So, in THAT reading of most, specifying religious doesn't matter, because it is highly likely that one of those two would have been the most persecuted.

It's only if you think that the percentage of the population persecuted is what constitutes "most" that adding a specific category would matter.

So, while I agree Joph was right to clarify that fact, it's ridiculous to dwell on it. There was a perfectly valid reading of the topic in which the title was completely fine. It's perfectly feasible that Nin didn't even consider the percentage-argument before posting. And I'm not going to blame him for that--he wanted to share some news. He wasn't writing a dissertation.

[EDIT2] Super evil post ding? [/EDIT2]

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 2:12pm by idiggory

I don't know why Super was rated down for that--it's pretty much true. There may not be laws preventing atheists from holding office in the US, but there's a massive amount of social opposition that makes it incredibly hard to do so.

Let me put it this way. I have a friend. He's an atheist. He goes to church and participates in the parish because he wants to work in politics and doesn't want to be held back by it.

If you remain an agnostic stance, you have a chance (depending on where you live, of course). If you actually publicly confirm your atheism, that pretty much evaporates (and the effect gets worse the higher up in office you go).

1% of congress hasn't declared their religious affiliation. That includes atheists, agnostics and those that just didn't want to. Recent surveys suggest that 1.6% of Americans claim atheism or agnosticism and 15% claim no religion (I'm not at all sure how that's supposed to be different from agnosticism but whatever). So 1% of Congress represents 17% of our nation's population.

Note: Numbers from wikipedia. I'd do more throughout research, but I'm SUPPOSED to be writing a paper right now...

[EDIT]

Also, it's blatantly fair to point out that the church is a huge source of religious persecution and is hardly in a position to be pointing fingers. They've certainly gotten better in recent years, but they still aren't what I would call a... tolerant organization, let alone an accepting one. And I'm not even talking historically.

Question: I seem to recall that the previous pope said people completely ignorant could still get into heaven, because they never even had the option of accepting Jesus. Is that correct? And am I correct in assuming that all those dirty infidels raised in countries where the prevailing religion is law aren't exempt to the church if they've heard of Christianity and its teachings?

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 4:31pm by idiggory

Well election-wise there certainly is though; it's demonstrable. How many confirmed atheists have there ever been elected to national office in the United States?

But, I'd agree that overall there isn't "heavy persecution". It's not like I worry about not getting a job, or beaten up on the street because I'm an atheist. Although, I do live in Massachusetts which doesn't have a large religious base; maybe it's different in other parts of the country though.

You can see, maybe not persecution, but a backlash in some areas against atheists expressing their views. The recent backlash over atheist billboards or ads on the sides of buses is a good example. It seems whenever we express our views, Christians or other religions take it very personally even if the billboard/ad has nothing bad to say about God or a religion.

For example, Christians were angry over harmless signs such as "Don't need God? You're not alone" and the like. Or if someone like Michael Newdow sues to get "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance (which it should be), there's always plenty of blacklash there as well.

So, I wouldn't call it "heavy persecution", but atheists do face problems in this largely Christian nation, but I wouldn't put it on the same scale as what a Jew would have to face in Palestine, or a Christian in Afghanistan.