• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?

  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
Amadeus said:
It's getting better, but's its still a problem. Being an atheist or agnostic requires nuance, and most voting folk people don't get nuance. To many, not having religious belief (namely Christian belief) is akin to worshiping the Devil.

There is good news. The fastest growing belief system is... none of the above.
Click to expand...

It is kind of uncomfortable for me to share that I am not Christian at work. I tend to keep it to myself, even though I will share if it comes up, and I know that many people simply assume that I am Christian most of the time, whether it is during my Navy duty or at work. I don't know how often people will tell me things like "Jesus be with you" or some other such phrase that assumes I am Christian and share their beliefs, at least the very base ones, or challenges me to say something against that statement.
 
Jack Hays said:
I could not disagree more. Etiquette is to political correctness as a Van Gogh is to house paint.
Click to expand...

I can see how you might think that, but political correctness is merely going out of your way not to be gratuitously offensive.
 
BrewerBob said:
In general no. There are, as always, exceptions.
Click to expand...

This. There are some individual Christians in rare circumstances that are discriminated against, almost certainly. As a whole, or even just in general, no Christians are not discriminated against. Christians themselves are too big of a group to actually share enough beliefs that those beliefs cause them to be discriminated against as a group, at least not in the US, where most people consider themselves to be Christian.
 
Jack Hays said:
Conservative Christians are the only religious/cultural group whom it is permissible to mock publicly. Having no religion myself, I offer that as a simple observation.
Click to expand...

The term "Conservative Christian" is oxymoronic.

IMG_6553.jpg
 
Manc Skipper said:
I can see how you might think that, but political correctness is merely going out of your way not to be gratuitously offensive.
Click to expand...

I would agree if it stopped there, but it doesn't. When one is "percieved" offensive they are immediately admonished or attacked as insensitive, bigots, racists, sexists, intolerant.

I have zom here calling me all sorts of names just because I say that trans-gender has some mental issues associated with it. There is nothing nice about what he is doing. He has no facts to back up his position but here I am, scum of the world being inhumane to people offing themselves because I refuse to accept a man as a woman. I would say that he is the one being gratuitously offensive.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're apparently unaware that conservatives are far more charitable than liberals.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232
Click to expand...

Actually, there is some information that is important to this. First, Christian conservatives are much more selective in their charity, especially when it comes to Christian charities, which could simply be their church tithings. Not everyone agrees that giving to your own church, which isn't necessarily actually doing things with it that others consider truly charitable.

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious? | James Peron

Would you consider donating to an organization such as GLAAD to be a charitable donation? I don't. But donating to churches who use much of that money to oppose GLAAD and things political issues GLAAD supports can be considered charity solely because it is money given to a church.

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities - The Washington Post

And I'm not saying that there aren't some actual good charitable activities that some of those religious donations are going to, there are some, many for some particular religions. But there it would be very hard to properly separate how much money a church gains from donations is going to help those in need, and how much is going to just further the church's cause (support spreading their religious beliefs, going to fight certain political issues in the country).
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, there is some information that is important to this. First, Christian conservatives are much more selective in their charity, especially when it comes to Christian charities, which could simply be their church tithings. Not everyone agrees that giving to your own church, which isn't necessarily actually doing things with it that others consider truly charitable.

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?*|*James Peron

Would you consider donating to an organization such as GLAAD to be a charitable donation? I don't. But donating to churches who use much of that money to oppose GLAAD and things political issues GLAAD supports can be considered charity solely because it is money given to a church.

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities - The Washington Post

And I'm not saying that there aren't some actual good charitable activities that some of those religious donations are going to, there are some, many for some particular religions. But there it would be very hard to properly separate how much money a church gains from donations is going to help those in need, and how much is going to just further the church's cause (support spreading their religious beliefs, going to fight certain political issues in the country).
Click to expand...

The objective was to refute the implication of #329. Even granting your points for the sake of argument, that was accomplished.
 
Jack Hays said:
The objective was to refute the implication of #329. Even granting your points for the sake of argument, that was accomplished.
Click to expand...

No, it really wasn't. For one thing, that cartoon didn't even mention charitable donations, or giving as being the issue addressed by Jesus for that particular cartoon. It had to do with some conservative Christians "fighting back" when Jesus specifically spoke against doing many of the things some Christians are doing or talking about doing for many different issues.

Second, there is nothing "maybe" about my points. There has been much more recent research that shows that neither conservatives nor liberals give more to charity, especially those charities that could be seen to actually promote the general welfare and would actually help people rely less on the government for their needs.

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - latimes

The book you referenced is from almost 10 years ago.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it really wasn't. For one thing, that cartoon didn't even mention charitable donations, or giving as being the issue addressed by Jesus for that particular cartoon. It had to do with some conservative Christians "fighting back" when Jesus specifically spoke against doing many of the things some Christians are doing or talking about doing for many different issues.

Second, there is nothing "maybe" about my points. There has been much more recent research that shows that neither conservatives nor liberals give more to charity, especially those charities that could be seen to actually promote the general welfare and would actually help people rely less on the government for their needs.

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - latimes

The book you referenced is from almost 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe as you wish. I do not believe that any of the more recent research does anything more than strain to reassert an assumption that Brooks knocked aside. And you are being too literal regarding the cartoon; Brooks refutes it.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are free to believe as you wish. I do not believe that any of the more recent research does anything more than strain to reassert an assumption that Brooks knocked aside. And you are being too literal regarding the cartoon; Brooks refutes it.
Click to expand...

No, Brooks doesn't. And he did not account for the fact that giving to churches or religious charities does not necessarily do much to help society as a whole. While a percentage of those donations would probably go towards causes that could be considered truly charitable, some that might actually cause people to rely less on social welfare programs, that particular percentage can be found to be quite low overall. Comparing donations by liberals to similar secular charities easily shows that they are pretty much the same about their giving levels. So far, you haven't given anything to refute this except "this guy says differently".
 
Jack Hays said:
I could not disagree more. Etiquette is to political correctness as a Van Gogh is to house paint.
Click to expand...

Sorry, hate to break it to you: there was always a time and place in human civilization where certain things just weren't said. If you believe there was a fabled time where anybody could say whatever they wanted with zero consequence, you're living in a dreamworld.
 
roguenuke said:
No, Brooks doesn't. And he did not account for the fact that giving to churches or religious charities does not necessarily do much to help society as a whole. While a percentage of those donations would probably go towards causes that could be considered truly charitable, some that might actually cause people to rely less on social welfare programs, that particular percentage can be found to be quite low overall. Comparing donations by liberals to similar secular charities easily shows that they are pretty much the same about their giving levels. So far, you haven't given anything to refute this except "this guy says differently".
Click to expand...

I don't accept that the religious donation exclusion (necessary to make your case) is either valid or useful.
 
Cardinal said:
Sorry, hate to break it to you: there is no time or place on earth where certain things just aren't said. If you believe there was a fabled time where anybody could say whatever they wanted with zero consequence, you're living in a dreamworld.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making two mutually exclusive points. Pick one.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't accept that the religious donation exclusion (necessary to make your case) is either valid or useful.
Click to expand...

There has to be a rational amount of religious donation that cannot be included as "charitable", not when some of that donated money goes towards things that cannot be counted for the other side or even for those people if that money were given directly from the person to the cause, rather than through a middle man, the church. It is unfair. It assumes one type of money to a cause, so long as it has a specific middle man, should be considered charity, but other types of money to the same cause or same issue, but on the other side of that issue, can't be considered charity only because of arbitrary rules or because it doesn't involve that middle man who also gives some smaller portion of money to other, much more rationally considered charitable causes.
 
Cardinal said:
Sorry, hate to break it to you: there was always a time and place in human civilization where certain things just weren't said. If you believe there was a fabled time where anybody could say whatever they wanted with zero consequence, you're living in a dreamworld.
Click to expand...

Now it's a least coherent, but it's merely serial truisms.
 
roguenuke said:
There has to be a rational amount of religious donation that cannot be included as "charitable", not when some of that donated money goes towards things that cannot be counted for the other side or even for those people if that money were given directly from the person to the cause, rather than through a middle man, the church. It is unfair. It assumes one type of money to a cause, so long as it has a specific middle man, should be considered charity, but other types of money to the same cause or same issue, but on the other side of that issue, can't be considered charity only because of arbitrary rules or because it doesn't involve that middle man who also gives some smaller portion of money to other, much more rationally considered charitable causes.
Click to expand...

No. I count all the money. You're the one wanting to exclude some.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's nothing to argue with in either sentence and neither makes a point of any importance.
Click to expand...

Of course there's nothing to argue with. Because it's true. Every society in every place and time has a defined ettiquette, with things you can and can't say in open society without some form of consequence. That's that thing you call "political correctness."
 
Cardinal said:
Of course there's nothing to argue with. Because it's true. Every society in every place and time has a defined ettiquette, with things you can and can't say in open society without some form of consequence. That's that thing you call "political correctness."
Click to expand...


Sorry, but no. Political correctness goes well beyond. It is politicized social interaction.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but no. Political correctness goes well beyond. It is politicized social interaction.
Click to expand...

All social mores and taboos are politicized social interaction. Tell me one place on earth where there isn't.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. I count all the money. You're the one wanting to exclude some.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't legitimately counting all the money though, because some of the money on the other side of the situation I just described is not counted as charitable donations because the causes that money was being given to are not considered charities.

Person A gives 100 dollars to Charity X. $20 of that money goes to people directly employed by that charity, another $60 of that money goes to various political campaign causes in support or opposition to political issues, another $10 goes to trying to recruit more people into donating to that charity or believing in the same things of that charity, and only $10 of that money goes to feeding the poor.

Person B gives $50 to Charity Y. $10 of that money goes to people working for that charity, $5 goes to advertisements for the charity and other expenses, and the other $35 goes to feeding the poor, the same way as the above charity does.

Which person really gave more money to charity, helped feed more people, especially if the charities each take in roughly the same amount of donations each year from people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom