Real vs. Fake Christian Persecution

Tinark · Jun 11, 2015

One of my biggest pet peeves in this world, is when folks in my tribe play the “persecution” card.

On one hand, we can’t help it– we’ve been programmed to label any negative experience related to our faith in the category of “persecution”. However, we should know better– and should know that this is actually hurting the Christian reputation in America.

I remember being well primed to interpret any negative push-back I might receive for “witnessing”, as we were warned about the coming persecution during campfire services at Christian summer camp. I still remember sitting around a campfire in Schroon Lake, New York and hearing: “Don’t worry– when you get back home you won’t have to leave your unsaved friends. When you get home, they’re going to leave you.”

In fact, I remember “Blessed are you when you are persecuted” to be one of the first verses a camp counselor had me memorize.
Ugh. In American Christianity we love persecution.

Like a Rorshach test, we are able to see it anywhere we look.

We are so culturally programmed that there “will be persecution” that we develop a persecution complex which causes us to look at any given ink blot and see an intriguing case of anti-Christian discrimination.

...

Persecution Test

Lesson 2:
If you are a member of the Christian clergy and find yourself kidnapped, beheaded, and the next day find a video of your beheading posted on YouTube, I think you have a legitimate case of anti-Christian persecution. In fact, unless you signed a model release before your execution, you should be able to get YouTube to take the video down.

In contrast:

If you are a non-commissioned officer in the Army and find yourself receiving a reprimand because your non-stop, anti-gay statements are making your co-workers utterly miserable, you are not experiencing anti-Christian persecution. Instead, you are being persecuted for updating your Facebook status with: “Lordy, Lordy, it’s faggot Tuesday. The lefty loons and Obamabots are out in full force” (As in the recent case of Master Sergeant Nathan Sommers). When you post nasty, offensive status updates, persecution is a natural byproduct.

Lesson 3:

If you are holding a quiet prayer meeting when police decide to raid your home, confiscate your books, and throw you in prison for being a Christian (as happened in Iran to Robert Asserian), you might have a pretty convincing case of anti-Christian persecution. If they keep arresting you over and over, and beat you senseless each time, the case becomes more and more convincing that you are in fact, the victim of persecution.

In contrast:

If you are facing a massive fine and a lawsuit because you didn’t want a lesbian couple to buy flowers from your shop to have at their wedding, you aren’t facing anti-Christian persecution. You are simply being persecuted for illegal discrimination, and for being a hypocrite. You do know, that at most weddings there’s a couple of drunk people, and that the Bible is quite clear that’s wrong, correct? You must also be aware, that sometimes Christians marry non-Christians (forbidden in scripture), and that some couples (SPOILER ALERT!) have had sex before marriage, which is also condemned in scripture, correct? So, if you have decided that you’re not going to sell flowers to gay people, but that you’ll still allow your flowers to be purchased for events that will include drunkenness and heterosexual fornication, you my friend, are a hypocrite. What you’re experiencing isn’t so much persecution, as it is justice.

I think the reason why the American Christian persecution complex troubles me so much is because there is plenty of real persecution going on in the world. Yet, when we take negative push-back we receive as a result of our own arrogance, insensitivity, and hostility– and call that persecution– we cheapen and detract from the real examples of religious persecution in the world.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/real-v-fake-persecution/

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

More Christian "commentary", Tinark? :think:

Granite · Jun 11, 2015

The Berean said:
More Christian "commentary", Tinark? :think:

Everything the fellow said is completely on the money.

Tinark · Jun 11, 2015

The Berean said:
More Christian "commentary", Tinark? :think:

I just call it as I see it and post other insightful commentary in the same vein :chuckle:

moparguy · Jun 11, 2015

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

Granite said:
Everything the fellow said is completely on the money.

What does this have to do with my post? I didn't even comment on the content of the link. I just like to point out that Tinark likes to post stuff that sheds negative light on Christianity.

Tinark said:
I just call it as I see it and post other insightful commentary in the same vein :chuckle:

But of course you do since that "insightful" commentary agrees with you!

Tinark · Jun 11, 2015

The Berean said:
What does this have to do with my post? I didn't even comment on the content of the link. I just like to point out that Tinark likes to post stuff that sheds negative light on ~~Christianity~~ certain kinds of Christians.

FIFY

moparguy · Jun 11, 2015

For example: was Alex Ekstrom (a judge) right to give the the plaintiffs against Barronelle Stutzman the legal means to not only monetarily crush her business, but also to monetarily crush the woman's personal assets, to the point of being able to put the woman in the street and take everything she'd saved?

Plaintiffs who in no way were wronged and were even FRIENDS with stutzman? Who had NO problem getting their flowers somewhere else - they were in fact offered free flowers from elsewhere.

Or do you say that being put at legitimate risk of being made homeless, penniless, and having a legal record, all because you disagreed with someone's choices and way of thinking ISN'T persecution?

Sure, there are jerks out there who complain at the drop of a hat on the so-called (but never confirmed, because that's not in the meme) christian side of things - but to ignore that people aren't being smashed legally and socially by the moral-sexual-anarchist way of thinking is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Tinark · Jun 11, 2015

moparguy said:
For example: was Alex Ekstrom (a judge) right to give the the plaintiffs against Barronelle Stutzman the legal means to not only monetarily crush her business, but also to monetarily crush the woman's personal assets, to the point of being able to put the woman in the street and take everything she'd saved?

What are you smoking? It must be something good to create those kind of delusions:

The first civil suit filed was Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers, in which a gay couple were denied floral arrangements for their wedding by Ms. Stutzman's business.

ACLU attorneys proposed a settlement in the suit if she publicly apologized, donated $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center and stopped refusing to service people due to sexual orientation.

...

The second lawsuit was a consumer protection suit, State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, filed by attorney general Bob Ferguson, in response to the civil lawsuit he read about on Facebook.

The case would have been settled with a penalty of $2,000 under the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs, and agreement not to discriminate in the future.

On March 27, 2015 Judge Alexander Ekstrom ordered Ms. Stutzman to pay a $1,000 fine, plus $1 for court costs and fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barronelle_Stutzman

Oh, those damages are just so "crushing"

Granite · Jun 11, 2015

The Berean said:
What does this have to do with my post? I didn't even comment on the content of the link. I just like to point out that Tinark likes to post stuff that sheds negative light on Christianity.

But of course you do since that "insightful" commentary agrees with you!

If you want to try to turn this thread into something about Tinark that's pretty dishonest. The bit he quoted in the excerpt is absolutely accurate. You're ignoring it. Typical.

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

Granite said:
If you want to try to turn this thread into something about Tinark that's pretty dishonest. The bit he quoted in the excerpt is absolutely accurate. You're ignoring it. Typical.

My original post was directed at Tinark, not you, Granite. So why did you even bother to comment on a post NOT directed at you? As I stated before I was commenting on Tinark's typical threads. I like to poke Tinark from time to time about his penchant for anti-Christian threads. It's kind of a running joke. Nothing "dishonest" about that. Tinark obviously got it, evidenced by his use of the :chuckle: smilie.

Stripe · Jun 11, 2015

It's not OK to be gay.

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

Tinark said:
FIFY

Fair enough. :up: Some American Christians do need to stop being so whiny. Disagreement is not persecution. But I think this is more about American culture as a whole as we now a generation who whine and complain about EVERYTHING. Everything that the whiners disagree with is "sexist" or "racist" or "greedy" or "lazy", etc. I sometimes wonder if they ever even just enjoy life?

moparguy · Jun 11, 2015

Tinark said:
What are you smoking? It must be something good to create those kind of delusions:

Excuse me? What, exactly, did I post that's "delusional?"

Oh, those damages are just so "crushing"

... and yet strangely enough, Here's what I posted:

Moparguy said:
For example: was Alex Ekstrom (a judge) right to give the the plaintiffs against Barronelle Stutzman the legal means

Wherein I didn't say that the damages were crushing. Neither did I say (or mean) they damages assessed were.

Read better before you bark.

Granite · Jun 11, 2015

My original post was directed at Tinark, not you, Granite. So why did you even bother to comment on a post NOT directed at you?

Newsflash, bud, but that happens on TOL pretty much all the time.

As I stated before I was commenting on Tinark's typical threads. I like to poke Tinark from time to time about his penchant for anti-Christian threads.

And you consider this thread "anti-Christian"? Serious question.

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

Granite said:
Newsflash, bud, but that happens on TOL pretty much all the time.

And do you have to add to this? :chuckle:

And you consider this thread "anti-Christian"? Serious question.

In a vacuum by itself not so much. Again, it's more of a pattern from certain TOLers who like to focus what they see as negative aspects of Christianity. We all know who these TOLers are. Granted there are Christian TOLers who rant on and on about other stuff as well. Just look at all the homosexual threads. The three "Recriminalize homosexuality" threads are what, about 20,000+ posts combined? That's an insane number of posts. How much can anyone say about this one topic? :hammer:

Granite · Jun 11, 2015

In a vacuum by itself not so much. Again, it's more of a pattern from certain TOLers who like to focus what they see as negative aspects of Christianity.

Somebody's gotta be the bearer of bad news. And you don't even seem to disagree that the whining and woe-is-me martyr business is in the wrong, so...

The Berean · Jun 11, 2015

Granite said:
Somebody's gotta be the bearer of bad news.

Yes, we have plenty of those types here at TOL. Unfortunately, they usually offer no solutions to the problems they whine about.

And you don't even seem to disagree that the whining and woe-is-me martyr business is in the wrong, so...

Why do I need to agree or disagree with it? And I actually did agree post #13.

TracerBullet · Jun 11, 2015

moparguy said:
For example: was Alex Ekstrom (a judge) right to give the the plaintiffs against Barronelle Stutzman the legal means to not only monetarily crush her business, but also to monetarily crush the woman's personal assets, to the point of being able to put the woman in the street and take everything she'd saved?

In a word...Bull

Stutzeman broke the law and Judge Alexander Ekstrom ordered her to pay a fine of $1000 plus $1.00 for court costs.

moparguy · Jun 11, 2015

TracerBullet said:
In a word...Bull

Nope.

I stated that the court gave the plaintiffs the right to pursue all of the lady's assets, not merely her business:

The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. That means the 70-year-old grandmother may not only lose her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

http://www.usaheadlinenews.com/court-ruling-push-washington-florist-ruin/

Real vs. Fake Christian Persecution

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member